vimhawk Reviews

Taboo (2017)

Bad history, unbelievable protagonist, brilliant atmosphere

[6/10 · 24 August 2020]

I find this really hard to review since this show does a lot of things really well. It's well acted and conjures up a very atmospheric and apparently realistic vision of London around 1812. However this is a triumph of perception over history. The history behind the series is *very bad*. By the stage negotiations were underway to end the war, there were certainly no American warships anywhere near Britain (nor where there ever), so the map you see near the beginning, and the sub-plot to rearm the ships is ridiculous. The Royal Navy had also picked up most of the US merchant fleet, so to escape from Britain and then hang out the American flag would be a really bad idea. And just getting to sea is no certainty of escape as implied - in fact there would be very little chance indeed of getting out of British waters.

That aside, the protagonist is very well acted though extremely hard to believe. Somehow he gets everyone to do what he wants and offers little in return. He also seems to have perfect knowledge, knowing exactly where to find everything he wants and who to go to, despite not having been in London for years. Compare James Delaney as an anti-hero to (probably not well remembered these days) Jack Ford in "When The Boat Comes In". Jack Ford is so much more real and believable, and he gets people to do what he wants using his brains and their weaknesses. He could easily have been a real person, Delaney less so I think. People also die for James Delaney, but he treats them badly and doesn't seem to offer much. Moreover, Delaney seems to be indestructible having been stabbed and bludgeoned without much ongoing damage. The villains are also somewhat of the pantomime variety. I don't think the East India company could have got to be so powerful if they were that stupid. As for the Prince Regent, he appears to be in the wrong programme, more Blackadder than Taboo. Stephen Graham, Tom Hollander and Jason Watkins, all excellent actors, are somewhat wasted here.

It's hard to rate this series. I compromised on 6 because the acting was good, the period was well created (in terms of visuals), but had to downgrade it in terms of disastrously bad history, and a protagonist I simply couldn't believe in.

When Trumpets Fade (1998 TV Movie)

A note on criticisms

[9/10 · 19 January 2005]

Surprised to find criticism here. This is a film for grown ups. Its about infantrymen, you know, the bulk of the troops in contact with the enemy. Watching other films you might be tempted to think that only Paratroopers and Rangers did any fighting, being made up of highly motivated men with a higher purpose on heroic missions. I note criticism that the cynical nonconformist type should not appear until Vietnam films. I would suggest that a very high proportion of those in combat in WWII also didn't want to be there - my father landed on Sword beach on D-Day and certainly would rather have been somewhere else. We can still respect their sacrifice even though they only wanted to survive, because we are grown up. We don't need a film packed full of sentimentality, directors manipulation and musical cues telling us what emotions to feel... and as to complaining about the plot, how do you defend the absolutely contrived plot of that other film I haven't named (but you can guess which one I mean). See this film. Rant over.

Cross of Iron (1977)

A Military Favourite

[2 September 2004]

I can't add much to these reviews except to comment that I've found this film to be a great favourite among real soldiers. I once got to deliver the classic line to a Major and a Captain about hating all officers. Luckily(?) they knew I was quoting from the film!

I'm not bothered about the assortment of accents in the cast (that others have mentioned). It seems to me that if you believe in their situation and have immersed yourself in the film, as it was easy for me to do, then you don't even notice them after a while. I would argue that the cast (in terms of dialogue) in Private Ryan is far more of a problem, since these seem to be 1990s guys transported back to 1944 and are far too 'knowing'. Moreover, in Private Ryan I kept stepping back from the film feeling that I was simply being manipulated by the director. COI is far more chilling. I really liked (if that's the word) a scene where an artillery explosion killed both Germans and Soviets. Kind of emphasises the 'war is hell' message without preaching or being manipulative.

I think Steiner is one of the greatest military characters ever to appear on film (for what its worth, Gregory Peck as Savage in Twelve O'Clock High, and Jeff Daniels as Chamberlain in Gettysburg are also up there). I must say I didn't really like the ending, but I can't suggest a better one, but as an alternate "ending" I would certainly recommend that people *do not* see the awful sequel 'Sergeant Steiner' with Richard Burton(!) as Steiner.

Twelve O'Clock High (1949)

Savage or not so Savage?

[1 September 2004]

Excellent comments here of substance over style etc. I agree with almost all of them so will not repeat, other than to agree that this is one of the best war films ever - with hardly any action content!

I would just speculate that Gen Savage may not be the strict disciplinarian he appears to be. He is just using his experience to play the role required for the job. I may have remembered this incorrectly, but when he is first being driven over to take command of the 'unlucky' group, doesn't the car stop, and you see him get out of the *front* (ie, next to the driver), throw away his cigarette, then get in the back. Is this perhaps symbolic of his adoption of a role?