Skip to main content

Allied Shoots to be the Next Great War Romance


          Robert Zemeckis is really going out of his way to prove how versatile a director he is. Would you believe Back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Forrest Gump, and The Polar Express were made by the same man? Allied is just as distinct, at least from his previous works: a World War II romance about a pair of spies with the perfect title. Does he pull this off as much as his other disparate films?
          In the early years of the Second World War, Canadian intelligence operative Max Vatan (Brad Pitt) is sent to Casablanca where he meets his liaison, a French Resistance fighter who’s infiltrated the local society called Marianne Beausejour (Marion Cotillard). Working together on their secret mission, they soon fall in love and later marry. However the relationship becomes a lot more tenuous, at least for Max, when his superiors inform him Marianne may be a German spy. So Max in secret tries to dig up proof that his wife is who she says she is and save her from execution if she’s proven guilty.
          This movie is clearly drawing a lot of influence from classical cinema, especially Casablanca. A number of moments in the first act which is entirely set in Casablanca, as well as even in the latter half feel like almost direct parallels to that film. I can’t blame Allied too much as Casablanca is the gold standard for war-time romances. But there are a few moments where the similarities are distracting. For the most part the film overcomes this thanks to a pretty good tension-fuelled plot. There are a few scenes early on where the threat of exposure creeps up on our heroes, but it’s in the latter parts when the evidence builds up to implicate Marianne that you’re really kept attentive and very engaged with what happens next. Especially when certain developments make you second guess what the outcome will be.
          But this film probably wouldn’t pull any of this off if not for the terrific chemistry between Pitt and Cotillard. Pitt’s performance is smooth as always, but with a sincerity that makes his heartbreak at the idea of his wife being a spy convincing. And Marion Cotillard is not only stunning, but superbly committed, both in her skilled covert work in Casablanca, as well as her subtle suggestions of a duplicitous nature conveyed purely through the strength of her physical performance. The two work with each other very well and their romance comes off as very genuine. It’s built slowly which can dull the films’ overall pace but it makes you all the more invested when it looks like Marianne may have been faking her feelings the whole time. Though the film is concerned with these two front and centre, there are still good performances from a bevy of supporting players including Jared Harris, Simon McBurney, Anton Lesser, Matthew Goode, and Lizzy Caplan. 
          Zemeckis directs with confidence, knowing just when to focus on the characters and the circumstances. The cinematography is very good too, taking advantage of the ravaged London during an air raid, or the beauty of the deserts of Morocco. There’s one scene (a sex scene if you must know) that is shot with a surprising combination of intimacy and claustrophobia that stands out. And one thing I never thought would stick out to me about this kind of film is the costuming which is really appropriate for the period, but nonetheless radiant, especially on Cotillard. Again, it feels very much a callback to classic romances in this regard. Throughout the movie though there is definite melodrama to the romance, and for some it may be a little much. I don’t mind it for the most part, but by the end it is overdone and is trying too hard to again feel like a classic movie.
          If you’re a fan of war-time romances, Allied is probably one you’re going to like. And it has an interesting conflict and theme of how much you can trust someone. If you don’t care so much for this kind of film, you still may enjoy it for the expert direction, great performances, and well-executed tension. It may not be what its filmmakers’ intended, one of the best films of the year, but it is an engaging movie with more than a few reasons to see. I can assure you despite all the comparisons because of a similar set-up and leading man, it’s much a better movie than Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more