'71

ancapailldorcha

Starring Jack O'Connell from Starred Up this looks like it could be quite decent. I'm a big fan of films based on the troubles so I'm really looking forward to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIYDNyEkJP4

Looper007

Well it got Rave reviews at Berlin Film Festival, and the word going around in a few film magazines that it's a pretty gripping piece of cinema. Jack O'Connell has a bit of the Tom Hardy about him, he's already giving a awesome performance in the brilliant Starred up. Really Looking forward to this film.

gazzer

Looper007 wrote: »

Well it got Rave reviews at Berlin Film Festival, and the word going around in a few film magazines that it's a pretty gripping piece of cinema. Jack O'Connell has a bit of the Tom Hardy about him, he's already giving a awesome performance in the brilliant Starred up. Really Looking forward to this film.

Watched Starred Up at the weekend. Brilliant movie. Jack O'Connell is such a good actor.

Looper007

gazzer wrote: »

Watched Starred Up at the weekend. Brilliant movie. Jack O'Connell is such a good actor.

He was something special in Skins Generation 2 and was the real stand out from that cast, a bit like Nicholas Hoult was in Generation 1.

cloud493

This is out tomorrow, pretty excited to see it.

DrFloppy

Film of the year for me so far. Reviews are 4 stars almost across the board for some reason. This is a 5 star masterpiece. Fairly traumatic mind.

cloud493

Well goddamn, that was brilliant. I agree, one of the best films of the year. Who'd have thought Jack O'Conell would be such a good actor.

biko

Came across the trailer today, looks good indeed.

wp_rathead

Doesn't seem to be in any cinema in Galway which is a pain- the reviews and the trailer make me really wanna see it.
Someone described it as "Die Hard-esque" which sounds fun

EDIT: Dublin only this week so in Eye Cinema from 17th Oct

Looper007

cloud493 wrote: »

Well goddamn, that was brilliant. I agree, one of the best films of the year. Who'd have thought Jack O'Conell would be such a good actor.

It was a excellent film and one of this years best. I loved the fact that you could have set this anywhere at anytime as it wasn't another "troubles" film rather a top notch thriller that had me and anyone around me (the screening was full for this when I went to see it) gripping our seats. They don't make cat and mouse chase films like this anymore.

O'Connell has two of the best films of this year under his belt and two top notch performances (check out the brilliant Starred Up) and it doesn't surprise me he's a top actor, he proved it at any early age with This Is England and he was by far the best thing in Skins generation 2. He's got the Tom Hardy vibe about him. What I loved about his character in this they didn't make him into Liam Neeson type armed solider with all sorts of different skills rather a frightened man who's living on his wits and will alone just wanting to get back to safe ground. Nearly all the film he doesn't say a word its all played on his face and one scene stands out to me

when he is screaming in pain as a man tries to heal his wounds is actually really frightening

. Top notch acting.

No one side comes out of this looking good at all so you can't accuse the film of taking sides

The British are seen as killers of their own men and stupid, helping supply UVF with bombs and willing to cover anything up to save their bacon and members of the IRA are seen as rats

. Sean Harris with dodgy sideburns and hair is brilliant as the dodgy police man (does he play anything else). You will spot great Irish talent in David Wilmot and some of the cast from Love/Hate in it (Killian Scott and Charlie Murphy). The Ending

Where everything is covered up is a little downbeat and Harris character gets away with it

but the film belongs to O'Connell who really is turning into one of the best young actors around.

cloud493

One of the little bits I liked best was

when he's the bedroom with the girl, and he says he's from Darbyshire, and she says her family have relatives in Nottingham. He then says people from Darbyshire and Nottingham don't like each other very much, but when she asks why, he just says he doesn't know.

fryup

Looper007 wrote: »

No one side comes out of this looking good at all so you can't accuse the film of taking sides .

which makes a refreshing change, as most movies about the troubles have a pro republican/nationalist slant

Ciaran_B

There were a couple of silly plot contrivances but they didn’t take away from an otherwise excellent film.

ancapailldorcha

I was expecting this to focus a bit more on the Troubles. Otherwise, it's a superb thriller/chiller. Making O'Connell's character a rookie as opposed to a Bryan Mills type character is a fantastic idea and a great way of conveying tension.

yermandan

Yer man is a fantastic actor

scouttio

yermandan wrote: »

Yer man is a fantastic actor

You talking about yoursef in the 3rd person again?

I agree though, oscar buzz surrounding his role in Unbroken already, Angelina Jolies latest

charlie_says

Probably go to this tomorrow night. Looks decent, heard good things.

marco_polo

Saw this the other day, definitely one of the better films I have seen this year, I enjoyed it more than Gone Girl a few days previously. Like ancapailldorcha said its surpisingly apolitical despite the setup/location, just a straight up suspense/action movie with some excellent performances, also one of those increasingly rare films that is exactly as long as it needs to be.

charlie_says

Just back from this.

Quite a good tense thriller. Strong directorial debut. The cast was very good overall, I really like Sean Harris since Southcliffe and The Borgias (ignore him in Promethus though). Dark 70's Belfast estates at night are a perfect backdrop for some urban hunting. The little wee lad got some needed laughs and gasps out of the crowd.

Short but sweet.

e_e

I thought the film really petered out and became gradually less interesting after the incredible opening act. An admirable stab but it just didn't hook me in the way I was hoping.

charlie_says

e_e wrote: »

I thought the film really petered out and became gradually less interesting after the incredible opening act. An admirable stab but it just didn't hook me in the way I was hoping.

Although the

shoot out towards the end and the young private not standing up for himself was a little bit weak,

I thought it was tightly put together and the suspense and tenseness brought out a watchable thriller.

Given that, the riot scene was probably the best in the film.

Looper007

e_e wrote: »

I thought the film really petered out and became gradually less interesting after the incredible opening act. An admirable stab but it just didn't hook me in the way I was hoping.

Jesus e_e :pac: "admirable stab" it was a great suspenseful movie.

e_e

Looper007 wrote: »

Jesus e_e :pac: "admirable stab" it was a great suspenseful movie.

In your opinion. I wouldn't dismiss yours so hastily just because I had a different response.

johnny_ultimate

Enjoyable and atmospheric thriller. The moody cinematography and soundtrack particularly maintain the momentum for the most part. Reminded me of a Belfast take on The Raid quite a bit :pac:

I did feel the film was a bit top-heavy in terms of characters, which dulled the impact of the finale quite a bit when there were too many subplots to wrap up. And would have loved the film to end

on the shot of O'Connell walking down the corridor after the meeting with his superiors - given how long the shot lasted, it genuinely seemed like there was a about to be a cut to black. The proceeding epilogue scenes IMO felt redundant - over-emphasising the character's destination and failing to find a final shot as visually potent and efficient as the corridor one.

charlie_says

Oh yeah, anyone who hasn't seen Southcliffe (TV series) with Sean Harris, the undercover captain in '71, check it out. Really dark and broody stuff. One of the best British mini series in years.

Radiosonde

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Enjoyable and atmospheric thriller. The moody cinematography and soundtrack particularly maintain the momentum for the most part. Reminded me of a Belfast take on The Raid quite a bit :pac:

I did feel the film was a bit top-heavy in terms of characters, which dulled the impact of the finale quite a bit when there were too many subplots to wrap up. And would have loved the film to end

on the shot of O'Connell walking down the corridor after the meeting with his superiors - given how long the shot lasted, it genuinely seemed like there was a about to be a cut to black. The proceeding epilogue scenes IMO felt redundant - over-emphasising the character's destination and failing to find a final shot as visually potent and efficient as the corridor one.

Agree about the ending, and not just for artistic reasons:

a minor complaint was its implausibitiy, as walking away from the Army would probably not be so straightforward; more troubling, it contrasted withdrawal from bleak, morally-decayed Belfast with a retreat into idyllic British countryside. Telling that we never saw any pretty landscapes in Northern Ireland.

For all the film's posturing about collusion and corruption in the British forces, I felt it overly sympathetic to the powers-that-be, as if the shenanigans in the North were an example of circumstance bringing out the worst in a otherwise upright, tally-ho lads British Army.

Greenmachine

"Starred up" didn't appeal to me, but this one looks interesting.
Herself enquired if that the ' symbol indicated inches, but I let go, because misses GM only knows metric

vidor

e_e wrote: »

I thought the film really petered out and became gradually less interesting after the incredible opening act. An admirable stab but it just didn't hook me in the way I was hoping.

Same. Wish it had just stuck with the group of newbies trying to make sense of it all when they arrive there instead of going where it went. Didn't buy in to some of the performances (Killian Scott, for example), cinematography irked me a little at times, too contrived in parts (

conveniently gets picked up by some ex-medic

) and the last ten minutes was littered with cliches.

Neeson

Why didn't the undercover

English fella shoot

Killian Scott? What was the

point in letting him

go sure

he may as well have shot him

?

ancapailldorcha

Neeson wrote: »

Why didn't the undercover

English fella shoot

Killian Scott? What was the

point in letting him

go sure

he may as well have shot him

?

He was probably offering an arrangement whereby he keeps the police and the army off Scott's character's back in exchange for a share of any profits he might make selling guns, drugs or whatever.

Neeson

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

He was probably offering an arrangement whereby he keeps the police and the army off Scott's character's back in exchange for a share of any profits he might make selling guns, drugs or whatever.

That wouldn't seem realistic though. I'm sure

Scott

would have him shat if he saw him again and

wouldn't like a British

mawn coming over there telling him what to do so he may as well have shat

him when he had the chance

.

K-9

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Enjoyable and atmospheric thriller. The moody cinematography and soundtrack particularly maintain the momentum for the most part. Reminded me of a Belfast take on The Raid quite a bit :pac:

I did feel the film was a bit top-heavy in terms of characters, which dulled the impact of the finale quite a bit when there were too many subplots to wrap up. And would have loved the film to end

on the shot of O'Connell walking down the corridor after the meeting with his superiors - given how long the shot lasted, it genuinely seemed like there was a about to be a cut to black. The proceeding epilogue scenes IMO felt redundant - over-emphasising the character's destination and failing to find a final shot as visually potent and efficient as the corridor one.

It was a bit laborious but the boy was an integral part of the humane side of the soldier. I don't think it ever said if he was his son/brother/nephew?

vidor wrote: »

Same. Wish it had just stuck with the group of newbies trying to make sense of it all when they arrive there instead of going where it went. Didn't buy in to some of the performances (Killian Scott, for example), cinematography irked me a little at times, too contrived in parts (

conveniently gets picked up by some ex-medic

) and the last ten minutes was littered with cliches.

The most telling line in the film is when he is asked why Derby and Nottingham don't get on, I though he'd say football, but "I don't know" showed the innocence, if he didn't know that how was he to understand N.I.! Agrees on Scott, he was fine, that was about it. The young Loyalist lad was well portrayed, could have been either side.

Overall I though they handled the different sides very well, showed the humane sides and the truth of what a dirty war is, all 3 sides don't really come out of it well. It's about as balanced a movie as you could get on that period.

Richard Dormer was very good as the medic/father.

Mickeroo

Saw this during the week and thought it was very good. The scene where

he stabs the lad in the block of flats

has really stayed with me since.

I thought it was a good move having the main protagonist being largely ignorant of what exactly was going on there at the time.

cloud493

Think I assumed

the young boy was Hooks brother. The age difference anyway

Fysh

I finally got round to seeing this last night, and I'm really glad I did. O'Connell is 2 for 2 in my book; I'll definitely be keeping an eye out for any future projects of his.

As far as the film itself goes, I thought it was excellent. I liked that by keeping the focus on the perspective of a bunch of inexperienced soldiers we didn't get some heavy-handed moralising about the origin of the Troubles or any kind of moral righteousness; instead we got to see the situation on the ground where both sides have a mixture of folks who want to kill the other side and folks who want to help people and co-exist. In particular, I was delighted that

the exchange where Derbyshire and Nottingham's rivalry/emnity is mentioned is used to suggest Hook's naiveté and lack of a wider/deeper historical context in which to understand the Troubles, rather than to introduce some almost-certainly-clunky dialogue where the daughter Explains The Troubles To Him.

Between that and

the way the Lieutenant is shown to be way out of his depth and lacking any kind of support in terms of either a proper understanding of the situation or meaningful support from the RUC

, I felt that the script did a good job of avoiding taking sides.

The young fella was a revelation - not just for the humour that he introduced to the role but also for a very strong performance.

(After Hook says he doesn't know if he's Catholic or Protestant) "You don't know?! Now I've f*ckin' heard it all!"

connollys

Fysh wrote: »

. O'Connell is 2 for 2 in my book:D

What other film are you talking about, Starred Up I assume? He has been knocking around for a long time and has been putting in consistently good performances all along. He was excellent in Eden Lake I thought and good in Harry Brown too. Spotted him in the United movie about the Munich disaster too. Just avoid the 300 sequel, nobody should be judged by that.

Fysh

connollys wrote: »

What other film are you talking about, Starred Up I assume? He has been knocking around for a long time and has been putting in consistently good performances all along. He was excellent in Eden Lake I thought and good in Harry Brown too. Spotted him in the United movie about the Munich disaster too. Just avoid the 300 sequel, nobody should be judged by that.

Yeah, Starred Up was the other one I was thinking of, didn't realise he'd done more film roles. I remember seeing him in Skins, but by that point I thought the writing had deteriorated quite badly so I didn't stick around with it.

MakeEmLaugh

Watched this last night. Was a pretty solid thriller. Far better than recent 'Troubles' films such as Shadow Dancer and Fifty Dead Men Walking.

Hardly an all-time classic, but it got across the grisliness of a pub-bombing in a more effective way than many other films which attempted such a feat. Seeing a young boy (albeit one spurting sectarian anti-Catholic hatred) have this arms blown off, leaving a charred corpse, was quite disturbing.

I also liked the brief coda with Hook (O'Connell) and his brother. The film avoided the usual trope of ending with our hero on the cusp of leaving whatever troubled situation he found himself in. Shame about the clichéd 'throwing away the badge' (or in this case, dog tags) moment.

Perhaps the film '71 was closest to was The Raid.

OldeCinemaSoz

ITV's 1982 "HARRYS GAME" is a far better take on THE NORTHERN IRELAND ANGLE.

Possibly the best thing THE BRITS had done in years.

DoYouEvenLift

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Watched this last night. Was a pretty solid thriller. Far better than recent 'Troubles' films such as Shadow Dancer and Fifty Dead Men Walking.

Hardly an all-time classic, but it got across the grisliness of a pub-bombing in a more effective way than many other films which attempted such a feat. Seeing a young boy (albeit one spurting sectarian anti-Catholic hatred) have this arms blown off, leaving a charred corpse, was quite disturbing.

I also liked the brief coda with Hook (O'Connell) and his brother. The film avoided the usual trope of ending with our hero on the cusp of leaving whatever troubled situation he found himself in. Shame about the clichéd 'throwing away the badge' (or in this case, dog tags) moment.

Perhaps the film '71 was closest to was The Raid.

Please don't insult The Raid, one of the best modern action movies, by comparing this to it.


This movie wasn't terrible, but I'll never watch it again.

Son0vagun

Watched it last night. It was ok, not the masterpiece everyone is making it out to be. O'Connell didn't really have much to do in it. There was too much convenient pausing by main charactors at crucial plot points, so much so it took me out of the drama.

And it really bugged me that around every street corner was another burning car or bus! I know it was bad back then, but not that bad!

DoYouEvenLift

Son0vagun wrote: »

Watched it last night. It was ok, not the masterpiece everyone is making it out to be. O'Connell didn't really have much to do in it. There was too much convenient pausing by main charactors at crucial plot points, so much so it took me out of the drama.

And it really bugged me that around every street corner was another burning car or bus! I know it was bad back then, but not that bad!

He needs to improve his facial expressions. A few times when it was clear he was/should have been trying to appear shocked and scared he had more of a smirk on his face.

Son0vagun

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

He needs to improve his facial expressions. A few times when it was clear he was/should have been trying to appear shocked and scared he had more of a smirk on his face.

Yes there was one stage where his head was down, his eyes looked up, and a slight smirk appeared, and I thought this is it, he's about to go all Jackie Chan on them.

Zombienosh

Watched this the weekend, brilliant film, had me on the edge of me seat for the duration. Really enjoying Jack O'Connells roles so far, just watched starred up recently too.

Looper007

connollys wrote: »

What other film are you talking about, Starred Up I assume? He has been knocking around for a long time and has been putting in consistently good performances all along. He was excellent in Eden Lake I thought and good in Harry Brown too. Spotted him in the United movie about the Munich disaster too. Just avoid the 300 sequel, nobody should be judged by that.

He's also in Shane Meadow's This is England (He's in the gang, the young lad who is kicked out of the car and then headbutted by Stephen Graham), he doesn't reappear in the TV show though.

I thought he was best thing in Unbroken.

BlatentCheek

I thought this film was great. Solid performances and period detail.
You could see that they did a excellent job on a small enough budget - the riot scene was particularly good.

Top class writing too - followed the rule "Show, don't tell" for exposition perfectly.

I loved how the film emphasised how divisive conflict is. The Catholic-Protestant divide is only the start. You see the British Army and RUC not working in unison; the MRF working at cross-purposes to the Paras; The IRA splitting and betraying each other; even the civilian father-daughter split with potentially fatal consequences for each other.

DavidRamsay99

The movie would have been far better if it focused on the undercover British Army hardcases.

cloud493

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

The movie would have been far better if it focused on the undercover British Army hardcases.

What makes you think that? I think it'd be worse.

DavidRamsay99

cloud493 wrote: »

What makes you think that? I think it'd be worse.

The character of the soldier wasn't particularly interesting.

He only existed as an innocent who takes us through the republican and loyalist areas.

The undercover British guys and their nefarious goings on was the core of the film.

cloud493

But then the film would be coming down on one side or the other, intentionally or unintentionally. Hook is a good character cos he has no particular bias towards either side, and we see things as he see's things pretty much. Whereas the undercover guys had a bias, seeing as they were anti IRA/anti irish in general kinda.

DavidRamsay99

cloud493 wrote: »

But then the film would be coming down on one side or the other, intentionally or unintentionally. Hook is a good character cos he has no particular bias towards either side, and we see things as he see's things pretty much. Whereas the undercover guys had a bias, seeing as they were anti IRA/anti irish in general kinda.

If they told the story from their perspective it would have been more fun though.

The cloak and dagger and the double and triple and quadruple crosses were great.