[REVIEW] ‘Greyhound’: Hanks Captains Successfully Once Again

July 9, 2020July 9, 2020 | Rachel's Reviews

It is more than a little poetic and ironic that actor Tom Hanks ended up as the first celebrity to get diagnosed with COVID19 back in March. It’s almost like nature saw his likable demeanor and commanding presence in films and knew he could lead all of us in real life as well as in the movies. With this recent turn of events, it’s almost surreal to see Hanks’ new film Greyhound where he once again plays a man who must lead his ship out of rough waters. My only regret is I couldn’t see it on the big screen, as it was obviously intended to be viewed.

Premiering July 10th on Apple TV+ Greyhound is based on the C.S. Forester novel The Good Shepherd and it’s a simple film. Hanks plays Commander Ernest Krause who is a God-fearing man who loves his girlfriend, prays over his food and is eager to complete his first crossing as a commander in the US Navy during WWII. The problem is those darn Germans! They sure get in the way with their wolfpack of U-boat submarines, which did indeed destroy many US ships during the course of the war. Not this ship. No sir. Not today!

In many ways Greyhound is similar to last year’s Midway with the same jingoistic spirit about it. Neither are films for nuance or intricate discussions about the complexities of war. However, the big difference between them is Greyhound is a lean 91 minutes compared to Midway’s 138 minutes. With its minimalist storytelling Greyhound sticks to a plot of good ship, bad U-boat, Hanks needs to win, and that’s what happens and while it is happening we are engaged and rooting for them all to succeed. It’s a war movie and we do see loss but never in a way that makes us fear for our heroes. Some may find the approach too simplistic but there is a place for enthusiastic war stories when they are done well and this is.

It is also easy to compare Greyhound with 2017’s Dunkirk which also strives for a battle experience rather than a character study and some might have similar problems with both films. It’s more about getting caught up in a heroic moment than it is the complexities of the humans experiencing said moment. It’s reminding the world that we have defeated hard things like Nazis before and we can do it again. With Dunkirk we are cheering at the everyday men and women who saved the soldiers lives and in Greyhound we are cheering for Hanks- our every man who fights Nazis on the screen and COVID19 in real life. Like I said, there’s a poetry to it all.

I realize some will want more character development and I can understand that. There are choices in Greyhound that pushed the simplistic approach even for me. For example, the radio dispatches from the wolfpack ships are as sniveling and sleazy as we’ve ever seen from an evil German in a movie. He sounds like he is practically a villain from an Indiana Jones movie for a second. We also have some cringy scenes when the Black chef keeps trying to get our beleaguered commander to eat throughout the battle. But in the end I forgave such problems because the pacing keeps moving and Hanks remains so easy to root for as our leader.

It still pains me I had to watch Greyhound on my laptop and even sadder to think that some will likely watch it on their phone. Such a patriotic rallying cry should be seen on the big screen! Hopefully some day it can happen but until then if you want to cheer on Tom Hanks and other every day heroes facing impossible odds this is your film. I enjoyed it and I bet you will too.

6.5 out of 10

Smile Worthy

Blind Spot 29: Gallipoli

May 9, 2018May 9, 2018 | Rachel's Reviews

This month’s Blindspot pick, 1981’s Gallipoli, is an interesting one because it is my best movie buddy Phaedra’s favorite movie. She is a blogger just like me but at least with prestige pictures we often have very different tastes. We can both have fun at silly films like 47 Meters Down (she went with me and enjoyed it!) but let’s just say our picks at Sundance are quite different. LOL. So knowing Gallipoli was her favorite film and that it was a war movie I prepared myself for some intense stuff. What I got was very surprising. Gallipoli is more of a coming of age film than a war movie and despite a very sad ending is surprisingly hopeful.

Gallipoli stars a very young Mel Gibson (you can definitely see how Gallipoli influenced Gibson’s Braveheart and Hacksaw Ridge) as Frank and Mark Lee as Archy. They are young men in 1915 Australia who meet sprinting together. Archy yearns to go to the war where Frank is more blasé about it but eventually agrees to go along for the ride.

After a long walk through the desert the boys enlist and are sent to Cairo and eventually to the Gallipoli Peninsula at Anzac Cove. Surprisingly we don’t see much of the war or any fighting until the final act. Most of the time is spent getting to know Frank and Archy and their friends. In many ways it reminded me of Chariots of Fire in the slice of life portrayal of young boys trying to figure out what they believe in.

When we get to the ANZAC attack it is quite devastating because the characters have been built up so well. The most frustrating part of the bloodshed is that it is based upon a miscommunication between 2 officers, not on any actual need to fight. I don’t want to give away too many spoilers but Frank desperately tries to stop the advancement as a messenger in the final scenes and it is very intense.

In many ways it makes sense that Peter Weir directed Gallipoli. He always has a way of bringing out sincere and moving performances from young actors (Dead Poets Society, Witness) and this is probably his best movie. I was really engrossed in the story and felt attached to Frank and Archy as their journey progressed. There were light moments where you got to know them as people that made the losses of war feel all the more real and devastating. It was very well done.

I also thought all the production values were strong in Gallipoli. The cinematography was striking capturing the dry, deserts of both Australia and the Anzac Cove. It also had fantastic music featuring both modern electronic and classical orchestrations. The war scenes felt convincing, which helped build the tension well and drew me into the story. I recently watched a WW1 movie called The Journey’s End and it was so dull, so I know this is not an easy task to achieve.

What makes Gallipoli a hopeful film is promise and potential we see in Frank, Archy and their friends. Yes they were put in a war and that is awful but seeing that potential and getting to know these characters is still a good thing. Hopefully we can see the joy and dreams in young people today and do a better job at not snuffing it out far too early. Even the imagery of Archy running throughout the film (and in the closing shots) is hopeful.

Gallipoli is a great movie, and it should be talked more about as such. I think it is even better than Saving Private Ryan to be honest (both good films). It develops its characters better and builds up to the battle instead of starting with it. This makes you more invested (and devastated) with what is happening. There was a humanity in Gallipoli that moved me because it wasn’t just a clinical exercise but a story of 2 young men who wanted to run but ended up being unable to outrace the foolish decisions of their generals.

Dunkirk Review

July 23, 2017July 24, 2017 | Rachel's Reviews

There are few directors that inspire such fanaticism and devotion as Christopher Nolan. Fortunately usually his name is worthy of such adulation. In my opinion, he hasn’t come out with a bad movie yet. His latest film, Dunkirk, is an unusual movie but in the end an amazing experience at the movies.

Watching Dunkirk reminded me of the Civil War reenactments that are popular where I grew up. People gather together to recreate a battle and while they have character names the battle is the important thing not the narrative. Likewise Dunkirk is a reenactment of a battle without a narrative to accompany it. I can see how this would annoy some viewers but it is executed so well that it worked.

Nolan splits up Dunkirk into 3 parts- mole, sea, and air. Each of these segments follow different people and are at slightly different timetables. This means you see the same boat sink 3 times, same plane get shot down 3 times etc. However, each time you are seeing it from different perspectives.

There is Harry Styles as a soldier on the ground looking out for a mole in their midst. Then Tom Hardy is in the air trying to take down German planes. And finally Mark Rylance commanding a pleasure boat to be one of the many civilians who aided the trapped soldiers at Dunkirk.

Of all the narratives I think Mark Rylance and his sons works the best and is the only point that made me cry. You don’t learn anyone’s names or their backstories but it still moved me the most.

Truth is Dunkirk is an experience more than it is a movie. It works because it is so well made and immersive. You feel like you are on the ground with those troops or on the boat with Mark Rylance. The sound design is so great it can be shocking that it is not real. It makes you want to reach out and help the boys as if they were right beside you. It’s that real.

All the performances are top notch and in pretty much every way it is masterfully made on a technical level. It was an amazing experience to feel war on such a visceral and intimate level.

However, often these experience movies are not the most rewatchable of films. I don’t think every movie needs to be rewatchable but it is something to think about. I don’t think it would have the same impact on the small screen. It wouldn’t be as immersive or real and I might start itching for more character development.

I recommend you go and see Dunkirk in the theaters, in IMAX if possible (the 70mm option wasn’t available for me unfortunately). It’s an experience you won’t soon forget. It’s not a narrative. It’s a reenactment and in that regard it is quite special.