Post by JangoB on Jul 13, 2020 19:33:04 GMT
I was recently assigned with translating an episode of the National Geographic docu-series called "WW2: Hell Under the Sea" and all the way through "Greyhound" I couldn't help but feel how similar it was to that NatGeo thing. Not only in terms of its storytelling which felt more like chronicling rather than creating a narrative but also in the way the battle sequences were presented...which was basically like a videogame.
I suppose war buffs are the primary target audience for this so they'll probably find the film to be satisfying. And I'm all in all fine with it being less about the people and more about a specific war mission - it's not the first and surely not the last war film to focus on the step-by-step recreation of historic events. In theory that's all fine if the filmmaking is thrilling or exciting enough. Unfortunately this wasn't the case for me in this movie. The pacing is efficient for sure but Aaron Schneider simply seems like the wrong fit for this type of film. I feel like it needed an experienced action director with a strong vision - instead we get a bland collection of scenes without much suspense or visual ideas. I don't think the film contained any noteworthy shots or moments at all and it is in this lack of cinematic imagination that its main flaw lies for me. All of the naval action is portrayed through boring fake-looking CGI which doesn't have any heft or punch. It was impossible for me not to think of "Dunkirk" and its pull for realism of its war action with real ships, real planes and real water on the screen. The difference is immense. And it's immensely vital.
Hanks anchors the action well as always but this is decidedly not a performance that is supposed to catch our attention as the movie is not character-based at all. Still, there're effective bits where he quietly portrays an emotional side of his character. The most human storyline in the movie concerns a cook (played by the great Rob Morgan) who just can't get Hanks to eat something during the battles and I found all of that to be quite moving. There's also a perfunctory flashback with Elisabeth Shue which is supposed to inject something human in the movie but I thought it wasn't necessary at all. A glance at some photograph would've sufficed.
A disappointment for me. What did you folks think of the latest Tom Hanks joint?
I suppose war buffs are the primary target audience for this so they'll probably find the film to be satisfying. And I'm all in all fine with it being less about the people and more about a specific war mission - it's not the first and surely not the last war film to focus on the step-by-step recreation of historic events. In theory that's all fine if the filmmaking is thrilling or exciting enough. Unfortunately this wasn't the case for me in this movie. The pacing is efficient for sure but Aaron Schneider simply seems like the wrong fit for this type of film. I feel like it needed an experienced action director with a strong vision - instead we get a bland collection of scenes without much suspense or visual ideas. I don't think the film contained any noteworthy shots or moments at all and it is in this lack of cinematic imagination that its main flaw lies for me. All of the naval action is portrayed through boring fake-looking CGI which doesn't have any heft or punch. It was impossible for me not to think of "Dunkirk" and its pull for realism of its war action with real ships, real planes and real water on the screen. The difference is immense. And it's immensely vital.
Hanks anchors the action well as always but this is decidedly not a performance that is supposed to catch our attention as the movie is not character-based at all. Still, there're effective bits where he quietly portrays an emotional side of his character. The most human storyline in the movie concerns a cook (played by the great Rob Morgan) who just can't get Hanks to eat something during the battles and I found all of that to be quite moving. There's also a perfunctory flashback with Elisabeth Shue which is supposed to inject something human in the movie but I thought it wasn't necessary at all. A glance at some photograph would've sufficed.
A disappointment for me. What did you folks think of the latest Tom Hanks joint?
