← Back to Reviews
in
Behind the enemy lines
A Reconnaissance aircraft flying over Bosnian territory gets shot down into the jungle. Having recorded some sensitive information , the pilot(Owen Wilson) becomes the target of a shoot on sight manhunt by Bosnian rebels.
An interesting thing happened with this movie.I remember it being good a long time ago when i watched it the first time. So when i re watched it now, I did like it a lot. But then when i looked up the review for it by Roeper and Ebert, I could find the flaws in the movie. This movie has lot of things going for it. The production values , the topic of the movie and gene Hackman. But once you look closer you will notice that it has lot of commercial elements that make it untruthful. The production value is very good, they shot in European locations and it shows on camera. The gritty look is there. But the direction is not good and very commercial. Quick takes or fast camera movement is included so audience can get the visceral feeling and not through actual directing skills. I think this is one of those movies that explains the difference between commercial movies and artistic movies. It was so close to being an artistic endeavor but ultimately it ends up as commercial movie. You can tell that from the shots of Owen Wilson on top of a hill in the middle of nowhere when he is escaping from enemies.On the face value this looks like a cool shot that has to be included in a big budget survival movie. But it doesn't make any sense. Why would he go to the top of a hill when being hunted as it would make him easier to spot. During a village attack we can see that the protagonist manages to walk past the antagonist dressed in Bosnian soldier outfit and it is sort of a cool hero moment and the scene ends with him revealing his face to audience as he silently escapes so audience know that the character whose back is being followed by camera for the past 7 seconds is the protagonist . But from logical point of view there is no need for him to do that and it would increase his chances of getting caught. All these are commercial elements. There is also a scene involving pile of dead bodies underneath whom the protagonist hides. Its was well shot but it was too obvious. The scene is the most basic thing anyone could have done given the scenario. There was nothing new to it. He hides and they pokes and shots at dead bodies to make sure he wasn't hiding as one of them. But they miss him and he survives. All these are plot holes that are easily ripped apart by critics. People also criticized its portrayal of Bosnians with thick accent as all bad guys.
Now , a comparison could easily be made to the recent movie the revenant. Why was it given the highest number of Oscar nominations the year it was released and something like behind enemy lines is far less successful in every way imaginable. Well , the answer is multi fold. The things to understand here are , its made for 100+ million dollars. It is directed by Innaritu and it stars DiCaprio. That is what I call a high profile project. The admiration for the movie comes in multi fold as well. You have fans of Innaritu in the industry that applaud the movie. If there is one thing that has never happened in Hollywood before and that would be that a commercial director for a studio making a prestige picture being embraced by Oscars. That has never happened. A hired gun by studio never gets to make a prestige project. Ambitious projects take years of experience to pull off. Studio movies have skeletons laid down as to what the story beats need to be to make money. Moreover , established movie stars and actors don't want to take such huge risks with this unproven director. They always fear that their credibility will be misused by these directors to start off as a prestige movie and end up as a commercial movie. So getting to a place like Innaritu is close to impossible.Then you have DiCaprio. One of the most interesting things about Hollywood is that vast majority of actors want to be famous. Yes, they want to work for their craft and make a living and take risks. But in the end they always want to be famous in kick ass movies that are not paint by numbers. A biker going to bar and getting into fights is not appealing but the same fight if it takes place in a wall-street building in a movie done by Martin Scorsese , then its awesome , because people usually don't come to movies to see guys in their office room settings no matter what they do.So the fact that this movie is interweaving office setting with crime and attracting audience surprises people. America is a movie star culture. If an actor can merge that with quality movies then you get both a critical darling and a crowd-pleaser. DiCaprio falls into that category. He is someone who never fails because he wait for the perfect script and when he gets it he finds the perfect director to make that movie. Its a match made in heaven. He is going for making classics with each outing as an actor. Thats only possible if you only work with top directors. Just like Matt Damon wants to work with Steven soderberg, DiCaprio works with Scorsese. But the only difference is , Scorsese is an icon and soderberg is not. Their movies tend to be different in terms of memorability. Lighthearted movies are not memorable. And then the budget, through out the history of Hollywood when a movie is made for more than 100 million dollars the reaction is very polarizing almost all the time. Its either a very good(the dark knight , titanic or avatar) or its the worst movie of the year(water-world, king Arthur, battleship). There is no middle ground for 100 million $ blockbusters. So the pressure on the movies is incredibly high. The interesting thing is they will get publicity. Good or bad. So all these push revenant over the edge and not behind the enemy lines.
Behind enemy lines on the other hand is one of those movies that is very realistic to a point but the camera tricks and the thin story lines and character development sort of wastes all the realism achieved by production budget. The ending scene set piece is barely used and I could easily figure out the miniatures of the climax set used for close ups and Ariel shots in the movie.Which i figured were used while editing the movie when they thought they needed some set up shots. If you can just watch it for fun you will be entertained because the story itself has a cat and mouse structure to it. But the actual film making is very dry. For fellow filmmakers its easy to figure out the flaws but for audience its serviceable. This is probably where most directors end up being if they try their hands at epic scale film making and do a good job . The truly great ones excel and make much better movies. But the rest end up in this semi commercial stuff.Its fun, but that's about it.The appearances by coca cola is really cheesy but that's for american crowd who need to feel that there is familiarity to them even in Bosnia.
A Reconnaissance aircraft flying over Bosnian territory gets shot down into the jungle. Having recorded some sensitive information , the pilot(Owen Wilson) becomes the target of a shoot on sight manhunt by Bosnian rebels.
An interesting thing happened with this movie.I remember it being good a long time ago when i watched it the first time. So when i re watched it now, I did like it a lot. But then when i looked up the review for it by Roeper and Ebert, I could find the flaws in the movie. This movie has lot of things going for it. The production values , the topic of the movie and gene Hackman. But once you look closer you will notice that it has lot of commercial elements that make it untruthful. The production value is very good, they shot in European locations and it shows on camera. The gritty look is there. But the direction is not good and very commercial. Quick takes or fast camera movement is included so audience can get the visceral feeling and not through actual directing skills. I think this is one of those movies that explains the difference between commercial movies and artistic movies. It was so close to being an artistic endeavor but ultimately it ends up as commercial movie. You can tell that from the shots of Owen Wilson on top of a hill in the middle of nowhere when he is escaping from enemies.On the face value this looks like a cool shot that has to be included in a big budget survival movie. But it doesn't make any sense. Why would he go to the top of a hill when being hunted as it would make him easier to spot. During a village attack we can see that the protagonist manages to walk past the antagonist dressed in Bosnian soldier outfit and it is sort of a cool hero moment and the scene ends with him revealing his face to audience as he silently escapes so audience know that the character whose back is being followed by camera for the past 7 seconds is the protagonist . But from logical point of view there is no need for him to do that and it would increase his chances of getting caught. All these are commercial elements. There is also a scene involving pile of dead bodies underneath whom the protagonist hides. Its was well shot but it was too obvious. The scene is the most basic thing anyone could have done given the scenario. There was nothing new to it. He hides and they pokes and shots at dead bodies to make sure he wasn't hiding as one of them. But they miss him and he survives. All these are plot holes that are easily ripped apart by critics. People also criticized its portrayal of Bosnians with thick accent as all bad guys.
Now , a comparison could easily be made to the recent movie the revenant. Why was it given the highest number of Oscar nominations the year it was released and something like behind enemy lines is far less successful in every way imaginable. Well , the answer is multi fold. The things to understand here are , its made for 100+ million dollars. It is directed by Innaritu and it stars DiCaprio. That is what I call a high profile project. The admiration for the movie comes in multi fold as well. You have fans of Innaritu in the industry that applaud the movie. If there is one thing that has never happened in Hollywood before and that would be that a commercial director for a studio making a prestige picture being embraced by Oscars. That has never happened. A hired gun by studio never gets to make a prestige project. Ambitious projects take years of experience to pull off. Studio movies have skeletons laid down as to what the story beats need to be to make money. Moreover , established movie stars and actors don't want to take such huge risks with this unproven director. They always fear that their credibility will be misused by these directors to start off as a prestige movie and end up as a commercial movie. So getting to a place like Innaritu is close to impossible.Then you have DiCaprio. One of the most interesting things about Hollywood is that vast majority of actors want to be famous. Yes, they want to work for their craft and make a living and take risks. But in the end they always want to be famous in kick ass movies that are not paint by numbers. A biker going to bar and getting into fights is not appealing but the same fight if it takes place in a wall-street building in a movie done by Martin Scorsese , then its awesome , because people usually don't come to movies to see guys in their office room settings no matter what they do.So the fact that this movie is interweaving office setting with crime and attracting audience surprises people. America is a movie star culture. If an actor can merge that with quality movies then you get both a critical darling and a crowd-pleaser. DiCaprio falls into that category. He is someone who never fails because he wait for the perfect script and when he gets it he finds the perfect director to make that movie. Its a match made in heaven. He is going for making classics with each outing as an actor. Thats only possible if you only work with top directors. Just like Matt Damon wants to work with Steven soderberg, DiCaprio works with Scorsese. But the only difference is , Scorsese is an icon and soderberg is not. Their movies tend to be different in terms of memorability. Lighthearted movies are not memorable. And then the budget, through out the history of Hollywood when a movie is made for more than 100 million dollars the reaction is very polarizing almost all the time. Its either a very good(the dark knight , titanic or avatar) or its the worst movie of the year(water-world, king Arthur, battleship). There is no middle ground for 100 million $ blockbusters. So the pressure on the movies is incredibly high. The interesting thing is they will get publicity. Good or bad. So all these push revenant over the edge and not behind the enemy lines.
Behind enemy lines on the other hand is one of those movies that is very realistic to a point but the camera tricks and the thin story lines and character development sort of wastes all the realism achieved by production budget. The ending scene set piece is barely used and I could easily figure out the miniatures of the climax set used for close ups and Ariel shots in the movie.Which i figured were used while editing the movie when they thought they needed some set up shots. If you can just watch it for fun you will be entertained because the story itself has a cat and mouse structure to it. But the actual film making is very dry. For fellow filmmakers its easy to figure out the flaws but for audience its serviceable. This is probably where most directors end up being if they try their hands at epic scale film making and do a good job . The truly great ones excel and make much better movies. But the rest end up in this semi commercial stuff.Its fun, but that's about it.The appearances by coca cola is really cheesy but that's for american crowd who need to feel that there is familiarity to them even in Bosnia.