The Way Back (2010)

Peter Weir is a hard director to pidgeonhole. Take a look at his back catalogue of films and they cover an entire spectrum of genres. It is clear that Weir is not a man who likes to limit himself to the confines of filmmaking. I believe it was the film critic Mark Kermode who recently commented that Weir likes to remove himself from the film and just tell the story as it is. And it is this very reason which makes it nigh impossible to find any stylistic qualities. It's pretty obvious to the majority of us that directors like Quentin Tarantino have their own unique style. Hell, you can tell you're watching a Tarantino movie in the opening credits. So is the journey of 'The Way Back' strong enough to warrant this absence of style?

Well, to answer this we must first look at Weir's past films. 'Dead Poets Society' was a heartfelt masterpiece. 'The Truman Show' was fresh and smart for it's day. So what does 'The Way Back' bring to the table? A lot of walking. And I mean that in the most literal sense. This is a film about a journey. It just so happens that journey involves more onscreen walking than I've ever seen in my life. But more about that later. Let's begin with the plot. Based loosely on memoirs by Slawomir Rawicz, 'The Way Back' essentially tells the story of a band of brothers who escape a Gulag Prison in Siberia, where they are being held as prisoners of war. The story begins in 1939 and the daring escape takes place two years later in Soviet Russia. After this escape, the remainder of the film focuses on the journey the men take to freedom. Now 'The Way Back' is very clear to state it is 'inspired' by true events. Slawomirs Rawicz's account has never been verified so it is left up to you to decide the real truth.

True or not though, Weir has a story to tell and by god, he spends the next 133 minutes doing just that. In the spirit of good news trumping bad news, I'll give you the pros of 'The Way Back' first. The landscapes and scenery used in the film are simply breathtaking. No CGI 'wow' effects. Just the beauty of nature, as you watch a group of men roam the vastness of locations such as the Himalayas. Secondly, the acting is a lesson in perfection. Of course, you'd expect that from veterans such as Ed Harris and Mark Strong (the latter should have been included in the film more!). But lesser known names such as Jim Sturgess and Saoirse Ronan are the true stars of this film. Sturgess playing polish inmate Janusz, converys a great optimism that makes us want to take this journey with him. Ronan brings some of the most emotional scenes to the movie for her role as Russian orphan Irena. Interestingly, this film was released on Boxing Day which qualifies it for nominations at the Academy Awards in February. I think any one of the leads in 'The Way Back' would be very deserving of recognition.

As always, now follows the bad news. The problem is not the plot of 'The Way Back', which on paper sounds fascinating. It's the execution that is poorly handled. It's almost like Weir thought the two steps to success of telling a good story and having a top cast would make an excellent film. And in theory it should. Something just doesn't quite gel for me.Colin Farrell's character is very dislikable and I really couldn't care what happened to him either way (never a good sign). The cast just aren't given enough to work with. Indeed, the most thrilling scenes of the movie come at the beginning, in the Gulag prison. As soon as they escape it's just an endless walk. Which would be okay if more was happening onscreen. The perils they face along the way (sandstorms, wolfs etc) should make for a terrifying ordeal. But after two hours of this journey, I simply didn't have the energy to care. More needed to happen to grab the audience's attention, as I found myself glancing at my watch halfway through.

It's a shame 'The Way Back' doesn't quite pull it off as I admire the director and the cast very much. But for someone like Weir, when you set the moviemaking bar that high, anything less will simply not suffice. On a sidenote, watching this film reminded me a lot of a movie called 'Seraphim Falls' starring Pierce Brosnan and Liam Neeson. It's worth checking that out to make a clear comparison and see, where I believe, 'Seraphim Falls' slightly wins out over 'The Way Back'.

Tron Legacy (2010)

It annoys me that I wasn't on the planet to see 'Tron' in 1982. To witness something that groundbreaking would be truly spectacular. Fast forward 28 years and the follow up to Disney's cult classic is finally upon us. The light cycles, Flynn's arcade and even a young Jeff Bridges all return for the sequel. But not everything has stayed the same. Technology has finally caught up to Steven Lisberger's (returning as producer) original vision. And for a film that relies on technology this is very good news indeed.

So let's get the aesthetics out of the way. 'Tron Legacy' is one of the most stylish films I've ever seen. The visuals surpass even 'Avatar' itself (or at least they do in my opinion). I chose to view this as my first 3D movie experience. Partly because to date, I've never advocated 3D in cinema. And for good reason. The majority of 3D films have dire plots and rely on the technology to fool the audience into believing they are watching a decent piece of cinema. I'm talking about the wave of CGI films that have been streaming through the multiplexes recently, causing suffering parents to part with their hard earned cash for two hours of silence from their kids. Excluding Pixar films of course (which don't require 3D viewing anyway, since the studio's biggest quality lies in their storytelling). Anyway I digress...

The plot of 'Tron Legacy' is by no means it's strongest point and, quite wisely, Disney has chosen to market the visuals above the story. It's the lure of this futuristic, foreign world that draws the audience in. The plot works well enough though and it leaves no loose ends. A subplot involving a race of beings inside the world of 'Tron' called ISO's feels a bit unnecessary and is slightly brushed over to pave the way for the real crux of the story. And this is the relationship between Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges playing himself both old and young) and his son Sam (Garrett Hedlund). Bridges is undoubtedly the star of the film, portraying two very different personas of his being. The young Hedlund does a decent job in conveying the right amount of emotion and the onscreen fictional relationship feels very real. Supporting star Olivia Wilde isn't given much scope and it would have been nice to see more of her relationship with Hedlund. Special mention has to be given to Michael Sheen who revels in an almost unrecognisable role.

So the plot is nothing out of this world (unlike the film's setting). But in all honesty, this is a film that relies on the visuals and I could feel the anticipation in the air as Sam Flynn steps onto the 'grid' and the games begin. It would have been nice to see more of the famous light cycle battles as these make for the most memorable scenes. Also the scenes which happen outside the 'grid' (in the real world), could have been shorter which would have allowed for more scope within the computer world. The soundtrack is a futuristic fusion of electro by Daft Punk and it works astonishingly well within the confines of this alternate plain. And back on the subject of 3D - I'd recommend viewing 'Tron Legacy' like this if you can spare the money. Disney have very cleverly created a transition between the 2D scenes (our world) and the 3D scenes (the computer world). It works in such a subtle way that after a while you forget you're viewing most of this movie in 3D. This allows yourself to be fully immersed in the technology and special effects which make the film almost as groundbreaking as the original was. If any film can convince me of the pros of 3D cinema, it's this.