Sergei Bondarchuk's Oscar winning seven hour adaption of the Leo Tolstoy novel we all know, but probably never read, was made in response to King Vidor's 1956 American-Italian co-production. After it was released in the Soviet Union in 1959, the entire Russia film industry took it as a matter of pride that they had to produce a more authentic and superior version of their own national epic, and the state agreed, loaning out 10,000 soldiers for the battle sequences. And what battles they are! We'll never see anything made on this sort of scale ever again. For me, the key test for any old school epic to pass is to keep me entertained for its entire length, and amazingly, this managed just that. Sure, being able to take breaks during the individual parts helped, but even when watching them I was never bored. I do have some minor issues with Bondarchuk's direction, mainly his choice of transitions, filters, and use of wipes to create split screens. Some worked well while others just make the film feel more dated. It was also a mistake to cast his fortysomething self as the twenty year old Pierre. Even with the massive runtime, many of the book's characters are either cut or given reduced roles, keeping everything almost entirely centred around Pierre, Natasha and Andrei. This makes for a more focused film, but does reduce many of the secondary characters to glorified extras. However, towards the end even the main characters are being overshadowed by all the spectacle.
Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐
Over four hours long and shot in 65mm, this was Kenneth Branagh big attempt to turn Hamlet into a sweeping epic, and probably regain some of his artistic dignity after the disaster that was his Frankenstein adaptation. Alas, he didn't quite succeed in either aim. The film's biggest problem isn't its length, although it is an issue at times, but Ken's tendency to get too carried away with himself, both as an actor and director. This really could've done with a strict producer to put their hand on Ken's shoulder and say “Mate, tone it down a notch.” Some scenes, like where Hamlet chases his father's ghost into the woods, are so manically shot and edited they end up being completely disorientating. Only the soliloquies go uncut in order for the audience to experience the full force of the headliner's central performance. It's ironic how Branagh manages to get good performances out of his entire cast except for himself. Without anyone to say no, he too often gives into his worst instincts and starts playing to the gallery. One of the studio's stipulations for funding such a long film was that it feature an all-star cast (along with an abridged cut for wider release), so Branagh fills out all the smaller roles with A-listers and Oscar winners who often just pop in to say an single line and then leave. It does look and sound great thanks to lavish sets, costumes and Patrick Doyle's score, but it does show there really is such a thing as too much stylistic flair.
Rating: ⭐⭐⭐
Sergei Eisenstein had plans for a few different films after completing Alexander Nevsky, but Stalin tasked him with producing a film about one of his idols, Ivan IV of Russia, that would rehabilitate his son murdering image. Eisenstein came up with a three part film, but only the first two were ever completed. Part I is exactly what Stalin wanted (you can practically see him backseat directing), presenting Ivan as a strong leader, beloved by the common people, who fights against the corruption of the self-serving aristocrats, who are all in the pocket of foreign powers. But then Stalin took his eye off the ball and Eisenstein, possibly sensing his own impending death, just did whatever he liked for Part II, throwing in musical numbers and colour sequences as he chronicled Ivan's descent into paranoia, madness and tyranny. Unsurprisingly, Stalin hated it and had the film banned (it was finally released after his death) and all work on Part III scrapped. Eisenstein died of a heart attack two years later. Ivan the Terrible is a difficult work to judge because it is both incomplete and was made under the thumb of an egotistical dictator. There are enough flashes of genius, though, to convince me that if Eisenstein had been left to his own devices for the entire production he would've produced something truly magnificent.
Rating: ⭐⭐⭐
During the late 50s and early 60s, Charlton Heston (back when he was a liberal instead of a gun loving right wing nutjob) was the undisputed king of the epics, starring in mega scale movies like The Ten Commandments, The Big Country, El-Cid, and Ben-Hur. Religious epics were big money back then, and this was the biggest of them all, mixing the fictional story of revenge seeking Jewish prince Judah Ben-Hur (Heston) with the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, thus ensuring it a permanent place on Easter TV schedules. It's best remembered for the central chariot race between Ben-Hur and his rival Messala (Stephen Boyd) because 1) it remains one of the most spectacular scenes ever put on screen, and 2) the rest of the film is such a boring slog to get through. Sure, it has grandeur coming out of its backside, but it's a constant struggle to stay awake long enough to admire any of it. It might've won 11 Oscars (a feat that has been matched yet never beat), but I've always found this to be an agonisingly dull film choking on its own self importance.
Rating: ⭐⭐
One of the issues I have with a lot of old school epics is that they tend to have scale, but no style, resulting in a lot of stiff looking films. That has never been an issue with Lawrence of Arabia, David Lean's account of the career of British Army officer T.E. Lawrence and his involvement in the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. Lean's direction, coupled with Freddie A. Young's photography and Anne V. Coates' editing, is dynamic and awe inspiring. Those many treks across the vast desert vistas, bolstered by Maurice Jarre's majestic music, are simply a work of art. The entire venture is anchored by a pair of star making performances from Peter O'Toole and Omar Sharif as Lawrence and Ali. It's fair to say that the film is all about the tragic love these two men shared for each other, but the censorship of the time prevented it from just coming out and saying it. Admittedly, some aspects of the film have not dated well. It has a serious brownface problem as well as a very Western perspective on events. It could also be argued that the whole thing is just one big white saviour narrative, but I think that's kind of the entire point. Lawrence sees himself as the saviour and liberator of these people, arrogantly assuming he knows best in that oh so British way, and ultimately buys into his own hype and legend, leading to his eventual ruin.
Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Clocking in at nearly four hours (over if they ever release the director's original cut), this mob epic chronicles the life and crimes of a group of Jewish gangsters (Robert De Niro, James Woods, James Hayden, and William Forsythe) from their youth in the 1920s, through Prohibition and betrayal, and right up to the 1960s. This was Sergio Leone's final film as well as the concluding chapter of his Once Upon a Time Trilogy which also included Once Upon a Time in the West and Duck, You Sucker! (also known as A Fistful of Dynamite or Once Upon a Time... the Revolution). This isn't my favourite of the three. I prefer it to Duck, You Sucker!, but it pales in comparison to Once Upon a Time in the West. It's one of those films I'd admire more for the craft that went into making it than for the actual story it tells. Like all of Leone's films it looks and sounds amazing (I could listen to Morricone's score all day), but what I probably love most is the production design and many ways the central sets and locations change across the decades. The story makes no attempt to portray these characters sympathetically; they are unpleasant people who do unpleasant things. Problem is the script doesn't balance out their loathsomeness with any depth or complexity. De Niro's Noodles is just a shitbag and nowhere near as fascinating as some of the other shitbags he has played in his long career of playing shitbags. The film's other big problem is how it treats all its female characters, which just isn't good at all and makes it difficult to watch at times.
Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐
After a decade in Hollywood, which culminated in the career low of Paycheck, John Woo returned home in the mid-2000s to make this historical war drama. Set in Imperial China during the final days of the Han Dynasty, it is loosely based on the legendary Battle of Red Cliffs where a group of southern warlords united to battle the numerically superior forces of the northern warlord Cao Cao. Coming in at nearly five hours, Red Cliff never really justifies its immense length. It spends far too much time spinning its wheels between the battles, which are certainly very expensive looking, but not all that exciting. The characters are all fairly basic. The heroes are all honourable men and ferocious fighters capable of taking on whole platoons by themselves, while the villain is a devious git who uses dirty tricks and laughs maniacally. He tries his best, but Woo just can't seem to resist a lot of the cheesy melodrama that was typical of his earlier action movies, but feels out of place in a film like this.
Rating: ⭐⭐
Mark Greig has been writing for Doux Reviews since 2011 More Mark Greig
Mark, your movie knowledge continues to amaze me.
ReplyDeleteI must admit to a fondness for Ben-Hur. I always liked Charlton Heston, undoubtedly because of the classic sci-fi films he did, and Ben-Hur was indeed on every Easter during the olden days pre-cable/pre-streaming. The chariot race got me every time.
I've also seen Lawrence of Arabia and I remember being impressed, but it was a long time ago and I honestly don't recall the details.
Lawerence of Arabia was another movie that I watched during the early-June haze of high school. (Same class where I had to watch A Man for All Seasons.) I remember absolutely nothing about it beyond Lawerence dressed all in white. I think I wrote Supernatural fanfiction in my notebook instead of paying attention.
ReplyDeleteI... may have also seen this version of Hamlet? But I might be confusing it with the one with David Tennant.