welly-4 Reviews

Danger Close (2019)

HOW DO YOU GET THE PRINCIPLE WEAPON WRONG?

[7/10 · 9 August 2019]

From the outset I have to say that I have been waiting 30 odd years for this film to be made after first reading the books about it, so my expectations were high. Overall, a good film, but I do have some issues with it. First and foremost is the inexcusable over-use of American M-16's throughout the film. The 7.62 mm L1A1 self-loading rifle (SLR) was the standard infantry weapon used by the Australian Army during the Vietnam War. Occasional M-16's may have been used here and there by forward scouts (not in this film), but that's a pretty obvious and sad mistake to make. The absurdity of this would also play out when D Company ran critically low of ammunition and required a gallant aerial re-supply - the distribution of two different size types of ammunition; 5.56mm (for the M-16's) and 7.62mm (for the SLR's) on the battlefield would be shambolic at best. There is also a scene in the film that shows the patrolling soldiers all with their weapons pointing the same direction (left). Australian Army infantry patrol with every other soldier's weapon pointing the opposite direction to the man in front (ie; left, right, left, right, and so on) - so that when a contact is made - return fire can be laid down immediately towards the enemy regardless of where the contact came from. My other main criticism of the film is the portrayal of the chain of command being portrayed as so un-professional that every soldier of rank in the film at some stage disobeys direct orders from their superior officer. They even have a scene were a private physically attacks a Major in the field - which then somehow inexplicably evolves into an unlikely schmaltzy bromance. For me this bromance was probably the weakest part of the film (besides using the wrong weapons - did I mention that?) Thankfully the stronger parts of the film such as the initial 'contact' and ensuing battle in the rubber plantation with artillery rounds crashing all around them is outstanding. The impact of soldiers being hit by enemy fire and thrown around like rag dolls from explosions is brilliantly executed. Most of the CG used in the film was OK, - not brilliant, but better than usual for an Aussie film. The scene with the U.S. F4 Phantoms was getting my blood going until the aircraft banked to the left, making me wonder if the CG computer artists have ever actually watched footage of a jet aircraft bank and turn in the air (this criticism isn't in any way reserved for Australian films either - other U.S. big budget blockbusters have equally failed with realistic CG aircraft motion). To conclude, the strong elements of the film in most ways make up for the weak elements and mistakes. The sad part for me though, is that the weak parts and mistakes could have been so easily avoided or overcome that they could have, should have made a more superior film.

3 Acts of Murder (2009 TV Movie)

Brilliant Australian television drama since 'Underbelly 1".

[10/10 · 14 June 2009]

I saw the advert for '3 Acts of Murder' a couple of weeks ago and thought I would like to watch it. By pure chance I did catch it on the ABC last night, and boy, am I glad I did. Great story, made even better by the fact that it is true. Well written, well acted, great direction, beautiful production values - it just blew me away by how good it was. I watched the "Boney" series on TV as a kid and knew of Upfields name, but little else. I was unaware of the controversy surrounding him and the murders of 3 people, and his 'involvement' with the murderer, who was inspired by Upfields research into creating "the perfect crime". After watching the telemovie I jumped straight onto the computer to find out more, and now want to read the book featured in the film. I also loved the relationships explored between Upfield and his wife and son. I would highly recommend anyone who appreciates well-made Aussie drama to see "3 Acts Of Murder" and I implore the ABC to give this telemovie an encore screening.

Kokoda: 39th Battalion (2006)

Not the whole story, but a good one anyway.

[7/10 · 27 April 2006]

I planned to see KOKODA on Anzac Day and was amazed that it wasn't playing at the 2 cinemas nearest me (Great support for local product). I ended up seeing it today (27 April) and am still processing it. However, off the bat I'd say it was very good, but probably less than I expected. Although I generally try to avoid the "hype" surrounding films like this, it was hard to avoid this film's publicity considering the subject matter and the passion it stirs in a country that has now buried all of its World War One heroes. Comparisons to Peter Weir's 'Gallipoli' were probably unfair given that 'Kokoda' is Director Alister Griersons feature debut. You have to wonder how much better it would have been if it was Griersons third feature? Given that though, you have to take your hat off to him and his team for making a great film out of a low budget. The other thing that will probably be a sticking point with some people, and I dare say some veterans of Kokoda, is that the film is less of a definitive film about Kokoda, but a story about a section of soldiers, who happen to be a small part of a much larger picture. This isn't necessarily a criticism, just an observation. I have also heard some veterans express that the swearing was a bit "modern". So for those history buffs that will see it because it is another morsel of information on the subject; enjoy and don't judge too harshly. For those who have heard the name Kokoda, and wonder what it means to the 'ragged bloody heroes' who fought there, see it and judge for yourself. Then read about it. This is just one of many, many stories from the TRACK (Not the 'trail' - which is an American term, not used by the Aussies) For some real stories go to the Australian's At War Film Archive (www.australiansatwarfilmarchive.gov.au) and read some actual transcripts from the soldiers themselves.