Tag: war drama

THE WAR BELOW – Review

A scene from the WWI drama THE WAR BELOW. Courtesy of Virtual

When you hear WWI, trenches and trench warfare often spring to mind. THE WAR BELOW is based on a true story about World War I but instead of trenches, it is about some clever, skilled tunnelers seeking to sabotage German forces.

World War I, then called the Great War, and the “War to End All Wars,” was a earth-shattering conflict, changing the nature of warfare, remaking the political and physical landscape, and decimating a generation of young men. THE WAR BELOW is based on the true story of a group of British sewer tunnelers from Yorkshire, nicknamed the “clay-kickers,” who were brought in by “Hellfire Jack” Col. John Norton-Griffiths to help break the stalemate with the German forces in the battle of Messines in 1917. The result of their near-miraculous efforts was a massive explosion under the enemy line, one of the largest non-nuclear explosion ever, which killed over 10,000 Germans.

It is a heck of a story and a great idea for a film, and the latest in a recent run of dramas and documentaries covering this long overlooked but history-changing war. That worthy list includes the Oscar-winning 1917, Peter Jackson’s amazing documentary THEY SHALL NOT GROW OLD and the French gem A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT. Despite a limited budget, writer/director J.P. Watts creates a handsome war drama in THE WAR BELOW, with fine performances although there is a bit of unevenness in his feature film directorial debut.

Stymied by the standoff with the German forces at Messines in 1917, Col. John Norton-Griffiths (Tom Goodman-Hill), a British officer whose unconventional style earned him the nickname “Hellfire Jack,” comes up with the idea to recruit civilian men who are experts in tunneling to help break the stalemate. With a standstill on the surface with both sides in trenches and a deadly no-man’s land between them, the Germans have been tunneling extensively, listening in on Allies, The British want to catch-up underground, but with an eye to going further by planting bombs under the German lines. But Col. Jack’s superiors, Field Marshal Haig (Douglas Reith) and his immediate superior Fielding (Andrew Scarborough), don’t much like the idea and are especially hostile to using civilians, particularly the group Col. Jack picks – Yorkshire sewer workers. There is disdain for them as men not serving with the troops, for being lower-class sewer workers, for being from the North. But the colonel knows they have exactly the skills he needs, so he persists until his superiors grudgingly agree to give it test run, with the idea that regular soldiers will take over if it works.

One of the men that Col. Norton-Griffiths recruits is William Hawkins (Sam Hazeldine, whom some viewers will recognize from TV’s “Peaky Blinders” and who also appeared in THE LAST DUEL). Hawkins jumps at the chance to help, as he feels badly about not being able to serve his country. In fact, Hawkins did try to enlist but was rejected due to a troubling sound in his lungs. Although it was not his fault, Hawkins feels shame, and is shamed by a society that regards any military age man not in service as a potential coward, although his supportive wife Jane (Anna Maguire) does what she can to buck him up. Still, Hawkins seizes the opportunity Hellfire Jack presents, cutting some corners to make sure he is part of the plan. Hawkins’ internal demons push him to do more than anyone expects, calling on his skills and a creative determination, to do his bit for the war.

Hawkins and his team of four clay-kickers do much more than a bit. Hawkins becomes the inspirational leader of a group of tunneling experts that includes a pair of brothers, George and Charlie MacDonald (Elliot James Langridge and Sam Clemmett) as well as Shorty (Joseph Steyne) and Henry (Sonny Ashbourne Serkis). The task they face is daunting: to figure out how to tunnel through the dauntingly difficult clay of the landscape where the trenches are dug. The goal is to tunnel beneath enemy lines and then plant bombs, all while evading detection by the Germans, who are digging their own tunnels. It is a tough job yet the civilian tunnelers also face abuse by the regular troops, not just disdainful officers, as well as the dangers of the sniper-filled battlefield itself.

These characters are based on real people, and it is an inspirational, thrilling true story of human determination and courage. History buffs will be thrilled with this war drama but knowledge of WWI history is not required to enjoy this fine drama. This British production does seem to assume audiences might know something of “Hellfire Jack” Col. Norton-Griffiths, which might cause a bit of confusion to start, but one still quickly gets caught up into the film’s story. Col. Norton-Griffiths comes up with a game-changing plan but faces push-back from his more conventional superiors, underlining one of the persistent issues in WWI, the inability of generals and upper level leaders to recognize how warfare had fundamentally changed. The tunnelers Hellfire Jack recruits face class prejudices and the Northerners face regional disdain as well from the officers they are serving. Despite that, and their own feelings about the war or shame, however misplaced, at not being in the military, the clay-kickers overcome all that, with teamwork and resourcefulness, to get the job done, far beyond anything expected.

Much of the film rests on the performance of Sam Hazeldine as the primary character. Hazeldine gives a strong performance as this haunted man, driven by his self-doubts yet rising to become an inspiring leader for his team. Unfortunately, the rest of the characters are not as well fleshed out, although Elliot James Langridge and Sam Clemmett as the Macdonald brothers give touching performances and Anna Maguire as Jane Hawkins gives us a sensitive glimpse into the tensions of women at home left to wonder and worry. Hellfire Jack remains a more two-dimensional figure than we might like.

At some moments, the energy of the film sags or feels rushed, such at low points for the tunnelers in their months-long work, The director raise the issue of class conflict but then does not do much to explore it. The conflict between the officers could be better developed, and the nature of competing interests is a bit confusing at some points. But the film overcomes these shortfalls, and picks up tension and energy as it drives towards its impressive conclusion. Although it did not end that intractable war, it was an impressive show of can-do from an underestimated group of skilled men.

Despite a few stumbles, this is a worthy and entertaining war drama, emotionally satisfying and a fascinating bit of history, about some scrappy civilians who did what the regular troops couldn’t. It is a nice addition to the growing list of dramas about the Great War, one of the most brutal but historically pivotal of human conflicts.

THE WAR BELOW opened in virtual cinemas on Oct, 1 and releases on-demand on Nov. 11 on Amazon, Apple, Google, Vimeo, and Vudu.

RATING: 3 out of 4 stars

CHERRY (2021) – Review

Here’s a film whose behind-the-scenes (and one in “in front”) story may be just as, if not more, interesting as the plot. It addresses the ages-old battle between art and commerce, but it’s not to say that the two are always mutually exclusive. To put it a bit more clearly, this highlights the cinematic clashes between big-budget blockbusters and small gritty “indie” dramas. Also it offers a test for the “career trajectory” of filmmakers. And it’s not a new thing. After the box office explosion of STAR WARS in 1977, George Lucas told the press that after producing the two follow-ups, his new directorial efforts would be personal “artistic” experiments. But when he got back in the director’s chair 22 years later he returned to that “galaxy far, far away” for the “prequel trilogy”. Similar thing happened a few years later with Peter Jackson, who talked up intimate dramas after the Lord of the Rings trio, then remade KING KONG before he was back in Middle Earth for the HOBBIT flicks. Now here’s the directing duo behind, literally, the biggest money-making spectacular ever, who are really going ahead with those old intentions as they get their “down and dirty” with the drug-fueled crime thriller CHERRY.


Well, perhaps this is more a fable ala’ Gump or Garp, though more brutal and cautionary. As we meet our twenty-something hero, merely called “Cheery” (Tom Holland), he’s cruising the “mean streets” of Cleveland prior to his latest bit of lawlessness. Ah but he wasn’t always a criminal. His story jumps back nearly a decade, when he was drifting between his college classes, partying with his old neighborhood “buds” Forrest Goodluck (James Lightfoot) and “Cousin” Joe (Michael Gandolfini), and bouncing from one eatery gig (busboy, bartender) to the next. Then he was “gobsmacked” by his “fantasy girl made real” Emily (Ciara Bravo). Though she’s from “the right side of the track” , the two begin a romance. All seems well until Emily tells him that once the semester is over, she plans to continue her studies elsewhere, perhaps overseas. Cherry decides his best option for the future would be as an Army medic and enlists. Ah, but she’s changed her mind about leaving, so the pair impulsively tie the knot prior to his basic training. The near constant abuse from the drill sergeants can’t prepare him for the horrors of early 21st century Afghanistan. Cherry returns to the states a broken man whose “night terrors” are treated by government prescriptions, including Oxycotin. From there it’s a quick trip to heroin addcition. After several tries to get her hubby “clean”, Emily joins him. Soon the “junkie” couple rack-up a massive debt to the local supplier known as “Pills and Coke” (Jack Reynor). His threats of violence seemingly leave Cheery no choice but to begin his crime career by knocking off local banks.Which circles right around to our initial introduction to him. Can Cherry end this vicious circle before both he and Emily end up in the grave or in prison?

Taking a break from the red and blue bodysuit, Holland reminds us of his formidable range, showing us that he’s much more than the nice young lad next door (though, making the web-slinger so relatable is no mean feat itself). Can it really be nine years since he astounded audiences with his stunning work in the tsunami tear-jerker THE IMPOSSIBLE (I recall thinking that audiences should keep an eye out for him)? In this lead role, Holland convincingly morphs from casual college kid to hardened war survivor to burnt-out scavenger forced into felonies. Through it all, we see Cherry’s adoration for Emily even through his often stoned eyes, which gives the often irresponsible drifter a real beating heart beneath the needles and the stick-ups. Cherry is truly a multi-layered character and Holland makes his every struggle vibrant and real. It helps that he’s got crackling chemistry with screen newcomer Bravo who strives to remove Emily from her unattainable “goddess” pedestal, as she shows us the “cracks’ in her seemingly perfect image. At first we believe that she’s merely toying with Cherry who’s her “walk on the wild side”, but Bravo shows us Emily’s sensitive side as she truly lets him into her heart. This makes her descent into Hell, tangled up as she tries to saves her soulmate, so devastating, especially as she shoots up during her school day. And though he doesn’t appear until the story’s tense third act, Reynor is pure banal evil as the dealer exploiting the couple. “P and C’ is full of blustery threats, but revealing his true nature when “aiding” Cherry’s “cash grabs”. A sequence in which he taunts an innocent with his deadly wares is truly chilling.

And the director duo collaborated with Holland three times before. Of course, we’re talking about the Russo brothers, Anthony and Joe, who put together the biggest hit of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and of all time, AVENGERS: ENDGAME. Here’s they’re returning to their 2002 roots (WELCOME TO COLLINWOOD) with the low-rent crime caper adding maybe a touch of their character comedy YOU, ME, AND DEPREE (though not many laughs on this one). The men are able to “go with the flow” of this fable of one man’s folly and fortunes, going from first love in the first chapter (and the film does have chapter headings) to exhausting battle drama (the basic training scenes have a true FULL METAL JACKET vibe, while the desert shoot-outs are as harrowing as last year’s THE OUTPOST) before settling into an addiction crime spree right out of DRUGSTORE COWBOY. Giving the film much of its dramatic heft is the screenplay by Angela Russo-Otstot and Jessica Goldberg adapting the Nico Walker novel, but there’s still touches of keen satire as they dole out funny spoof names of Cherry’s “targets” ( “Capitol None” and “Sh*#ty Bank”). The epilogue may feel a tad rushed, but by the end, you feel like you’ve truly shared a seat in a rollercoaster of a life. The Russos haven’t lost their touch with the “reglar’ Joes” after bringing life to our modern mythology (though the pace doesn’t zip as with that previous epic). Like its namesake, CHERRY is often sweet, but its look at the “have-nots” can be bitter and very biting. It’s a vivid “vacay” from the MCU.

3 Out of 4

CHERRY opens in select theaters on Friday, February 26, 2021.

CHERRY also streams exclusively on Apple TV+ beginning March 12, 2021

THE WALL – Review

Aaron Taylor-Johnson in THE WALL. Photo credit: David James.
Courtesy of Amazon Studios and Roadside Attractions ©

Director Doug Liman’s THE WALL is not about Donald Trump’s wall on the Mexican border, the Berlin Wall that symbolized the divide between communist and capitalist countries in the Cold War, or even the Great Wall the Chinese built along their border. No, this wall is the crumbling remains of what was once a building in a contemporary desert war, zone a wall behind which a sniper may be hiding and which later shelters an American serviceman pinned down in that dusty war.

Liman is a skillful film maker but this a decidedly smaller film for the director behind THE BOURNE IDENTITY and many others. The intimate war drama THE WALL starts out in a contemporary desert war zone with a pair of U.S. Army Rangers, Sgt. Allen Isaac (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Staff Sgt. Shane Matthews (John Cena), trying to determine if the enemy sniper that killed everyone at this remote location is still alive, and to kill him if he is. It is easy to assume the gritty, rocky spot is in Afghanistan but we shortly learn, no, it is Iraq. Very quickly, Cena’s character is wounded and the young soldier played by Taylor-Johnson takes shelter behind a crumbling wall, where he remains pinned down by the unseen sniper. Hampered by a partly broken radio, the young American finds himself stuck behind the wall talking by radio to the sniper who holds hum there.

The action in this film is realistic and graphic but actually there is not much in it. Anyone expecting the taut thrills of SOLE SURVIVOR will be disappointed. THE WALL is a war drama on a small-scale and the largely static situation in Dwain Worrell’s script could almost be on a stage. For most of the film, the focus is on Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Sgt. Allen Isaac trapped behind the wall as he talks to the sniper who keeps him there. The situation is of one or a handful of soldiers pinned down is doubtless one in which many soldiers in countless war have found themselves. But this specific premise is similar to another film, PHONE BOOTH, in which a man is trapped in a phone booth by an unseen sniper who speaks to him through the phone, although other thriller films have used a similar device.

However, THE WALL is not very thrilling. There is some action but the film is more psychological drama than action thriller, with most of the screen time occupied by the young soldier trapped behind the wall, as he and his unseen enemy talk, each trying to learn something that will give them an edge. The problem is that we know so little about the American soldier before he is stuck behind the wall that is harder to feel involved or care what is happening on-screen.

THE WALL is both dull and depressing to watch. By setting the film in Iraq rather than Afghanistan, Liman’s main purpose may have been to remind us that American troops are still there, long after the war supposedly ended. Liman uses the story and dialog to remind us of several facts in this long-running war but we learn nothing new about it. The wall is the remains of a school and the site appears to be a place where oil company contractors were constructing a pipeline, but now is strewn with dead bodies of construction workers, private security and American soldiers. The plot about the Iraqi sniper reportedly was inspired by real events, in which an Iraqi translator who did a good American accent switched sides, but that little twist is not enough to sustain interest. The story is resolved in a way that seems inevitable, as well as depressingly grim.

Liman may have intended this grim film and its static situation as a metaphor for American soldiers stuck in the seeming endless war in Iraq, but it makes for a dull film. Despite its rather short running time of just over 80 minutes, THE WALL feels much longer. Action and movement are limited and for most of the time, it is a single character on-screen talking to another character we do not see..Liman uses his considerable skill to build a sense of place and desolation visually, focusing on the blowing wind, the sand, the dust-covered bodies and blasted equipment, and cinematographer Roman Vasyanov does a good job evoking the sense of being in the war zone.

Audiences are likely to feel like they want to escape as much as the American soldier does. Part of the problem is that we know so little about the character before the stand-off starts, so it is harder to care what happens on-screen. Ironically, we actually learn more about the sniper in the in course of their conversations, but even what we learn about him feels rather generic. The trapped soldier may have been intended as an Every Man but Liman does not tap into any philosophical potential the story may hold.

THE WALL is an unsatisfying, depressing film, with too little happening, little new to say, and characters that we do not really get to know. Audiences might feel as trapped as the soldier behind the wall, and just as eager to escape.

RATING: 2 out of 5 stars