According to a review I read, this movie will be shown on TV, in expanded form, as a miniseries but really should be seen on the big screen for the sake of impact. I don't agree; even though the line between TV and cinema is increasingly blurring, the photography here is TV photography... not much graphical complexity to the scenes. Lots of close-ups. And in fact, you can even spot a couple of cuts that are obviously for commercial breaks.
The background of the plot is familiar, at least to many Israelis. (And the story is true down to the names of the characters.) The Yom Kippur War takes the country by surprise and Israeli soldiers are left to fend for themselves at bases overlooking the Suez Canal because the army has more to do than it can handle. Surrounded by enemy troops and with help unavailable, is it better to go down fighting or to surrender? The movie emphasizes two complications: Among the Israeli soldiers, many are wounded and important medical supplies have run out. If the situation drags on, they'll die. But on the other hand, soldiers who surrender themselves will not be surrendering to a merciful regime.
The setup of the dilemma takes a long time, and until the debate about it begins, there seems to be little interesting characterization of the soldiers (other than the protagonist). Maybe the TV version will have more.
One chronic problem of war movies like this is that if any dialogue is to exist, the noise must be reduced to an unrealistically low level. Here, that's particularly true in the makeshift clinic full of wounded men.
In the end, and I'll call this a spoiler because not everyone knows the history, the soldiers surrender and their captors immediately set about beating them up. The truth is soft-pedaled, actually; we don't get to see how long and cruelly the soldiers actually were abused. But it's clear that the movie is meant to make us side with the notion of saving lives by surrendering.
The background of the plot is familiar, at least to many Israelis. (And the story is true down to the names of the characters.) The Yom Kippur War takes the country by surprise and Israeli soldiers are left to fend for themselves at bases overlooking the Suez Canal because the army has more to do than it can handle. Surrounded by enemy troops and with help unavailable, is it better to go down fighting or to surrender? The movie emphasizes two complications: Among the Israeli soldiers, many are wounded and important medical supplies have run out. If the situation drags on, they'll die. But on the other hand, soldiers who surrender themselves will not be surrendering to a merciful regime.
The setup of the dilemma takes a long time, and until the debate about it begins, there seems to be little interesting characterization of the soldiers (other than the protagonist). Maybe the TV version will have more.
One chronic problem of war movies like this is that if any dialogue is to exist, the noise must be reduced to an unrealistically low level. Here, that's particularly true in the makeshift clinic full of wounded men.
In the end, and I'll call this a spoiler because not everyone knows the history, the soldiers surrender and their captors immediately set about beating them up. The truth is soft-pedaled, actually; we don't get to see how long and cruelly the soldiers actually were abused. But it's clear that the movie is meant to make us side with the notion of saving lives by surrendering.
