Pearl Harbor

An awful lot of people really don’t like Pearl Harbor. I didn't really understand why until I saw the film. It’s awful. I went in expecting a historical drama with a couple of American heroes who tragically die and which left me drained but with an appreciation for those involved. Instead I found myself watching a romantic film where two best friends are divided over one young nurse. It just so happens that they are in Pearl Harbor. The film is about three hours long, but very little of that is actually depicting the Japanese attack.

There are so many criticisms of this film that I don’t think it would be possible to cover them here. Instead of producing a historical film with a romance in the middle of it, Michael Bay manages to create a romantic film with a couple of planes in it. It is so typically Michael Bay that it becomes cheesy and then what should be a serious film becomes a bit of a joke. And the historical inaccuracies in the film are unbelievable. They are too numerous to even go into here, but believe me, who ever researched that project should have been fired immediately. At times you forget that you are watching a film about the reason why America got involved in World War Two and seem to find yourself watching a film about a group of soldiers who are all in love with a group of nurses. At one point there was a line “I think World War Two just started”, and this is shockingly poor.

And it’s not even like the acting is good but the film is let down by the direction. Ben Afleck takes the lead role in this film as Rafe McCawley but is so unbelievable that the story around him, his girlfriend and his best friend becomes beyond incredulous. I don’t want to get into an in-depth character analysis but the idea of bringing in a back-story to the childhoods of the two soldiers is a poor attempt to engage the audience in the characters. I quite like Ben Afleck generally, but in Pearl Harbor it is almost like he has turned up to an exam having revised the night before. I mean no Michael Bay actor is going to win an Academy Award, but Ben Afleck does not engage with the audience at all. No part of me was rooting for him or the other soldiers at any point, and instead I found myself watching with mild disinterest as their lives unfolded and some planes attacked them.

Kate Beckinsale is well cast in Pearl Harbor and fits the part she is trying to play almost perfectly. It is a shame then that the character she does play is as transparent as both of the men she falls in love with. Obviously when one man goes missing in action it is natural to try and move on, but by anyone’s standards, the best friend might be a line too far. It is also a shame that the character she plays requires next to no acting effort to complete. I was very disappointed with her role in this film, and once again, I thought the film detracted too much from the conflict and became more about the group of nurses and their relationships. I don’t even want to talk about Josh Hartnett as the other soldier in this love triangle, because he too is so unbelievable that it is painful. Come the end of the film (which couldn't come fast enough) I don’t care what happens to the characters and instead find myself tolerating the frankly boring scenes just before the credits.

The only good thing about this film is Cuba Gooding Jr. who plays one of the staff on one of the ships and becomes so angered by the Japanese attack that he climbs atop a turret and shoots down a plane. Much in the same way that the best bits of The Rock have Sean Connery in them, the more redeeming scenes of Pearl Harbor (and there are very few) have Cuba Gooding in them.

Michael Bay is obviously aiming for a cinematic epic to rival some of the greatest war films out there, with his own special touch added in. However, he misses the mark so spectacularly that the film pales into insignificance. ‘Pearl Harbor’ is a misleading title as well, because there is a good hour either side of the attack which is unrelated to what you expect from the title of the film. Personally, I think Michael Bay gets the overall tone of the film completely wrong. One major criticism of Titanic is that it puts a romance into a serious historical event, but with Pearl Harbor the romance becomes the centrepiece, whereas in Titanic, much more of a focus is on the sinking ship.

There are more critical reviews of Pearl Harbor out there, and there is no doubt that it deserves most of the criticism. If someone offers to watch Pearl Harbor with you, say no. Avoid it at all costs. It is Michael Bay’s worst film. If you are expecting a historical depiction of Pearl Harbor you will be disappointed, and if you are expecting a romance story you will be disappointed too. Pearl Harbor is drawn out, long and in my opinion sets the benchmark for what a bad film should be judged by.

Gladiator

Gladiator is another historical drama epic film based on fiction. It sees Russell Crowe playing a fictional Roman general attempting to avenge the murder of his Emperor, wife and son. As Maximus Decimus Meridius he threatens the power of the new Emperor by his success in the gladiatorial arena. It’s another Ridley Scott film, but unlike Robin Hood, it cements itself as a historical classic through its plot and cast.

The film basically starts by showing how successful and popular Maximus is as the general of the Roman armies of the North. He is loved by the Emperor as a son, and this prompts his actual son to get jealous. When Commodus murders the Emperor, Maximus is outlawed because he would be too dangerous a threat to Commodus. Maximus survives the attempt on his life and discovers that his wife and son have been killed by the new Emperor and is captured by Proximus to be entered as a Gladiator in a series of competitions. He fights his way through these contests and up to the Colosseum where he wins the hearts of the Roman public and eventually kills the Emperor, dying shortly afterwards.

The plot is very good. While it’s not full of twists and shocking moments, it’s not predictable and this is good. Additionally, in terms of CGI, it’s very good. The creation of Ancient Rome is wonderful and makes this portion of the film completely believable. The script is well written and the cast is well chosen. However, as with many historical films there are some problems. Granted, cinematic license is a consideration, and changing the way that Marucs Aurelius died (from plague to murder) just sets up the story. However it’s the simple things that give rise to my issues. The name ‘Maximus Decimus Meridius’ does not reflect Roman names at the time. Some changes are made for cinematic license, yes, but in some cases, directors need to listen to their researchers and reflect the times that the film is set in. However, it is a deserving Academy Award winner for Best Picture beating some fantastic films.

The soundtrack is hilarious though. I think watching ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ before I saw Gladiator was a mistake, and as soon as it was pointed out to me that Hans Zimmer had written the scores for both films the Gladiator music sounded exactly like the theme to Pirates. Obviously the piece is Hans Zimmer’s production, but he could be a bit more creative than just slightly re-hashing one piece for another set of films.

Now I don’t actually like Russell Crowe in this film. Actually, I can’t stand him as an actor. I only really like him in ‘A Beautiful Mind’, and most of the time I just find him wooden and sullen. In both Robin Hood and Gladiator I think that he struts around in armour, delivering his lines with shocking two-dimensionality and no depth to most of his characters. His character is exceptionally likable in Gladiator, but in my opinion he is not. The classic scene, where he reveals himself to Commodus in the arena, and where he is fighting Commodus at the end, are the only two examples of where I like Russell Crowe’s performance. I’m not sure how Russell Crowe won the Best Actor Academy Award for this role, and can only assume that every other leading actor in this year just didn’t perform at all.

Joaquin Phoenix is a brilliant villain here. He is brilliantly sinister and ever so slightly creepy, and for me is the stand out performance of the film. He manages to portray the twisted, jealous and ambitious Commodus with absolutely precision. Unlike Crowe, his character seems to have layers and different aspects to it. He is a power hungry man who just wants to have Rome under his control. This is perfectly reflected in his stabbing of Maximus before their fight: an underhand move designed to make him succeed in front of all of Rome, quashing their little rebellion against his power.

Gladiator is a classic epic historical film, a deserving Oscar winner and one of those films that everyone should see, preferably before they watch the Pirates of the Caribbean films otherwise the soundtrack will be too distracting. It’s a wonderful and enjoyable film which not even Russell Crowe can ruin.

300 - Muscle versus Might

*May contain spoilers*

'300' is a film about the three hundred Spartan soldiers who attempt to stop the might of the Persian army at the famous Battle of Thermopylae. As a kid I was fascinated about this battle. How could three hundred soldiers hold off an entire army? As a result I was very excited when this film came out in 2006. Having recently watched it again I came to the conclusion that it wasn't one of those historical films that makes stuff up to increase the appeal of the film. The only instance of this is the use of 'bombs' by Xerxes army, and I can get past that.

The one thing that most people know about this film is when Gerard Butler screams 'This is Sparta!' and kicks the Persian messenger into a hole in the ground, and rightfully so. It's an epic line, but there are bits of the film that are just more awesome. The use of more 'comic book' blood in this film slightly masks some absolutely brilliant fighting scenes. Historically, the Spartan army is known as one of the fiercest and dangerous forces. Their soldiers are trained from children purely for the purpose of fighting and any weakness results in them being cast aside.

The fighting in this film shows how utterly dominant the Spartan army was, and I especially like the scene where the Arcadian army comes to their aid and the leader of the army questions the number of soldiers the Spartans have brought to fight. King Leonidas asks a few of the Arcadians what their profession is, receiving various answers, before asking the Spartans who respond with their battle cry. The quip 'See, I brought more soldiers than you did' is fantastic, and perfectly shows this Spartan ideology of fighting.

Speaking of King Leonidas, I thought he was a very interesting character. He is obviously the leader of the Spartan army, and surely knows that he is going to his death when he leaves to fight the Persian force. However, before he goes he makes sure he writes his name firmly into the history books. Gerard Butler plays Leonidas brilliantly, and is a dominant presence on the screen whenever he appears. I especially like the depths to his character as well. When Xerxes attempts to ally the Spartans with him by offering him leadership of all his armies he is visibly tempted, showing how much fighting meant to the Spartans. And yet his last act is to show that Xerxes, the self-proclaimed 'God-King' that he is as human as the next man, by making him bleed. The importance of his Queen is also refreshing to see. In many films there are strong women in a time where this would not have been the case, but in this case I got the feeling that Queen Gorgo was genuinely a supporting influence to Leonidas, shown by his looking to her when a number of key decisions have to be made. His obvious love for her is another interesting human feature of his character. As a solider of Sparta he is exposed to brutality, bloodshed and violence, but still finds room in his character to love another person.

Now I love a good action movie, and the inclusion of Spartan politics in 300 did not spoil this film for me. Not even the deformed hunchback ruined it. I wasn't entirely sure as I was watching the film exactly what purpose this character served. Surely if Xerxes knew there was a way around the back of the Spartan soldiers he would put his own men there to find it. He would not need the help of a deformed Spartan reject, and so I thought this bit was a bit strange, but nevertheless, it was interesting to see his obvious self-hate after he has betrayed his Spartan brothers.

300 isn't meant to be taken as a serious portrayal of these historical events, and as such it should not be reviewed as such. If it was meant in a similar line to films like Braveheart, then I would be roundly criticising it now for the lack of depth to any of the characters. But clearly it is not meant as such. The rippling abs and comic book blood show that it is definitely not a heavy film and can be enjoyed with friends. It's maybe not a family film, but it's very good to sit down and just relax to.

Robin Hood (2010)

*May contain spoilers*

The time has come. Finally I'm going to write about a film that I did not enjoy. Robin Hood from 2010 has all the makings of an epic action film. Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett in starring roles, Ridley Scott directing, and a budget of $200,000,000. The film itself wasn't too bad, but it should not have been called 'Robin Hood'.

The film was so completely unrecognisable from any Robin Hood tale I'd heard before. In a previous post I talk about how the history around Braveheart was written by Hollywood. In this case, the writing takes this on to a whole new level. I can accept a couple of historical inaccuracies for the sake of a good film, but Robin Hood is one mistake after another. There are many mistake involving the different helmet designs and the timings of certain events, and the relationships between different characters. This wasn't a disaster for me though, what ruined the film for me was the relation to the famous Robin Hood tale.

Everyone knows it. Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor. The Sheriff of Nottingham doesn't like him doing this and tries to prevent it. There's a fantastic rivalry between the Sheriff's puppet Guy of Gisbourne and Robin Hood, and Robin eventually falls for the beautiful Maid Marion who is headstrong, independent and becomes part of his little band of merry men who live in Sherwood Forest.

This film completely betrays this myth. The Sheriff of Nottingham (played by the wonderful Matthew Macfayden) appears three, maybe four times, and doesn't speak much. Instead the main antagonist in this film is some guy called Godfrey who seeks to help the French army invade England. The main reason that there is so much turmoil in England at this time is because the King, Richard the Lionheart, is away at the crusades, but in this version, the King is killed and John comes to the throne.

Moving on to the character of Robin. I always thought that Robin Hood was a nobleman (Robin of Loxley) who was stealing from the rich in order to provide for the poor. Not only is he not a nobleman, but he is a common archer who is 'adopted' by Sir Walter Loxley, but he does not ever rob the rich for the poor. The biggest problem with Russell Crowe was his accent. I have absolutely no idea what it was. At one point it sounded Scottish, then Irish. It was awful.

Godfrey's character wasn't particularly believable either. I may have missed this, but I don't think his reason for committing treason was ever explained and he would not have been left to command the armies of the French. Another point is, at the beginning of the film Robin and his comrades are shown to be in France, and desert leaving a strong English army to pillage France. However, despite this, the French are also able to summon an army to attack the English. The fate of the soldiers in France is never explained, and the lack of French concern seems unrealistic.

The character of Marion was quite pleasing. True to the myth she is initially hostile towards Robin, but falls for him eventually. However, in this version, she was initially married to the real Robin of Loxley who is killed, and then is encouraged by Sir Walter to pretend that Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is her actual husband in order to ensure that she does not lose the land. I didn't realise there was any depth to their relationship at all until Robin declares that he loves her, and she goes off to join him and him men in the forest.

Potentially this film was designed as a prequel to a series of films, or even as a prequel to the legend. But the inaccuracies and problem that plague it make it unlikely that a second film would ever be endorsed. I think the script was re-written three times! Not the sign of an historical action masterpiece.

In my eyes, this film was poor. I love the Robin Hood legend, and for me, Prince of Thieves is the best depiction of the tale, but that's all to come. For now, unless you get stuck in chair and have your eyes forced open, try to avoid this film. Every time you think it might finish it doesn't, and when it eventually does finish you'll realise that that's more than two hours of your life you won't get back. In isolation it was an average film, for a 'Robin Hood' film, it was awful.

Braveheart - History is written by Hollywood

It was Winston Churchill who said that "History is written by the victors". In the case of Braveheart however, it seems that history is not written by the victors, but by Hollywood. I watched Braveheart for the first time last night, and while I can't deny that the film is absolutely fantastic, its grounding in historical accuracy must be questioned.

The first bit of the film was fantastic. It focuses on the young William Wallace, whose portrayed by James Robinson was absolutely brilliant. The actor was really convincing in the role and was not as transparent as some childhood actors. However, after leaving the village following the death of his father and brother at the hands of the English, Wallace returns several years later. When he returns, the fantastic child actor has been replaced with Mel Gibson. Overall I thought Mel Gibson was particularly good in the role of Wallace, but the only thing that got me about it was his accent. Which in a film about people from Scotland is quite important. Maybe his weak Scottish accent was a reflection on the fact that his character had been educated but Mel Gibson's accent was not great. But then again, fair play to him for maintaining the accent throughout the film, and indeed for learning it in the first place.

I thought the developing romance between William and Murron was lovely, and they seemed like a very happy couple until the English come to town and try to rape her. Wallace's defense of his wife is brilliantly portrayed by Gibson, and when he goes to meet her only to find she's not there, the audience, seeing her about to be tied to a stake, is genuinely pained to see him in the wrong place. What happens next is really quite refreshing. Unlike many films, the girl is in imminent danger of being killed by someone and the hero of the film does not ride in at the last minute, cut her free, kill everyone and ride off into the sunset (or rain, depending on whereabouts in Scotland you are). When she dies, we are given Wallace's motivation to take Scotland for the Scottish.

For dramatic effect, which I completely understand, the details of Murron's (or Marion as she is historically known) death have been embellished. The reaction from Wallace shows me, a third year psychology student at university, that he may be slightly unhinged. Obviously, following the murder of your wife, you would be pretty cut up, but he gathers a small 'army' and murders the sheriff of the town. There are various points in the film when I think Wallace goes too far, and this is just the start.

However, this simple act of revenge starts a whole campaign of 'freedom' for Wallace as he gathers more and more Scots to fight against the English. The Battle of Stirling is brilliantly portrayed in the film. During filming for this scene, the horse that Mel Gibson was riding was behaving so badly that the scene was only just put together. However, it is this scene that contains the most famous quote from the film. While the majority of the army gathered is dissenting about fighting the much larger English army, Wallace gives the empassioned speech which spurs his countrymen on to do battle. The cry of "they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom" sent a shiver down my spine, as only the best actors and scriptwriters can do.

However, the Battle of Stirling Bridge, which this scene is based on, panned out very differently. It is historically believed that Wallace must have had some sort of military experience or understanding in order to defeat the English army, but the film makes you believe that it is the passion for the cause and the pure desire of the army that does this. This is probably the case, and I can overlook this little historical discrepancy, but there is a much larger one to be noticed. The Battle of Stirling Bridge focused on, as the name suggests, a bridge. The Scots trapped the English army on the bridge at Stirling and massacred them as they were cut off from the rest of their troops. The film however, presents it as a man-to-man battle in an open field, with pure passion winning over military tactics.

While some historical detail must be lost for dramatic effect, I think it's a shame that people aren't more aware of cases in which historical details have been lost. With the greatest respect, the Wars of the Scottish Independence aren't particularly widely taught in schools around the UK, let alone around the world, and so many people's knowledge of this period of history is based mainly around this film.

It is at this point that the King, Edward the Longshanks (who was a bit nasty by all accounts) decides that negotiation might be a good idea. He reasons that he himself cannot go to negotiate because he is the King, and would be in danger. He also reasons that sending his 'weakling' son would only spur the Scots on to fight more, and so he sends his daughter-in-law, the daughter of the French king, hoping she'd be killed and the French would join in the battle against the Scots. In that day and age a woman would never have been entrusted to negotiate with men about the conclusion of a rebellion, regardless of whether or not the King wanted to drum up French support. It is far more likely that the King would have sent either the French ambassador or a member of his court with French connections. Naturally, Isabella falls hopelessly in love with the long haired, bloodstained, unwashed Wallace (for some reason) and proceeds to warn him about Longshanks' impending attack.

This leads to another big battle, in which Wallace and his army is joined by the army's of two of the main claims to the Scottish throne. However, these Scottish nobles have been paid off by the King, promised lands and money, if they withdraw their armies, leaving Wallace isolated, and many of his army are killed. The Battle of Falkirk saw Wallace endure heavy casualties but in the end withdraw to a point at which the English could not follow. However, in the film, Wallace is shot with an arrow before pursuing the King as he rides away with his guard. Wallace is then confronted by Robert the Bruce, another key figure in the Scottish battles for independence. The implication of the film is that Robert the Bruce betrayed Wallace. However, historically this never happened. This was quite a big problem for me, because by this point I had become so wrapped up in the film that I was feeling quite disdainful towards Robert the Bruce for the rest of the film. The Bruce, riddled by guilt presumably, helps Wallace escape. Wallace then viciously kills the two noblemen who betrayed him and continues his fight against the English on a lower scale.

He is then captured as he goes to meet with Robert the Bruce, who intends to pledge troops to him. It is Robert's father who engineers this betrayal and leads to Wallace being tried and found guilty for high treason. He is sentenced to death. Wallace's death is refreshingly accurate to the history for the most part. He is dragged through London town before being hanged, and has his insides drawn out. Obviously the nitty-gritty of medieval execution could not be shown on the silver screen in 1995, but I thought the director (again, Mel Gibson) did a good job of portraying this. However, when asked if he wanted to swear allegiance to the King and be forgiven, Wallace through the pain yells "Freedom" and is beheaded. I don't know about you, but if I had been hanged until near death, then stretched, and finally had my bowels cut out and burned in front of my face, I wouldn't be able to speak, let alone shout.

The film then cuts to the Battle of Bannockburn, several years later, where Robert the Bruce is about to accept the English rule. Instead he leads the army, with the memory of Wallace fresh in their minds, in a charge towards the English. It was this battle that won the Scottish people the "Freedom" that Wallace so desired, and so I think it would have been a good idea to show some of it. However, by this point the film had been running for nearly three hours and did revolve around Wallace rather than the Scottish wars.

Overall, I loved Braveheart. The acting was fantastic, the soundtrack was fantastic, and the story was fantastic. I can bear a few historical inaccuracies for the benefit of a good film, and granted they are not major inaccuracies, but if a film is to be a historical epic then it should be as close to historical as possible. Nonetheless, I would recommend Braveheart to everyone.