Sleight of Film

Today’s quick review: Escape from Alcatraz. In 1960, Frank Morris (Clint Eastwood) arrives at Alcatraz, a maximum security federal prison located on an island in San Francisco Bay. There, the prisoners are kept in separate cells, the guards count them regularly, and the Warden (Patrick McGoohan) allows them few privileges. In spite of the tight security, sturdy prison, and freezing bay, Morris hatches a daring plan to escape.

Escape from Alcatraz is a prison drama based on a true story. Clint Eastwood stars as Frank Morris, a canny inmate determined to escape from one of the toughest prisons in the United States. Escape from Alcatraz is a well-constructed drama with some of the flavor of a heist film. Morris must navigate the challenges of prison life while stealing the supplies he needs. The mechanics of the heist and Eastwood’s stony resolve make for a solid foundation.

Still, Escape from Alcatraz is missing one quality that other prison dramas tend to have: pathos. Frank Morris makes for a fine protagonist but not a very sympathetic one. He is an unrepentant criminal set apart only by his wits and his composure. Even his poor treatment from the Warden is not enough to put him in the right. As such, Escape from Alcatraz makes for a mechanically interesting story, but one that doesn’t carry much emotional weight.

Escape from Alcatraz makes a fine choice for anyone in the mood for a hesit-like movie with a more serious tone. The movie holds few real surprises, and it has only a light dusting of the usual themes of perseverance and human dignity, but Eastwood’s performance and a fascinating story are enough to carry it. Anyone interested in the anatomy of a real-life prison escape should give it a try.

For a more triumphant prison drama, try The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, or either version of Papillon. For another story of a man mastering a prison, try The Last Castle.

7.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for a focused and well-executed plot.

Today’s quick review: Papillon. Framed for murder by his associates, safecracker Henri “Papillon” Charriere (Charlie Hunnam) trades the nightlife of Paris for a life sentence in French Guyana, a remote prison colony. Undeterred, Papillon forms a partnership with Louis Dega (Henri Malek), a rich forger who needs his protection to survive. With the help of Dega’s money, the two men brave hostile guards and inmates in search of a way to escape.

Papillon is a prison drama based on a true story. Set in the 1930s, Papillon follows two men as they try to survive France’s harsh penal system. The backbone of the movie is the relationship between Charriere and Dega. The two men are both criminals, but unlike their fellow inmates, they each have a compassionate streak. What should have been a brutal tale of survival and self-interest is transformed into something more hopeful by their friendship.

Papillon is a remake of a 1973 film with the same name. Where the original was a plain, understated film that told its story with few flourishes, the remake indulges in a more creative style of direction, a noticeable soundtrack, and a story that is condensed in a few places. The changes streamline the movie, soften the harshest parts of the story, and make it easier to follow, but they also sacrifice the raw dramatic power of the original.

The result is a solidly constructed drama that benefits from a compelling story, polished presentation, and a pair of talented leads. The remake does not have quite the same stark, memorable quality as the original, but it handles itself well and ultimately makes for a satisfying watch. Give Papillon a try if you are in the mood for a harsh but uplifting drama. Skip it if you are looking for a more fanciful adventure.

For another take on the same source material, try the original Papillon. For a powerful prison drama, try The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, or Cool Hand Luke.

7.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for engaging characters and solid craftsmanship.

Today’s quick review: Papillon. Convicted of a murder he didn’t commit, Papillon (Steve McQueen) is shipped to a prison in French Guyana to serve a life sentence. On the way there, he strikes a deal with Louis Dega (Dustin Hoffman): he offers his protection in exchange for using Dega’s money to finance an escape attempt. But as the hardships of prison life take their toll on both men, escape becomes a daunting prospect.

Papillon is a prison drama about a pair of men trapped in a French penal colony. Faced with hard labor, brutal treatment by the guards, and constant danger, Papillon and Dega risk years in solitary confinement to find a way to escape. What begins as a bargain struck out of self interest evolves into a genuine friendship, one that gives them the strength to keep going in the face of incredible hardship.

Papillon stands out for the scope of its story. Even though the story is limited to one remote prison and a pair of prisoners, the variety of suffering they endure turns what should be a static premise into a full-blown odyssey. Papillon and Dega try alliances, bribes, and violence to win their freedom, only to meet setback after setback. The movie has a knack for driving home just how much the men have lost and how hard it will be to reclaim it.

The result is an arduous journey for the characters and the audience alike. Papillon has an unusual blend of hardship and tenacity that makes it unlike even other prison dramas. Those willing to wade through the drama will find it to be a rewarding watch, less for its triumphs and more for its quiet moments of friendship and perseverance. Those looking for a lighter drama where the characters come through unscathed will want to look elsewhere.

For an even more moving prison drama, try The Shawshank Redemption. For an adventurous tale of imprisonment and revenge, try The Count of Monte Cristo. For a smaller-scale prison drama with a similar tone, try Cool Hand Luke.

8.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for a robust story brought to life by a pair of whole-hearted performances.

Today’s quick review: Escape from Sobibor. During the Holocaust, a few hundred Jewish prisoners are put to work at Sobibor, a Nazi death camp where thousands of their brethren are being exterminated. Knowing that only death awaits them if they stay, Leon Feldhendler (Alan Arkin) works on a plan to free all of the prisoners. But to pull it off, he will need the help of Russian soldier Alexander “Sasha” Pechersky (Rutger Hauer) and his men.

Escape from Sobibor is a historical drama about the largest escape from a Nazi death camp in the history of World War II. Alan Arkin stars as Leon, a steadfast leader who looks for a way to guide hundreds of prisoners to freedom. Rutger Hauer plays opposite him as Sasha, a new prisoner who lends his military expertise to the endeavor. Their performances anchor a solidly constructed movie that succeeds on the back of its weighty subject matter.

Escape from Sobibor is a frank and unfiltered look at life inside a Nazi death camp. While the movie avoids anything too graphic, the inhumanity of the Jews’ treatment and the horror of the camp’s purpose are on full display. Even the minor incidents in the movie drive home how tenuous the prisoners’ survival is. The result is both moving drama in its own right and ample motivation for the escape attempt, a risky scheme where time is of the essence.

Escape from Sobibor will not be for everyone. The dark nature of its subject matter makes the film too heavy for viewers who are looking for escapism, while its grounded presentation style lacks the artistic and thematic flourishes that some fans of drama may be looking for. But those willing to endure the suffering on display will find Escape from Sobibor to be a remarkable story of human perseverance. Those interested should give it a watch.

For an even more gut-wrenching portrayal of the Holocaust, try Life is Beautiful or Schindler’s List. For a more adventurous escape attempt from a Nazi prison camp, try The Great Escape or Stalag 17.

7.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for plain but effective drama.

Today’s quick review: Stalag 17. At a German prison camp in World War II, a group of American airmen try to make the most of their captivity, hiding escape tunnels and contraband from the Germans. But after a suspicious string of victories for the guards, the prisoners begin to suspect that someone in their barracks is an informant. As tensions mount, suspicion falls on J.J. Sefton (William Holden), an unliked cynic who protests that he is innocent.

Stalag 17 is a war drama with comedic elements. The movie follows a group of American POWs as they find ways to cope with life in prison, pull pranks on their captors, and search for the traitor among them. Stalag 17 features a well-constructed plot that first hints at and then exposes a dangerous threat to the men. At the same time, it never entirely loses its sense of humor. The result is an odd but successful blend of optimism and paranoia.

Stalag 17 has a solid comedic backbone. The prisoners of Stalag 17 are an unruly bunch, full of ingenuity and spirit. Their day-to-day antics are a steady source of classic, goofy humor, even if it’s weighed down by a couple of sober moments. The comedy side of the movie is led by Animal (Robert Strauss) and Harry (Harvey Lembeck), who trade barbs with Johan Sebastian Schulz (Sig Ruman), the affable German officer in charge of the barracks.

But in spite of the light tone for most of the movie, the underlying plot is dramatic. Price (Peter Graves) and Duke (Neville Brand) lead the search for the traitor, setting their sights on Sefton early on. The gradual way the hunt unfolds, the clues that are revealed about the traitor, and the fallout of the investigation lead to a satisfying plot progression. The movie also tucks away a couple of poignant moments that touch on the prisoners’ losses.

Stalag 17 is a solid pick for fans of the classics. The lighter tone sets it apart from most war films, but it still manages to tell a good story that showcases life in German POW camps and the resourcefulness of the prisoners trapped there. Stalag 17 has smaller stakes than other movies in the same vein, and the antics of the prisoners won’t appeal to everyone. But those with a taste for classic writing and acting will like what they see.

For a larger-scale war drama about a German POW camp, try The Great Escape. For a more gut-wrenching comedic drama about survival in World War II, try Life is Beautiful. For a more thrilling hunt for a mole, try The Usual Suspects or The Departed. For a classic comedy with a similar sense of humor, try It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

8.0 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for good humor and a well-constructed plot.

Today’s quick review: The Great Escape. During World War II, the Luftwaffe constructs a new POW camp to hold their most troublesome prisoners, a group of Allied officers who have made dozens of escape attempts between them. There, under the leadership of Roger Bartlett (Richard Attenborough), the men begin planning their most ambitious escape attempt yet. But to pull it off, they will have to tunnel over 300 feet without getting caught by the guards.

The Great Escape is a classic war drama and adventure that follows a group of Allied POWs as they attempt to escape from a German prison camp. The men must use every ounce of ingenuity they have to dig three tunnels and keep them a secret from Colonel Von Luger (Hannes Messemer). The Great Escape earns its place as a classic thanks to a talented ensemble cast, a remarkable story, and a tone that covers the full spectrum from hope and triumph to despair.

The bedrock of The Great Escape is the escape plan itself. True to the film’s name, the plan is much more ambitious than the usual prison break, calling for three tunnels, dangerous engineering work, and clothes and forged documents for 250 prisoners. The tricks the prisoners use are ingenious, while the setbacks and heartbreaks they face along the way give the film its fair share of drama. The result is a lengthy but engaging story with lots going on.

The other notable part of The Great Escape is its cast. As escape preparations go on, the film finds time to introduce the personalities and ambitions of the men. The ensemble cast includes Steve McQueen as Virgil Hilts, a daring American pilot; James Garner as Robert Hendley, a scrounger who can get almost anything; Donald Pleasance as Colin Blythe, a mild-mannered forger; and Charles Bronson as Danny Velinski, a tunneling expert.

The Great Escape is well worth a watch for any fan of the classics. The cleverness of the plan, the humanity of the characters, and the scope of the story all contribute to an iconic film that delivers on its promise. The length of the film and its large cast require a fair amount of effort from the audience, but the quality of the storytelling makes it worth the investment. Skip it if you’re looking for simple action or a light adventure.

For another iconic war drama about a World War II POW camp, check out The Bridge on the River Kwai. For a more personal drama about a prisoner with dreams of escape, try The Shawshank Redemption or Cool Hand Luke. For a parody of The Great Escape and similar World War II films, try Top Secret! or Chicken Run.

8.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 8.0 for an impressive story and memorable performances.

Today’s quick review: The Bridge on the River Kwai. In 1943, Lieutenant Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness) and his men are taken to a Japanese POW camp ruled by the draconian Colonel Saito (Sessue Hayakawa). There they are forced to labor under inhumane conditions building a railroad bridge over the River Kwai. While Nicholson fights for the rights of his men, Lieutenant Commander Shears (William Holden), a cynical American, plans his escape.

The Bridge on the River Kwai is a classic war drama about a battalion of British soldiers taken prisoner in Asia during World War II. The movie serves as both a historical account of the conditions faced by Allied POWs in the Pacific and a complex moral tale that illuminates the paradoxes of war. The Bridge on the River Kwai features a nuanced story, multifaceted characters, and powerful themes, all of which help the movie earn its place as a classic.

The heart of The Bridge on the River Kwai is the moral battle between Nicholson and Saito. The two men represent opposite perspectives on war and the duties of soldiers. Saito operates within Japan’s rigid code of honor, while Nicholson adheres to the more humanitarian rules of the British military. Their conflict plays out through exchanged volleys of punishment and defiance, and much of the film’s appeal comes from seeing the men vie for control.

But what sets the film apart is where it goes with this premise. Nicholson sticks dutifully to his principles but loses sight of the big picture. His rules give him the strength to endure, but they also blind him to the possibility of escape. This is where Shears enters the picture: a pragmatist less concerned with honor than with survival. The clash of principles betweeen Nicholson, Saito, and Shears results in a rich and compelling plot.

The Bridge on the River Kwai is a great pick for anyone accustomed to the slower pacing and thoughtful writing of the classics. The movie takes its time setting up the characters and conflicts it needs, but the payoff is a thorough treatment of compelling moral questions. Anyone interested in the nature of honor or duty would do well to give it a shot. Skip it if you are looking for action or an easier, more superficial plot.

For another war drama about a POW camp during World War II, try The Great Escape. For a violent and emotionally powerful war drama with a strong moral element, try Saving Private Ryan. For a classic drama that explores the effects of stress on an otherwise good man, try The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

8.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 to 8.0 for a multifaceted moral conflict.

Today’s quick review: A Bridge Too Far. In September 1944, Lieutenant General Browning (Dirk Bogarde) carries out Operation Market Garden, an ambitious Allied offensive that drops thousands of troops behind German lines to claim a series of vital bridges in Holland. But as the mission hits setback after setback, Major General Urquhart (Sean Connery), Lieutenant Colonel Frost (Anthony Hopkins), and their men are left stranded with no relief in sight.

A Bridge Too Far is a classic war drama about Operation Market Garden during World War II. The movie follows the operation from concept to execution, showing an optimistic plan give way to crushing reality. A Bridge Too Far tracks half a dozen groups of soldiers as they struggle to claim and hold key points along the line of advance. The result is a war movie on a grand scale that skillfully conveys the long odds faced by Allied forces.

A Bridge Too Far stands apart from other war movies for the way it portrays an operation that is falling apart. Bad weather, faulty radios, and two unexpected Panzer divisions put a crimp in Market Garden from the very beginning, and the situation only gets worse as XXX Corps, meant to support the paratroopers, meets delay after delay. Throughout it all, the aloofness of the Allies’ leadership drives home a sense of futility and desperation.

In terms of execution, A Bridge Too Far is a well-crafted movie that is almost too complex for its own good. The named cast numbers in the dozens, and the fighting occurs in several Dutch towns simultaneously, leaving the audience with a lot to keep track of. But the movie does use its scale to good effect, offering a comprehensive look at a complex invasion and capturing the many sacrifices and acts of heroism along the way.

A Bridge Too Far is a strong pick for fans of the war genre or anyone interested in logistics of large-scale conflict. The movie requires a significant investment on the part of the viewer, and it lacks the immediate impact of war movies that are more modest in scope. But the payoff is an unusually thorough depiction of the consequences of bad planning. Those looking for a concise, focused war movie may want to steer clear.

For another seemingly jinxed large-scale operation during World War II, try Dunkirk. For a more intimate World War II mission with long odds, try Fury. For a less brutal depiction of events occurring in parallel, try Patton.

7.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for a dramatic story and a star-studded cast.

Today’s quick review: Patton. In 1943, General George Patton (George C. Scott) takes command of American forces in Tunisia and begins the push to link up with British forces on the other side of North Africa. Patton’s bold strategies earn him a string of decisive victories and renown. But as the war goes on, Patton discovers that the greatest threat he faces is not the German military but the Allied politics that threaten to cut short his command.

Patton is a biographical war drama about one of World War II’s premiere generals. George C. Scott delivers a memorable performance as General Patton, a born soldier whose daring in the field is matched only by his poor political acumen. The movie paints a detailed portrait of its subject, capturing his greatest victories and his most crushing defeats. Along the way, Patton covers a significant portion of World War II, as seen from the command post.

General Patton cuts a fascinating figure. His boldness, tenacity, and classical education make him a terror to the Germans and allow him to accomplish feats of war that few others would dare to even attempt. But his audacity comes with a steep cost. His hasty strategies endanger the lives of his men, and his thirst for personal glory often clouds his judgment. More subtly, his inability to temper his speech has a profound impact on his career.

Patton does an excellent job of portraying these conflicting qualities. The movie unfolds at a deliberate pace, showing each step of Patton’s journey through the war as he’s buffeted about by the shifting tides of political favor. Patton’s hands-on leadership keeps him close to the action, and the large-scale tank battles help keep the movie engaging and moving forward. The result is a capable biography that does justice to its subject.

Patton makes for a solid choice for anyone interested in World War II or the diffrent ideologies of war. The slow pace of the movie and its relatively flat emotional arc mean that it simply will not appeal to some viewers, especially those hoping for a tense, visceral look at war. But those willing to take Patton on its own terms will find it to be a rewarding watch, thanks to a multifaceted lead character and a story that encompasses an entire war.

For more visceral tank action from World War II, watch Fury. For a satirical take on the war, try Catch-22. For the fictitious biography of a flawed man, try Citizen Kane.

7.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.5 for a robust and comprehensive character portrait.

Today’s quick review: War Horse. Ted Narracott (Peter Mullan), a stubborn English farmer, takes a chance when he buys Joey, a smart and spirited horse. Ted’s son Albert (Jeremy Irvine) trains Joey and becomes his close friend. But when war breaks out with Germany, hard times force Ted to sell the horse to Captain Nicholls (Tom Hiddleston), a cavalry officer, who takes Joey into German-occupied France and the heart of the fighting.

War Horse is a war drama from director Steven Spielberg. The movie follows a British farm horse on a winding journey through World War I as he is passed from owner to owner. War Horse shows the impact of the war from a variety of angles, through the eyes of the soldiers and civilians who cross paths with Joey. The movie manages to tell a sweet story with some good emotional moments, but its unconventional story structure will not suit everyone.

War Horse combines the subject matter of a war movie with the tone of a family drama. Wherever Joey goes, he finds people who care about him and treat him as a beloved friend, even amidst hardship and close calls. While his direct contribution to the war is modest, he serves as an inspiration to the people around him. This injects an otherwise bleak war story with a ray of hope, turning it into not just a tale of suffering but one of survival.

The one major sticking point is that, at the end of the day, Joey is just a horse. He serves as an emotional anchor for the film and ties together the otherwise unrelated war vignettes that make up the story, but he cannot drive the action on his own. The movie has to make Joey worth caring about while keeping his role in the events around him realistic. This is a difficult balance to achieve, and there are times when the movie plays up Joey too much.

How much you get out of War Horse will depend on your ability to invest in Joey’s harrowing journey. The movie does have some triumphant moments that justify the audience’s investment, as well as tragic ones that do justice to the hardness of World War I. But a viewer who can’t latch onto Joey the way the movie intends will find the story disjointed and overly sentimental. Try it if you’re interested in a war movie that’s not as hopeless as some others.

For a World War I story with excellent cinematography and a more focused plot, try 1917. For a more harrowing drama about war from the British perspective, try Dunkirk. For a more violent war and iconic war drama from Steven Spielberg, try Saving Private Ryan.

7.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for solid craftsmanship and a few of triumphant moments.