Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
20 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A minor gem and classic seafaring war film, 18 Dec 2005
I rented this from Amazon and was glad I did. This film (also known as "Damn the Defiant" in the US) makes for a good winter's Sunday afternoon war film, suitable for boys aged 10 to 110. The storyline centres around the friction between the captain (played by Alec Guiness) and 1st Lieutenant (Dirk Bogarde) and a troubled, mutinous crew. So yes, in that one aspect it tries to emulate the success of MGM's "Mutiny on the Bounty" film. But plot similarites end there, for the Defiant's story, though fictitous, is intelligently placed during the very real fleet-wide mutiny of the British navy (against intollerable working conditions) of 1797, and further, puts the Defiant in the middle of the real and difficult Mediterranean/Corsica campaign fought against French imperial expansionism faced by the British Navy that year. Against this realistic back-drop, on-board historical accuracy and attention to detail are also well portrayed, and the battle scenes have that 1960s "epic" quality that modern films and TV programmes try to get around with not-quite-convincing computer graphics. The plot is intelligent and acting is solid throughout, as one might expect from such a good cast, and Gilbert's quality film-making is clearly in evidence as one who also made "Sink the Bismark", several of the Bond movies, "Alfie", and many others. If you enjoyed those films, or for example the recent Hornblower TV adaptation, you'll enjoy this also.
|
|
|
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
British naval warfare, with cruelty, mutiny and patriotism In 1797, 15 Jul 2007
Anyone who likes iron men fighting in wooden ships against the French, with the roar of cannon and splinters flying everywhere, will enjoy the last half of Damn the Defiant!. Whether you enjoy the first half depends on how well you appreciate the almost psychopathic cruelty and condescension of First Lieutenant Scott-Padget (Dirk Bogarde).
It's 1797, Napoleon threatens Britain, and only the Royal Navy ensures Britain's freedom. Captain Crawford (Alec Guinness) takes command of H.M.S. Defiant, a single-gun-deck frigate. Also joining the ship is Scott-Padget, an officer with friends in high places, a talent for seamanship, and a taste for flogging. While Crawford is determined to keep an open mind about his first lieutenant, it becomes quickly apparent that Scott-Padget is an arrogant sadist who is fully capable of undermining Crawford's authority if that's what it takes to get his way. He doesn't hesitate to brutalize the captain's 12-year-old son, brought on board as a midshipman, in subtle ways that keep Crawford from intervening. Added to this seething mix is the crew itself, brutalized not just by Scott-Padget but by the terrible living conditions sailors of the Royal Navy had to endure. One crewman, Vizard (Anthony Quayle), is the leader in putting together what he thinks will be a non-violent petition for redress. Every officer, however, will consider it a mutiny.
The first half of the movie is two stories. There is the struggle between Crawford and Scott-Padget, with Scott-Padget eventually getting the upper-hand. And there is the story of the men on a wooden ship of war and what their lives are like as they're beaten and trained to be seamen, subsist on a diet of rotten meat and weevily hardtack, and can receive 50 lashes at the whim of a first lieutenant.
The second half, however, is a rouser of the old school. A vital message must be delivered to the fleet, Captain Crawford finally is able to assert himself and the French break out of a blockade determined to attack an unaware British squadron in the fog. Ship-to-ship battles are fought where the victor will be determined by which ship can get alongside the other and throw iron faster at near point-blank range. And the seamen of Defiant must decide if their loyalty to Britain will override their knowledge that, if they are accused of being mutineers, each man will most likely be hanged.
The movie's strong points, for me, are the production values, the recreation of how brutal ship-to-ship fighting was, the look at the lives of men at sea in a fighting ship, and the appeal to patriotism over self interest, which was handled effectively because it was treated matter-of-factly. The weak points, for me, centered on the two leads. Guinness as Captain Crawford seemed too sluggish in coming to grips with his first lieutenant. He needed in my view more fire. Guinness was an actor who excelled in ambiguous and thoughtful roles, but he had it in him to play men with iron and passion; just look at him as Major Jock Sinclair in Tunes of Glory. Dirk Bogarde, however, plays Scott-Padget without an ounce of any quality than condescending sadism. Scott-Padget may be a talented sea officer and a brave man, but every time he's on screen you know exactly how he will behave. For those who like the smaller roles, keep an eye out for Tom Bell, who plays a resentful, violent seaman. Nearly thirty years later he was DS Bill Otley...a man Jane Tennison quickly learned not to trust in Prime Suspect 1 but who surprised her in Prime Suspect 3.
The DVD picture looks just fine, with anamorphic wide-screen on one side and full screen on the other. There are three or four extras which aren't significant.
|
|
|
7 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
H.M.S. Defiant - or - Damn the Defiant! , 5 Jul 2007
This is a film worth seeing; it is a very interesting story about leadership, good men, and bad men.
The story is set during the Napoleonic Wars, that time when the French ruled Europe, and the British ruled the waves. However, the main conflict in the film is not between the French and the English; it is between the Captain and the first mate aboard an English frigate, the Defiant. The Captain is a good sea-officer and commander; not a soft man, but a just and merciful one. His first mate is a talented young officer, who is however not only too hard and unrelenting, but unmerciful and truly cruel to the hands. A conflict naturally arises between them, but as the first mate has powerful friends in the government, the Captain has to be careful about procuring his enmity. Things are made more complex by a fact of which both of them are unaware: in all vessels of the British fleet a bloodless revolt is being planned, as a demand for better conditions of life for the hands aboard the ships. But it is extremely important that there is no officer killed in any of the ships; and the heads of the revolt aboard the Defiant start to have trouble to restrain some men who hate the first mate. These three conflicts provide a highly interesting story.
Of course, an interesting story is not all that matters; but in other respects the film is good too. Firstly, the main character is a good and noble man; and that is something one does not find in all stories. Then, it is not a violent film: it does have some violence, but not in an "unrealistically realistic" degree; it is not one of those films in which we see blood spurting from a man's wound as if out of a garden hose. And last, but very important: the leading roles are played by very good actors.
A few years ago a film was made similar to this one: it was also set during the Napoleonic Wars, aboard an English vessel sent on a mission against the French. The plot was fairly good, though the movie was unnecessarily violent. However, the main point against it is that the leading role was played very poorly. The actor who played the captain was not at all convincing, although the character should have been that of an outstanding commander. In "Damn the Defiant!" we have a good character played by a very good actor, and the result is that the Captain stands out, as an aristocratic and stately man we truly admire. In the other movie, "Master and Commander", we see no nobility and no dignity in the main character; we cannot admire him, and this spoils the whole film. In one case, a good story was spoiled by the choice of the wrong man; and in the other, one character well acted turned an interesting -- but in no way exceptional -- story, into a very good film.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|