Movies

Film Review: War of the Rohirrim

/ Peter Martuneac / 2 Comments

After a long wait, I finally got around to seeing the latest media entry into J.R.R. Tolkien’s world of Middle-Earth this Christmas season, the animated film ‘War of the Rohirrim’. My short, spoiler-free review is that the film was adequate. I kept my expectations low as the release date approached, having learned my lesson from Amazon’s ‘Rings of Power’, and that ended up being the correct choice.

The film is fine. No better and no worse than that. Now, on to the full review!

Spoilers ahead

The film is your typical high-fantasy fare: plenty of swordplay, orcs and other monsters make appearances, and a bit of magic. Hera, daughter of Helm Hammerhand, King of Rohan, is propositioned by her father’s rival, a warlord who seeks the throne, to marry his son. Insults are exchanged, the rival is accidentally killed by the king in a fistfight, and the man’s son, Wulf, vows vengeance.

(By the way, I will note that agreeing to a fistfight with a man who is literally called Hammerhand was probably not this villain’s wisest decision)

You can probably guess the rest of the plot. Some have always seen this level of predictability in Tolkien’s stories and any works derived from his writing as a weakness, but there’s something to be said for the simplicity of it. Not every piece of media we consume needs to be a series of curveballs. Is it nice to be surprised sometimes? Sure, but as we’ve seen with Game of Thrones, eventually you’ve turned convention on its head so many times that the twists become tiresome and expected.

So yeah. War ensues, lives are lost, families are broken, but Hera eventually leads her father’s people to prevail with a little bit of guts, a little ingenuity, and a healthy dose of high-fantasy magic.

What did I like about the movie? For one, the music was excellent. It always set the scene nicely and helped keep me in the story. The voice acting was also terrific. Brian Cox plays Helm Hammerhand the King and stole the show, as far as I’m concerned. As a matter of fact, seeing his name in the casting was what got me excited for this movie in the first place, over a year ago.

Miranda Otto, who played Theoden King’s niece Eowyn in Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy, served as the narrator. I really appreciated that nod to the original trilogy and hearing her familiar voice first was like a warm welcome by an old friend as we returned to Middle-Earth.

Speaking of returns, the opening shot of the film has one of my all-time favorite transitions. It begins with live footage of a flyover of a hilly meadow and a rushing stream, possibly archived from the original trilogy, and as we get closer to ground the picture subtly swaps to the animated version. You almost don’t catch it, and it is beautiful.

Everything else was either fine or a tad disappointing. The animation was inconsistent: at times breathtaking and at others a little sloppy. One fear I had going into the film was that Hera would be your typical ‘Mary Sue’ character, inexplicably fighting off entire hordes of orcs on her own. Mercifully, she only engages in direct combat with enemy soldiers twice, and neither encounter crosses over into the absurd.

Some of the relationships seemed ill-defined, especially between Hera and Wulf, the main antagonist. They give almost no background to these two characters who are supposed to be childhood friends, so the emotional climax of the film doesn’t hit like the director intended.

Finally, I know I said I appreciated the nod to Peter Jackson’s original trilogy by bringing in Miranda Otto to voice the narrator, but there is such a thing as too many nods. Some of the dialogue for Helm Hammerhand was ripped directly from Theoden King in The Two Towers or The Return of the King, with only a word or two changed.

Come on, folks. You’re writing what’s supposed to be an impassioned speech and call to arms just before a battle. Are you really going to take this opportunity to plagiarize yourselves?

Also, Saruman the White is introduced at the end of the film, which was delightful, but moments later Gandalf the Grey is then mentioned. Apparently, he heard of Hera’s telling that she overheard some Mordor orcs discussing their master’s quest for magical rings, and he’s sent a letter requesting that she visit him.

This is wholly out of character for a guy known as the Wandering Wizard. When Gandalf seeks information, he does not send letters requesting that people come to him. He hops on his horse and arrives suddenly to demand an audience. I suspect they chose this route as a way to write Hera out of history. In Tolkien’s writings, she is not even given a name but she was made the main character for this story. How then to make it so that this heroine is not sung of in the annals of Rohan’s great battles? By giving the crown to her cousin, sending Hera off to meet Gandalf in a distant land, where, according to the narrator, she remained wild and free to the end of her days.

There’s more I could discuss but this post has already run long. All in all, as I said above, this film was fine. If you’re a Tolkien fanatic like myself, I highly recommend watching it, but only once. I won’t be adding this to my collection of Blu-rays.

Film Review: 1917

/ Peter Martuneac / 5 Comments

I don’t typically watch war movies these days. Since having participated in a war myself, such films have lost their sheen for me. I do make exceptions, however. I watched “12 Strong” because it’s probably the only blockbuster film about my war to be made and now I’ve seen the 2019 film “1917”.

This film, as you can probably guess from the title, is set during The Great War, aka World War I. There are just two main characters, two young British soldiers, Lance Corporals William Schofield and Thomas Blake, tasked with an impossible mission: carry a message across no-man’s-land, passing close to a German-occupied town, to a division that is about to stumble into a trap. A simple premise that is done beautifully.

Everything about this film was done well. The accompanying musical score directed by Thomas Newman was a perfect match, at times haunting and other times inspiring. There is also an a capelle rendition of the classic folk song “I am a Poor Wayfaring Stranger” towards the end, sung by a soldier to his silent comrades, that left me at a loss for words.

George Mackay and Dean-Charles Chapman are excellent in the roles as Schofield and Blake. They truly captured the spirit of two young men who daily live in fear of death but put a brave face over it, whether that be through humors, letters from home, or allowing themselves to be fully immersed in their work.

Benedict Cumberbatch also appears in the film briefly as Colonel Mackenzie. Though he is only on the screen for about two minutes, he runs away with the scene. It’s remarkable when an actor can suck the air out of the room in which the audience sits, even in a supporting role.

What truly elevated this film, however, is the manner in which it’s shot. There are no scene breaks, no POV changes, and no cuts. The film is a continuous, running shot. The effect of this method is astounding and a wholly new experience. Just one example, as Schofield and Blake approach a seemingly abandoned country house during their mission, they decide they must check the house for enemies.

In any other movie, here there would likely be a scene change, cutting to the young Lance Corporals suddenly on the porch of the house or kicking in the front door. Not in 1917. Here, once Schofield and Blake decide to advance on the house, you follow them literally every step of the way. Down the hill, around the pond, up the bank, and then over to the porch. It’s only about 18 seconds, but it’s 18 seconds of filming you would never see in an ordinary film.

Suffice it to say, I was fully immersed in this film. It takes you right down to the ground of a brutal land war, giving you a grunt’s-eye-view. There’s not too much violence in it; there’s a scene of somewhat unsavory hand-to-hand combat, but it takes place during the night and in a shadowed corner, sparing the viewer anything too gruesome.

And, of course, there is heart-wrenching loss. It’s painful to watch and impossible not to shed a tear.

As with other war movies, I will not watch this one again, but I’m very glad I saw it once. I highly recommend it to anyone who appreciates a new cinematic experience.

12 Strong: Film Review

/ Peter Martuneac / 4 Comments

I don’t typically watch movies about war, not anymore. It was one of my preferred genres as a 17 and 18 year old. Movies such as Black Hawk Down, We Were Soldiers, Letters From Iwo Jima. I’d seen them several times.

I then joined the Marines and participated in a war. Over in Afghanistan, I experienced the combat I’d only seen in movies and in video games, and that completely killed any taste I had for the genre. I can count on one hand the number of war movies I’ve watched since then and have fingers left over. I decided to break with tradition this week and watch 12 Strong, and that ended up being a good (and bad) decision.

This movie called to me in a way others just don’t, probably because it’s about the very war I fought in. Most modern war films are based on experiences from Iraq. Afghanistan, the new ‘forgotten war’, doesn’t get much attention. Perhaps because it wasn’t the kind of war Americans like to hear about very much, with its guerilla warfare, invisible enemies, and precious few glorious triumphs.

The movie is based on the true story of ODA 595 (Operational Detachment Alpha), a group of 12 Special Forces soldiers who were the first American troops into Afghanistan after the 9/11 terror attacks. They are assigned what is considered by many a suicide mission: to link up with an Afghan warlord and help him drive the Taliban out of a key stronghold in northern Afghanistan. These soldiers aided the Afghans in combat, both directly with their rifles and indirectly by calling in massive airstrikes.

Because they were alone in a hostile country, these Special Forces soldiers got around the same way many Afghans did at the time: on horseback. Thus was born their legendary nickname, the horse soldiers.

The movie unfolds in a fairly typical, predictable manner, and in that respect it wasn’t terribly good. There are no real surprises here. What I did enjoy was the overall accuracy and true to life portrayals of military life. The Special Forces soldiers who were actually part of the mission were brought on to advise the team, which was obvious to me as I watched it. The lingo, the mannerisms, the behavior, it all clicked. I said, “These are definitely grunts.”

The acting was also superb. Chris Hemsworth, Michael Shannon, Geoff Stults, Rob Riggle (who portrayed the soldier he once actually worked for during his time in the military), Michael Pena, and William Fichtner in particular all did amazing jobs bringing these real heroes to life on the silver screen, and the rest of the cast deserves a bow, too.

Navid Negahban as General Dostum was magnificent. The final lines for his character, when he speaks of Afghanistan as the graveyard of empires, really tied the whole movie together. There are no right choices here. This is Afghanistan, graveyard of many empires. Today you are our friend; tomorrow you are our enemy.

But I think what makes this movie about the Afghanistan war work is that it’s one of the few battles in the entire war that Americans would like to see in a movie: clearly drawn battle lines, enemies flying their flags vs good guys flying their flags, infantry and cavalry charges against artillery, and an ultimate triumph, a flag-raising over a defeated enemy. As aforementioned, such moments in Afghanistan were few and far between.

I recommend this one to any fans of war movies, or to folks who are interested in learning more about the war in Afghanistan. For a war film, the cursing isn’t bad and there’s no gory or over-the-top violent deaths, but of course there are killings by gunfire and explosions, and so the particularly squeamish may want to pass.

I myself enjoyed it, but all it did was confirm that war movies are no longer for me, especially not movies about Afghanistan. To sit there and watch the evil deeds of these Taliban terrorists, murdering a woman for daring to teach girls how to read, executing a man for listening to music, stoning another woman to death for not wearing her veil. Make no mistake, the US military may not be a perfect organization, and we’ve made our own mistakes, but the Taliban are pure evil. They hate you, whoever you are, and would slit your throat without a second thought.

And now those wicked men are back in charge. They won. Evil defeated good, darkness swallowed the light. It’s like if The Lord of the Rings ended with Frodo captured by a Nazgul and the Ring returns to Sauron.

It kills me to admit it, to know the most primal, visceral act I ever engaged in, the act of war, was for naught. We won every battle, but those bastards won the war. So much blood spilt, bombs dropped and bullets fired, lives lost and families ripped apart, all of it, for nothing. Nothing has changed. The Taliban rule, and the Afghan people suffer.

I don’t believe I’ll be watching any more such movies. It’s just too painful for me, and it left me depressed for a few days. It took me until today to finally write up a review though I watched the film on Tuesday. But again, for the rest of you, I do recommend it. It’s a story that deserves to be told and to be heard.

Movie Review: Knock at the Cabin

/ Peter Martuneac / 4 Comments

A family of three, vacationing in a private cabin in the woods, are met by four strangers who tell them that the fate of the world is in their hands, but it will require the ultimate sacrifice from one of them…

M. Knight Shyamalan is back with another twisted tale for us, and I think this may be his best one yet. The premise is as simple as it gets, and the entire movie takes place in this one location with these seven main characters. I’d love to talk about the plot more but with a movie like this, it would be very hard without giving away some spoilers. This is a film to be watched without any foreknowledge.

What I will talk about is the acting, which was tremendous. Dave Bautista is the big star for this film, and despite his subdued demeanor he shines brightest. Bautista was one of my favorite wrestlers back in the day when I watched WWF/WWE wrestling, and I’m happy that he’s finding success outside the ring.

I’m also glad that Bautista has chosen to reinvent his image as an actor. In years past, he was always cast as the big, dumb muscle, whether as a James Bond villain or Drax the Destroyer in the Marvel universe. It’s nice to see him in more subtle and nuanced roles where he can showcase his true abilities as an actor instead of just hitting things and yelling.

The movie itself is very tense throughout, almost from the very first frame. It’s not necessarily a scary movie, and any violence typically takes place off-camera, but it’s extremely unsettling. There’s a lot of debate between the family and the strangers, with the former trying to convince the latter that they’re having a shared delusion or are zealots being led by a deceiver. In their turn, the strangers plead with the family to believe their incredible claims of God’s impending judgment and destruction of humanity.

I highly recommend this one to fans of horror and suspense films, and even to those of you who may not prefer such movies. It’s available to stream on Peacock, which is how I was able to watch it. It’s also based on the book Cabin at the End of the World by Paul Tremblay, if you’d prefer to read that.

Movie Review: ‘M3GAN’

/ Peter Martuneac / 3 Comments

One thing you may not know about me: I’m a bit of a horror movie connoisseur. I’ve enjoyed them my entire adult life and have watched many a terrible, laughable one just to find one diamond in the rough.

So when M3GAN became available on Peacock, I had to give it a try.

M3GAN is about a girl whose parents are killed in a car accident, so she’s sent to live with her aunt, someone who is absolutely not ready to be a mother. She’s something of a genius inventor and has just created a life-sized, autonomous doll that is designed to be a child’s best friend. Before putting the doll, M3GAN, out to market, she decides to do a beta test on it with her niece.

You can probably guess how the movie progresses: M3GAN, given the ability to ‘learn’, learns too much and decides she’s in charge and kills quite a few people before the end.

I did wonder why the ‘genius inventor’ thought it necessary to give a child’s toy the strength of at least one power lifter, or why a simple ‘do no harm’ command wasn’t included in the doll’s code. Seems like a pretty glaring flaw in the design to me, but I guess they needed it to make the movie go.

At times, it felt like watching a 21st century Chucky movie, only it was slightly less campy and better acted. The acting in M3GAN is actually really well done and probably what made the film bearable. The was swearing, of course, and violence but none that was over the top. You see a guy get stabbed, a boy get his ear pulled off (with some pretty bad CGI), but nothing too awful.

I ended up enjoying it, but folks who don’t regularly endure some of the worst of its genre may not have the same appreciation. If you already have a Peacock streaming subscription, I’d say it’s worth a view!