Firstly, let me just say that the TIFF audience did seem to like it and they responded well to it. There were quite a few moments of light humour that were enjoyed and the Q&A session revealed that a lot of people truly were touched by the movie.
Next, let me say that the story was quite powerful. The character played by Farrel was developed and real. It would be hard not to be emotionally effected by this film, and it would be hard not to leave with something to think about.
Unfortunately, a great story and a great character don't make for a great movie. While many of the scenes were spectacular and a lot of the dialogue worked quite well, on a whole the film didn't do its story justice. It actually felt, much of the time, as if I were watching the subplot of another film. In fact, if you've watched enough war films you'll probably find that this movie WAS the subplot to many of those films. That alone doesn't equal a bad film, but it does make it more challenging for the film to hold its own. That didn't happen. Farrel's character--due to his acting as well as the writer/director's desire to explore that type of character--was fine through and through, but the characters around him all tended to speak their lines solely for the purposes of advancing Farrel's character, or to push out a philosophy of war. To illustrate this, just pay attention to the scene in which we're introduced to the grandfather, Christopher Lee's character. That scene introduces a whole back story and turbulent relationship that has nothing to do with anything... it was just pinned on the story awkwardly so as to justify a powerful speech in which he defended his questionable actions in a long-ago war. Well, that's pretty much what the rest of the story felt like. And the payoff wasn't great. It ended mostly how you expect it will end, and gives a message we've heard from a thousand other films.
So, again, if I had the option, I'd give this story a 9/10. The execution of the story remains a 6.
Next, let me say that the story was quite powerful. The character played by Farrel was developed and real. It would be hard not to be emotionally effected by this film, and it would be hard not to leave with something to think about.
Unfortunately, a great story and a great character don't make for a great movie. While many of the scenes were spectacular and a lot of the dialogue worked quite well, on a whole the film didn't do its story justice. It actually felt, much of the time, as if I were watching the subplot of another film. In fact, if you've watched enough war films you'll probably find that this movie WAS the subplot to many of those films. That alone doesn't equal a bad film, but it does make it more challenging for the film to hold its own. That didn't happen. Farrel's character--due to his acting as well as the writer/director's desire to explore that type of character--was fine through and through, but the characters around him all tended to speak their lines solely for the purposes of advancing Farrel's character, or to push out a philosophy of war. To illustrate this, just pay attention to the scene in which we're introduced to the grandfather, Christopher Lee's character. That scene introduces a whole back story and turbulent relationship that has nothing to do with anything... it was just pinned on the story awkwardly so as to justify a powerful speech in which he defended his questionable actions in a long-ago war. Well, that's pretty much what the rest of the story felt like. And the payoff wasn't great. It ended mostly how you expect it will end, and gives a message we've heard from a thousand other films.
So, again, if I had the option, I'd give this story a 9/10. The execution of the story remains a 6.