Lone Survivor (2013) – Review

Review: Lone Survivor is an intense war action/drama that succeeds as a rousing tale of survival against all odds. The film is about the 2005 Operation Red Wings. A four man SEAL team, including Marcus Luttrell, Michael Murphy, Danny Dietz, and Matt ‘Axe’ Axelson, is dropped behind enemy lines in Afghanistan to do recon on a top Taliban target. However, everything goes wrong when the four SEALs come across three goat herders and are face with the moral quandary of whether to let them go and risk likely discovery by a large Taliban force or kill them and keep their presence in the area unknown. The team decides to let the herders go. Now, they are confronted with impossible odds as a large army of Taliban fighters moves in on their position (plus, their communications are down and they are somewhat trapped on a mountainside).

Writer-director Peter Berg does almost everything right with his treatment of this true story. It is respectful to all parties involved (more or less – I mean, the Taliban is clearly the evil villain, but I think most would agree to that being a true statement in almost every case), but is triumphant as a heroic (patriotic) story (with a very surprising twist). The politics are difficult – should American troops even be in Afghanistan is a reasonable debate – however, Berg side steps politics for the most part. Instead, the film just tells the story of the men involved in the operation in a straightforward manner and what happened to them.

The characters too are not used as platforms for political statements one way or another. Berg takes almost a procedural approach to the material. The SEALs, like most in the armed forces, are fighting for the guy next to them. They just want to do their job well and come home to their families safe. But with Operation Red Wings, that was just not the case.

Berg is unflinching in his portrayal of the action, detailing it very specifically with each wound and casualty felt. The film is intense and gripping to say the least. The shooting-style that Berg employs also gives it a very realist look and feel. The audience feels like they are right there in it with the characters, which is very effective. It is hard to not feel something at the end of the film – a rallying call of sorts for support and appreciation for our armed forces and the men and women who serve and sacrifice for an idea (ideal). To see these men, who are introduced to the audience as likable, average American men (though, highly skilled in their field), essentially tore apart is heart wrenching.

And yet, the film is manipulative as well. Berg knows just how to win the audience over emotionally. The SEALs and those that aid them are clearly the heroes while the Taliban is clearly the villain. There is no grey area (which is maybe a missed opportunity to explore the other side’s motivations – be them whatever they may be). In this way, the film is a bit like a classic western with white hats and black hats or cowboys and Indians. One side is stoic and heroic, while the other side is vicious, despicable, and just plain evil. Real life is not often that way. But again, as a treatment of this story from the perspective of the SEALs, the story is told very effectively.

On one hand Lone Survivor is a brutal and harrowing war drama and on the other hand it is a heroic action survival narrative, and it works as both. If nothing else, it is clear that these men desperately fought tooth and nail for each other and that is inspiring and heart breaking (because these men were like brothers to each other) regardless of one’s politics.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Peter Berg is at his best when he tells stories that are action driven but with good, likable characters (like Lone Survivor). I think his best and most entertaining film is still The Kingdom, but Lone Survivor is a close second (I also like Friday Night Lights). Lone Survivor has a strong emotional impact that is sure to resonate with audiences (especially in America).

The film feels very authentic overall, and that is thanks to Tom Duffield’s production design steeped in realism and Tobias A. Schliessler’s naturalistic cinematography. The film almost feels like a documentary at times, especially with the great real footage used during the opening credits detailing the rigors of the SEALs’ training program. The score and music by Steve Jablonsky and Explosions in the Sky also play a big role in the emotional impact of the film, heightening the action and emotional beats.

For the most part the film is delivered as a story and action driven narrative, but sneakily Berg actually seems to make the action and story feel secondary to the characters, which is chiefly the reason why this film is so powerful. It is not so much that these characters are terrifically developed, more that they are just very relatable and likable. The film also benefits from strong performances across the cast, who deliver work that too feels very realistic (most of the extras were played by real life members of the U.S. armed forces). The audience cares about these characters, which makes all the difference in the world. Alexander Ludwig, Eric Bana, Ali Suliman, and Rohan Chand are all very good in small supporting roles. Ben Foster is a fantastic character actor. Here, he plays Axe with an edge. He is a soldier who cares deeply about his friends and is willing to cross moral lines to see their survival. The film presents its moral question, quickly goes over the options with some discussion to which is ‘right’, and then the SEALs decide and move forward without dwelling on their choice. They simply do what they think is ‘right’ at the time, in the moment. Emile Hirsch plays Danny, the team’s radio operator. He plays his character as a man in awe of his fellow soldiers, a man who very much wants to live up to their high standards and expectations. Taylor Kitsch plays Lieutenant Michael Murphy, the leader of the four-man team. Murphy received the Medal of Honor for his actions on the day, and Kitsch plays him with strength and courage under fire – a man that all the others like and respect. Mark Wahlberg plays Marcus Luttrell, the lone surviving member of the SEAL team. He captures the spirit of perseverance with his will to keep going. He also creates a strong emotional connection with the audience.

Summary & score: Lone Survivor is a very good war/action drama, telling an incredible story of survival and humanity in the direst of circumstances. 7/10

Savages (2012) – Review

Review: Savages is a decent crime thriller with some good performance and action, but ultimately hindered by an awful ending and poorly developed characters. The film is about two independent pot distributors in California, Ben and Chon, and their shared girlfriend O. Ben is a peace-loving guy, who double-majored in botany and business, while Chon is an ex-Navy Seal. Their business is running smoothly and successfully until a Mexican cartel wants to partner with them, looking to expand their operation north of the border. Ben and Chon refuse, and so the cartel takes O hostage, setting Ben and Chon on a dangerous course as they try to get her back. What immediately sticks out about this film is director Oliver Stone’s visual style (it reminds me a lot of a Tony Scott film, but is also reminiscent of Stone’s Natural Born Killers, as if Stone is trying to recapture that films success and present it to a modern audience). Stone distorts the viewer’s perspective using quick cuts, image discoloration and black & white, all in an attempt to visually put the viewer in an anxious and uneasy position (resembling what the characters are feeling). The style in less capable hands could (and probably would) be distracting and even annoying, but Stone is skilled enough to employ it to the benefit of the film’s narrative. The problem, however, is that Stone does not develop the main characters quite enough, and thus the viewer is not fully invested and the visual style is not exploiting the viewer to its full effect. The relationship(s) between O, Chon and Ben is mostly told to the viewer through O’s narration throughout the film, rather than being shown visually. Stone does have some character moments between them, but their real bond is not really apparent from what the viewer sees (though, again, O tells us that they all love each other). Stone tries to convey this with three sex scenes, but most of the other scenes between O, Chon and Ben are mostly just exposition filled to push the story forward. However, without the emotional foundation the sex scenes are only physical and do not tap into a deeper more character driven emotional development for the viewer. Stone has a lot of plot to get through, and the film is just not structured efficiently enough to include satisfying character development to show in a meaningful way why O is so important to Chon and Ben, and why Chon and Ben love each other more than anyone else. But, Stone does present the narrative in an entertaining manner with fun supporting characters and well-staged action to keep the viewer interested and engaged. Plus, the story is compelling to a degree. The major flaw, however, with the film is its ending. SOME SPOILERS AHEAD – Stone tries to give the audience the best of both worlds – one with real consequences and one where everyone lives happily ever after (for the most part). The problem is that by doing this, Stone negates any emotional investment that the audience might have had in the film (which is already small to begin with due to the lack of good character development). The consequences ending is done to give the film a grand action sequence, which the film builds towards, but then by having it be just an imagined ending followed by sort of a cop-out ending (in comparison) the viewer feels cheated, and the characters feel even more hollow as the stakes were never real because there are no consequences. It makes the whole film sort of pointless. Either ending alone would have been fine, but by Stone giving both he negates the power of both – END OF SPOILERS. Savages is not a great crime thriller, but despite its poor ending and underdeveloped characters it still has enough good stuff (the negotiation scenes for example are the most interesting, as Stone sort of juxtaposes the seedy dealings of drug deals with the jargon and tactical strategy of big business) to make it entertaining and worth renting for genre fans.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: With each Oliver Stone film, the promise of a comeback (or return to his previous status as one of Hollywood’s best directors, as he was in the 1980s and 1990s) is again brought up. And again, with Savages, the promise is dashed. It seems to come down to Stone’s inability to give characters enough dramatic weight and the narrative focus – Alexander is un-engaging with poorly drawn characters, World Trade Center is rife with clichés and tear-jerking audience exploitation, W. is unpolished and uneven, and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is again unfocused and dull. Savages is maybe overdone with too many story elements at the expense of the characters, again leaving the film kind of un-engaging (especially for those more interested in characters than action and style) pointing to Stone’s seeming inability to focus his narratives. Adam Peters’s score plays mostly a background role, emphasizing the narrative beats. The found music soundtrack stands out more, fitting the tone well. Daniel Mindel’s cinematography is very good. The film has a very mixed color palate, stylistically trying to match the scene specific tone in many cases. Mindel does a great job lighting the atmospheric scenes. Tomas Voth’s production design also compliments the tone, as his sets along with Mindel’s photography reinforce the emotional state of the characters and work to also push the audience into an equally anxious state. While the three leads in the film are decent (maybe bordering on flat), many of the supporting performances are very good. Emile Hirsch and Shea Whigham are great in small roles. Salma Hayek does good work portraying the vulnerability and power of the woman at the top of the cartel. John Travolta is very slimy and slippery as the DEA agent Dennis just looking to come out unscathed and ahead if possible. Benicio Del Toro is brilliant as Lado, a henchman who is looking for a bigger role. He plays Lado as a smart man who knows his business, but also ventures over the edge into psychopathic killer territory with sort of a menacing glee. His performance is the best aspect of the film. Blake Lively is adequate as O, but she is not emotionally engaging, and seems distant from what is happening to her (which is maybe because she is playing someone perpetually stoned?). Taylor Kitsch (continuing is streak of poor film role choices) is intense and does convey a deeper side with his eyes, but as stated above Chon is not given a lot of character moments. He is just stoic for the sake of clichéd lazy stereotyped characterization. The same can be said of Aaron Johnson. He is decent in the film, but plays Ben as the weak side of ‘Chon and Ben’, also relying on overused characterizations.

Summary & score: Savages can be called an entertaining decent crime thriller, but also yet another disappointing overall film from Oliver Stone. 6/10