Skip to main content

Allied: Film Review



Allied: Film Review


Image result for allied movie poster

The pairing of Allied, an old-fashioned spy romance starring Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard, and its director Robert Zemeckis, whose career of late has been consumed with technical gimmicks like motion capture, is somewhat odd. It should not have to take a director on the cutting edge of technology to make a film that presumably could have been made decades ago. But it is the aesthetic choices that make the film what it is; a sumptuous and dazzling throwback to an earlier era of storytelling. 

Pitt plays Max Vatan, a Canadian intelligence office who arrives in Casablanca in 1942. He and Marianne Beausejour, played by Cotillard, must pose as a married couple as part of a plot  to assassinate a high-ranking Nazi. Inevitably, they fall in love and the action follows them to London, where they marry and have a child. The rest of the film follows what happens when Vatan's superiors give him reason to suspect his wife is really a German spy.

It takes movie stars to sell a premise like this, and luckily Pitt and Cotillard have the needed star power to pull it off. Cotillard is captivating. She blurs the lines between real and affected emotion with ease. We are never quite sure what to make of Marianne, and Cotillard takes full advantage of this as she wafts in and out scenes like a cat. Pitt is solid enough, but his lack of chemistry with Cotillard is unfortunate. Luckily, Cotillard carries the movie for the both of them.

The sets and costumes are impeccable. More evocative of a 1940s movie than the actual 1940s, the lavish design elements contribute to the incredibly appealing visual look of the film, as does the gorgeous cinematography by Don Burgess. One particularly great scene: Max goes into a shop to confront the owner. Marianne and the baby wait in the car. Unable to see or hear what's going on inside, we see the terror slowly take over Marianne's face as she stares at the shop's closed door. It's heartstopping.

Allied is a war film that's not really about the war. The war is used mainly as the setting, the backdrop for a psychological thriller. This is particularly noticeable in the London-set section of the film, as Max and Marianne's wedding, the birth of their child, and a party at their Hampstead home are all interrupted by air raids. The approach is not at all subtle, but it gets the point across without having to spell it out in dialogue. The screenplay by Steven Knight allows plenty of time for the set-up, something most films today rush by. The Casablanca-set portion is also the most action-packed part of the film, which is a bit misleading, as the rest of the film operates on a much smaller scale. But it's vital that we see the spies in action; what attracted them to each other in first place. The ending feels both predictable and not entirely earned on paper, but Zemeckis stages it so beautifully that it almost doesn't matter.

The only Oscars Allied has any chance of being up for are in the below-the-line categories (Joanna Johnston's costumes could very well win, and the production design and sound could get nominated). But because this is not the type of film that normally gets nominated for Best Picture (that is, a stodgy, serious prestige drama), that does not make it any worse a film. I get the impression that many of the reviewers of Allied felt the Zemeckis, Pitt, and Cotillard should have instead used their talents to make a serious war drama, and gave the film a negative review because what they got is not what they wanted (See also: The Girl on the Train, another awesome movie maligned by critics for not being serious enough). Do not go see Allied expecting a prestige drama or an action movie. Go see it for what it is, a fun, unabashedly romantic, old-fashioned spy thriller. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Scoob! Review: Scooby Doo's Big Screen Reboot is a Dud

The new film, premiering in people's homes because movie theaters are closed, is an attempt to launch a new shared cinematic universe based on old Hanna-Barbera cartoons. The result is characters from other old shows getting awkardly interpolated in the story of the Mystery Inc gang. Dynomutt and the Blue Falcon (Dynomutt, Dog Wonder) show up, as does DeeDee (Captain Caveman and the Teen Angels, whatever that is). The main villain is Dick Dastardly (Wacky Races), who comes complete with some Minions ripoff robot sidekicks and a plan that involves opening a portal to the underworld or something. It's all very incongruous with the classic Scooby formula, in which the supernatural was almost always revealed to be smoke and mirrors. 
The humor is aggressively topical, referencing smartphones and Tinder and Hemsworths. None of it is very funny, least of all a cameo by Simon Cowell. Is he still relevant? 
Like the recent Charlie's Angles reboot, Scoob! drags its source material in…

Ranking the "Mission: Impossible" Films Worst to Best

The Mission: Impossible movies, based on the 1966-73 television series, are about Ethan Hunt and the Impossible Mission Force doing something that seems impossible at first, but always ends up being possible. Tom Cruise stars in all the films as Ethan, and other members of the team are Luther (Ving Rhames) and Benji (Simon Pegg). I like the Mission: Impossible movies because each film has a different director and thus each one has their own distinctive feel. Sure, there are a couple of constants (Cruise is in them all, they all are spy/action movies, and they all have people wearing masks - a nod to the TV show), but going into a Mission: Impossible movie you are never quite sure what you are going to get. Sometimes it's a silly fun spy franchise, other times it feels like nothing more than an excuse for Tom Cruise do to some sort of crazy stunt. Since the first film was released in 1996, there have been five movies, with a sixth on the way. Here's how I would rank the movies …

Hollwood Surprises No One at Most Self-Congratulatory Award Show of Year: Golden Globes Review

Golden Globes 2017: Review

The Golden Globes are the most pointless award show all season. They are not given by critics or people working in the industry, but rather the HFPA, a group of 89 foreign journalists who are notoriously susceptible to bribes. They nominate sometimes awful films and performances in hopes big stars will show up to their party. It is necessary when selecting a host to find someone who wouldn't feed into the HFPA's already inflated sense of self-importance. Why Amy Poehler and Tina Fey were the ideal hosts for this show is because their jokes, while very funny, were also pointed attacks at the HFPA, the individual stars in attendance, and the celebrity complex as a whole. Ricky Gervais had the same basic idea, except less mean and thus less funny. I was nervous when in August when they announced Jimmy Fallon, the talk show host with a reputation for being nice, as the host of this year's Globes. Turns out I was right to be nervous that Fallon wouldn…