akritchever Reviews

Emperor (2012)

An enjoyable, if a bit dry, historical film

[8/10 · 14 September 2012]

Just saw Emperor at TIFF tonight. It was an enjoyable, well made, historical film, but a tad dry. Starring Tommy Lee Jones as General Douglas MacArthur and Matthew Fox as MacArthur's subordinate officer General Fellers, it is set against the backdrop of the early occupation of Japan by U.S. forces after World War 2. MacArthur is faced with a dilemma: he has to prosecute thirty Japanese war criminals - the masterminds of the war - but a question of what to do with Emperor Hirohito looms over him. To leave him alone would invite displeasure from American public and politicians, to arrest and try him for war crimes would endanger the occupation and break the tenuous peace. Jones' MacArthur assigns the task to Matthew Fox's character as he is an expert on Japan - now Fox's character has only 10 days to investigate the Emperor's involvement and come to a decision. In the meantime, the viewers also see flashbacks from Fellers' past, and there is a subplot involving Feller looking for his lost lover.

Tommy Lee Jones is plainly having lots of fun as the blustering larger- than-life Douglas MacArthur, and Matthew Fox delivers a good performance with moments of extreme intensity. Masayoshi Haneda plays a translator and aide and manages to pull off a role that has dignity despite the harrowed and dishevelled appearance of the character. Eriko Hatsune - the love interest of the film - has a fragile beauty but is too reserved throughout the movie to deliver much of an emotional impact. The film was shot in New Zealand and Japan (in fact it's the first movie to film inside the Japanese Imperial Palace) and it's gorgeous - the ruins of bombed out Tokyo are especially impressive, and of course the Imperial Palace as a backdrop is fascinating.

The quibble I had with the movie is that it tries to create a sense of urgency and suspense, but since it's based on historical events it largely fails. Anyone who has taken history in high school should know how it turned out. With the exception of a couple of scenes, there also isn't much of an emotionally charged drama going on either. Although I enjoyed it, I cannot deny that it moved at a more sedate pace and lacked great urgency and suspense.

The Bourne Legacy (2012)

A spy thriller that fails to deliver any thrills

[4/10 · 15 August 2012]

I'm a big fan of the Bourne series, so I waited with some anticipation for the reboot/quasi-sequel - "Bourne Legacy". In hindsight, I should have curbed my enthusiasm - "Bourne Legacy" is a competently assembled film with excellent cast, but it fails to deliver the thrills or advance the plot of the franchise in any meaningful way.

For those unfamiliar with earlier Bourne movies, the short synopsis is that a secret U.S. program has been creating experimental super spies/assassins, using behaviour modification, drugs and gene therapy. Jason Bourne is the product of this program, he loses his memories, go rogue, and by the end of the third movie has exposed the program and its sinister shadowy government handlers. Bourne Legacy takes place chronologically just before the third movie and ends at the same time as the third movie in the series does. In my opinion a moviegoer who has not seen the previous three films will be confused throughout the first act of Bourne Legacy. Not a small amount of confusion for a newcomer to the series will be that the namesake of the series - Jason Bourne - does not make an appearance at all. This movie deals with the consequences and ramifications of Bourne's actions on the program and the people involved in it. There will be explosions, chases, parkour, and fighting wolves with bare hands. There will also be long, tedious expositions, meaningful looks being thrown, and a couple of exotic locales.

The main characters of "Bourne Legacy" are Jeremy Renner playing another rogue agent of the program that created Bourne, Rachel Weisz as the scientists involved in the program who's trying to help Renner's character, and Edward Norton as the government hatchet man in charge of covering up the program. Many faces from the original trilogy also make appearances. The cast is excellent and Renner's and Norton's performances particularly stand out. Renner brings humour, humanity, and dignity to the role, and Norton has a frigidly calm professional demeanour dripping with sinister insinuations. Weisz - an actress I've adored for many years - is generally good in her role, but nothing to write home about.

So why didn't I like the movie then? It's actually rather difficult to formulate, but a few points stand out. For one thing there isn't enough globe-trotting going on. Most of the film happens in the U.S., and indoors, and could be set really anywhere, unlike some of the original series where much of the action happened all over the glove (OK, Europe mostly) but in recognizable locales that actually made sense in the story. In "Bourne Legacy" the final climatic chase/fight scene happens in Manila, but it is never explained why drugs for secret U.S. government program would be manufactured in Philippines - isn't Mexico or Costa Rica closer? The addition of Manila as a set piece feels very tacked on and random - maybe the studio got a grant from the Philippines government?

Another gripe I have is that "Bourne Legacy" doesn't throw much of a bone to newcomers as I've already mentioned. We get flashbacks to second and third movie, there's constant talk about Jason Bourne, various names and code names from the previous movies get tossed around without providing much background on it. In fact, the plot in general is poorly written, the pacing is either too slow or too fast (you know there's a problem with a spy thriller when you check the watch in the middle of an action scene to see how much time has passed). There are many expositions and cut-aways to show what's going on while the main characters are doing their shtick, but these just serve to confuse the viewer and slow down the pact of the movie. Other than a gripping scene in a laboratory, none of the action scenes succeeded in being memorable or tense.

But by far my biggest problem with this film is how unnecessary it is for the trilogy. Its goal is to show us the repercussions of Bourne's actions in the original trilogy, and introduce new characters who will carry the franchise forward, but "Bourne Legacy" does not advance the overall plot of the series in any meaningful way. It ends the same way that the third movie does (spoiler alert!) - the program has been exposed and now the media is all over it and there is a senate committee investigating it. What else do we learn? Only a bit more thorough explanation as to how the program succeeded in creating super agents, and a bit more background on the scientists involved in the program. That's about it. If this film was meant to be a reboot - it didn't feel like it as it required too much prior knowledge. If this film was meant to be a sequel - it didn't succeed either because it doesn't advance the plot or the characters from previous movies. Bourne Legacy was a competent, but ultimately thrill-less thriller.

Shtrafbat (2004)

Shtrafbat - a moving look at the lives and deaths of Soviet Soldiers during WW2

[10/10 · 11 October 2006]

Shtrafbat - Penal Battalion is a moving, and mostly honest, look at the lives and deaths of Soviet soldiers who were sentenced to wash away their crimes with blood during World War Two. One can almost call it the Russian equivalent of highly acclaimed "Band of Brothers" miniseries.

Formed in July of 1942 on the eve of Battle of Stalingrad, the penal battalions were considered expendable units and suffered horrible casualties (sometimes as high as 90%). Prisoners of GULAG (political prison/concentration camps), deserters, soldiers who were captured by Germans but managed to escape, soldiers accused of breaching protocol, were all given a chance to join the Shtrafbat and prove that there were not "Traitors of the Motherland" with their lives. Those who sustained injuries and those who died in battle were considered rehabilitated and were reinstated in the eyes of the law.

This miniseries features a look at one such Shtrafbat, under the command of Tverdokhlebov - an honorable officer who was captured by the Germans, was shot and left for dead. It features a colorful and varied group of people, thrust into a situation from which there is no escape. The authoritative yet honorable crime boss Antip "Kulak" (The Fist) and his little gang of unreformed criminals, a young Jewish intellectual who struck his anti-Semite officer, Father (Orthodox Priest) Mikhail who joins the battalion when his parish is destroyed in the house-to-house fighting, political prisoners who hate the regime that condemned them to the GULAG but who are nonetheless willing to fight one last time for their people and country, must all find their courage and their reasons to keep on living, and to keep on fighting.

Although set during a war, not every episode features combat, in fact what combat scenes there are, are often chaotic, sporadic, and short - which was probably the intent of the director. In between, the miniseries focuses on various relationships between the cast, their backgrounds, their thoughts and tragedies. The rape of a young woman by one of Shtrafbat's soldier and then his execution, execution for supposed AWOL, periods of boredom on the march, the celebration (and subsequent consequences) of finding a German bunker stocked with food (and champagne), the moral dilemma of officers unable to save their men from their own superiors, cheating on a spouse, and other situations, feature prominently. The camera is unflinching - it does not turn away from the ugliness of war and the ugliness of human nature, nor from raw human emotions. The dialog likewise does not censor out the swearing.

The acting is superb and deep, and the script is likewise well written. Everything from rage, to weariness, to resignation, to finding a scrap of joy to hang on to, is rendered almost faultlessly. One complaint might be that some of Russian linguistic and cultural idiosyncrasies may not always be understood by someone not familiar with the language and culture. Because it is a history drama in a sense, some of the terms and situations (military rank, mention of other battles, certain historical references) may be lost on some viewers. This understanding is not needed to thoroughly enjoy Shtrafbat, but these references are a nice touch of authenticity. Another complain that could be levied, is an occasional anachronism and bending of history to suit the plot, but frankly this is such a riveting miniseries that one will likely forgive these slight mishaps.