Walk On
I regret to say that having finally seen Peter Weir's The Way Back, I now understand why it took so long to find a distributor. It's a high-level outdoor survival drama in a long, gloomy, sloggy vein. It has a rote and rudimentary quality that, for me, places it apart from everything in the Weir canon. The man who made it knew what he was doing, but it was a bad idea or a bum steer or something.
It's not in the realm of Gallipoli or Picnic at Hanging Rock or Master and Commander or The Mosquito Coast, even. It's better than Green Card or The Truman Show, but that's not saying much. I can at least say it's not painful to sit through. Because it isn't.
It's about what people can do when they have no choice but to suck it in and go the extra 4000 miles in order to live. The slogan that wasn't used is "These raggedy men wanted desperately to survive...and they did!" And it's very well acted and convincingly brutal and handsomely framed. It's watchable and absorbing for what it is.
The Way Back is about six or seven guys who escape from a Soviet Siberian gulag in the early 1940s and hike between 4000 to 5000 kilometers to freedom -- across Siberia and Mongolia (including a vast desert), then across the Himalayas and into India. The escapees are played by Jim Sturgess, Ed Harris, Colin Farrell, Gustaf Skarsgard, Alexandru Potocean and Sebastian Urzendowsky. And along they way they hook up with Saoirse Ronan. (Thank goodness nobody tries anything with her.) And the elements are brutal. No one catches a break.
A title card tells us from the get-go that only three finally made it to India so right away you're asking yourself, "Okay, which ones are the weak sisters who are going to crap out along the way?"
I knew going in that anyone making a journey of 4000 or 5000 kilometers on foot will face terrible strain and hunger and hardship. I knew that. What, then, did The Way Back tell me? It told me that making a journey of 4000 or 5000 kilometers on foot involves terrible strain and hunger and hardship.
I'm not persuaded that Weir's story was all that rich or interesting to begin with. It's essentially a film about endurance and surviving the elements and blah-dee-blah. It's about cold and hunger and baking heat and swollen feet and snow and wolves and aching joints and beards and dampness and a big lake and a cave.
A critic friend said that film "seems to last almost as long as the actual trek did." I don't feel that way. The Way Back is not a boring film. It is, however, a "why did they make this film again?" film. It seems as if Weir was just able to get it done and not much else. He and his team deserve approval for having made the effort, but I don't know how anyone can see this thing and then do cartwheels in the lobby. It's just okay, and at times a bit tedious. I didn't mean that. I meant trying.
In Contention's Kris Tapley feels differently. Or did, at least, when he saw The Way Back in Telluride.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 24, 2010 at 8:11 AM
comment #1
Krillian
says ...
Seems to me like it has similar themes to 127 Hours ("what would you do to survive?") but execution is everything.
It's better than Gerry, though, isn't it?
Posted by Krillian
at November 24, 2010 9:12 AM
comment #2
Kristopher Tapley
says ...
See it again if you can. A second look two months later made it settle even better for me, but I like it for the reasons you seem to be reserved. I appreciate the endurance thing and take to films like this which set into your bones and immerse you in the experience. It blends naturalism with an epic sense. We need films like this. We don't need Spider-Man reboots.
Posted by Kristopher Tapley
at November 24, 2010 9:20 AM
comment #3
ModernLifeIsRubbish
says ...
"It's about cold and hunger and baking heat and swollen feet and snow and wolves and aching joints and beards and dampness and a big lake and a cave."
I'll be first in line then.
Even though Wells clearly wrote this to convey a "meh" feeling, it almost intensified my excitement. This film sounds terrific.
Posted by ModernLifeIsRubbish
at November 24, 2010 9:26 AM
comment #4
Adam
says ...
Weir is professionally bland. How awesome that Jeff Wells is once again the voice of reason on something Tapley insists on overrating. But then Tapley's the same guy who declared that Skittles commercial The Lovely Bones one of the best films of last year.
Posted by Adam
at November 24, 2010 9:28 AM
comment #5
Kristopher Tapley
says ...
What are you, five?
Posted by Kristopher Tapley
at November 24, 2010 9:43 AM
comment #6
LarryGopnik
says ...
Adam, Wells was a big fan of that Skittles commercial too.
And Wells, it's Jim STURGESS.
Posted by LarryGopnik
at November 24, 2010 9:50 AM
comment #7
Markj74
says ...
"Weir is professionally bland."
Care to elaborate on that Adam? Picnic at Hanging Rock, Witness and Master & Commander are many things, but bland isn't a word i'd ever associate with them...
Posted by Markj74
at November 24, 2010 9:58 AM
comment #8
gazer
says ...
Jeffrey -
What do you think of the use of music in the film, and what's the runtime?
Posted by gazer
at November 24, 2010 9:59 AM
comment #9
Adam
says ...
The guy who had Bolt as his #2 film of 2008 wants to know if I'm five.
Posted by Adam
at November 24, 2010 10:00 AM
comment #10
Chauncey
says ...
Nature is crooked. I wanted right angles, straight lines.
Posted by Chauncey
at November 24, 2010 10:01 AM
comment #11
Krillian
says ...
Maybe everyone should put up their Top Ten list (and Bottom Five) from last year before they snicker at what others like.
Posted by Krillian
at November 24, 2010 10:14 AM
comment #12
LFF
says ...
THE TRUMAN SHOW is great. More interesting to me than the bloated MASTER AND COMMANDER.
That is all.
Posted by LFF
at November 24, 2010 10:19 AM
comment #13
Kristopher Tapley
says ...
Adam, adults are trying desperately to have a conversation here. I'm truly sorry you hate your own life so much that you're full of vitriol and impotent anger, but even that schtick is grotesquely passe at this stage. At least TRY to be progressive with your insulting demeanor.
Posted by Kristopher Tapley
at November 24, 2010 10:22 AM
comment #14
Raising_Kaned
says ...
Half-wondering what kind of response I would get from markj right now if I dared to classify Jim Cameron films as "professionally bland."
Which, as much as I dig the guy's work, is actually kinda true...
Posted by Raising_Kaned
at November 24, 2010 10:25 AM
comment #15
AlexF
says ...
Having to read through comments, I vastly prefer Adam's "juvenile" posts to Tapley's holier than thou attitude. There's nothing worse.
Posted by AlexF
at November 24, 2010 10:59 AM
comment #16
Kristopher Tapley
says ...
That's awesome, Alex!
Posted by Kristopher Tapley
at November 24, 2010 11:08 AM
comment #17
Jonathan Spuij
says ...
What's with the Truman Show hate still?
Posted by Jonathan Spuij
at November 24, 2010 11:08 AM
comment #18
crazynine
says ...
It's about what people can do when they have no choice but to suck it in and go the extra 4000 miles in order to live.
Then it'd be about people dying, as millions did, when confronted with imprisonment in the gulag.
I haven't seen the movie yet, so perhaps the execution failed, but an escape story-- escape from tyranny, escape from nature-- is all in the execution. And, like a slasher film, trying to figure out which of our heroes will make and which ones won't.
Everything Wells wrote could be applied to The Great Escape, Touching the Void, etc. The story here is fascinating and amazing... if the movie doesn't work, it's the movie's fault, not the story's.
Posted by crazynine
at November 24, 2010 11:28 AM
comment #19
buckzollo
says ...
i admire Weir for making the film, but clearly no one thought about the marketing effort. It is a commitment and enjoyable, but no enough juice for the squeeze. You could tell Weir has been forced to get out and flog it, something he seems conflicted about. I think Weir should next tackle something more obviously commercial.
Posted by buckzollo
at November 24, 2010 11:31 AM
comment #20
pantingkitty
says ...
Adam seems like a Tapley stalker. Do you also know what he eats for breakfast and wears to bed?
The Lovely Bones was incredibly underrated. Just because the Wall of Fanboys that is the net lately didn't get it doesn't mean it wasn't good.
Having said all of that, you couldn't pay me to watch The Way Back again.
Posted by pantingkitty
at November 24, 2010 11:34 AM
comment #21
bmcintire
says ...
Remind yourself to ask "Why did they make this film?" when the Brazilian miners' story finally hits the screen.
Posted by bmcintire
at November 24, 2010 11:39 AM
comment #22
Krillian
says ...
I gotta admit, I feel claustrophobic already thinking about the Chilean miners movie.
i can see Hollywood spicing it up now.
"George Clooney stars as a crusading lawyer fighting for media dignity for several Chliean miners trapped in the ground below, and though cellphones he developers a special bond with one of the miners (Michael Pena) who longs to see his wife again..."
Posted by Krillian
at November 24, 2010 11:49 AM
comment #23
LexG
says ...
You know, I hadn't seen the trailer before, but this does look pretty awesome, gripping, etc, in its particulars...
BUT definitely a case where a big studio would've made sure to cut a better trailer. Maybe it's the no-name studios or the "National Geographic" logo, but something about the trailer above-- the music, the pacing, the SHEEN-- doesn't quite look like a real movie. It has that SERAPHIM FALLS vibe where it almost looks like it should be on the Hallmark Channel, not a wide end-of-year release.
Posted by LexG
at November 24, 2010 12:02 PM
comment #24
actionman
says ...
the way back sounds like a thematic cousin in some respects to 127 Hours. i'll see it fo show.
Posted by actionman
at November 24, 2010 12:03 PM
comment #25
moviegal44
says ...
I have already put the time in reading the book ( The Long Walk ) so obviously I'm going to see the film. And I really thought the book was pretty enthralling.
So for those who haven't seen it yet, reserve the right to at least see it for yourself before you make your mind up about it. It's ironic and funny how wee see things differently. Maybe had Jeff read the book maybe his feelings going into the film would have given him a different disposition and emotional angle towards the film.
I feel like the way Kris described in his first comment. I liked to be challenged when seeing a film. But I know what I'm in for from being familair with the text.
Posted by moviegal44
at November 24, 2010 12:59 PM
comment #26
Markj74
says ...
@CitizenKanedforNappingWells: You'll be shocked to learn I actually agree with you, Titanic being the prime example. Cameron is a great craftsman, not an artist (a good example of this being the difference in the lensing of Aliens compared to the beautiful scope work on Alien). However in his arena, B-movie sci-fi action adventure on a grand scale, Cameron is pretty unbeatable.
Posted by Markj74
at November 24, 2010 2:04 PM
comment #27
JD
says ...
The Truman Show is Weir's best film. Hands down.
Posted by JD
at November 24, 2010 2:23 PM
comment #28
Rashad
says ...
I'm looking forward to this film, and hope it's better than the hyperactive dreck that was 127 Hours.
We don't need Spider-Man reboots.
Come on. They aren't comparable situations.
Posted by Rashad
at November 24, 2010 2:29 PM
comment #29
Gabe@ThePlaylist
says ...
I should have specified my PJ devotion - I do think he's made five straight substance-less movies of declining quality, though King Kong has higher peaks than any of the LOTR films. So, be careful who you stereotype.
Posted by Gabe@ThePlaylist
at November 24, 2010 7:59 PM
comment #30
Gabe@ThePlaylist
says ...
Also, Jesus christ, The Lovely Bones is abortion.
Posted by Gabe@ThePlaylist
at November 24, 2010 7:59 PM
comment #31
Gabe@ThePlaylist
says ...
What is this trend of answering movie discussion with personal insults? Does that change the fact that The Lovely Bones was a perfect storm of bad ideas?
Posted by Gabe@ThePlaylist
at November 25, 2010 6:48 AM
comment #32
pantingkitty
says ...
Gabe, you should never jump right to: I didn't like it so it must be bad. And you state it as fact on top of which. The movie is marred by a bad ending. Other than that, and maybe the Susan Sarandon sequence, it is a really good film - perfect reflects the talents of Fran Walsh and Peter Jackson. Watch it again in ten years.
Posted by pantingkitty
at November 25, 2010 9:39 AM
comment #33
Gabe@ThePlaylist
says ...
Jesus christ, do you know who the fuck you are talking to? Like I'm the person who requires an explanation between personal taste and artistic value. I didn't like it AND it was a terrible movie, where every emotion is telegraphed and tuned to 11. Stanley Tucci plays a fucking boogeyman, Mark Wahlberg plays a mental invalid, and (inappropriately) muted discussion of the girl's rape/murder (pg-13, so you'll never know!) happens right before Sarandon has some wacky drunken grandma montage. The visualization of the afterlife is a candy-coated CGI disaster that only trivializes the actions of Tucci's RIDICULOUS monster. It's a terrible film from someone who, regrettably, only sees things in black and white, and I am STUNNED it's from the same guy who made Heavenly Creatures.
If I liked it, I would remark on how awful my very personal tastes are and then discuss other things I like, such as wayward pornography and fatty foods. I will watch it again in ten years at Peter Jackson's funeral when I become desperate to say something positive about him that no one else has said already, since The Lovely Bones reveals just how one-dimensional his talents can be. I can't wait for him to make a real movie again. Apparently I will be waiting awhile.
Posted by Gabe@ThePlaylist
at November 25, 2010 10:13 AM