Sand Castle – A Bare Arms Review

Quality script and good acting, with an authentic story to boot. So why does it all seem so familiar? ‘Sand Castle’ is destined to be one of those films that’s unappreciated in it’s lifetime due to an overexposure of the conflict, but in 20 years time might just be heralded as a highlight of the genre.

Netflix has been creating its own content for a while now, but recently it has started to churn out war films. Not big sweeping epics like we saw in the 60’s and 70’s, such as ‘The Battle of Britain‘ and ‘A Bridge Too Far‘, but little films about amazingly true stories that are as yet unknown.

Cool guys don’t look at explosions, and Jamie Dorner is no different. Remarkably modern sandbags though…

‘The Seige of Jadotville‘ told the story of an Irish U.N. peacekeeping mission in Africa that went disastrously wrong whereas ‘War Machine‘, due out later in the month, is a satire on the American war in Afghanistan. Both are based on true events and both attracted some serious acting talent. Netflix seems to be scooping up scripts and pulling in actors, whilst dedicating enough budget to make them look good as well.

‘Sand Castle‘ is no different in these aspects, however if anything its story is even smaller and therefore far more personal than most war films. It is based on the experiences of the writer Chris Roessner, who was deployed to Iraq in 2003 and highlights the impossibility of fighting small wars. It plays out like a less nihilistic ‘Jarhead’ combined with a more intelligent ‘Black Hawk Down’. Anyone who has ever lived in a patrol base within an indigenous population in the last 15 years will recognise the frustrations depicted in ‘Sand Castle’. A small army unit is attached to a special forces team in order to help distribute water and rebuild a damaged facility in an isolated town. A reluctant Private Matt Ocre is taken along for the ride.

 

For those of you that have seen it, the trailer is deceiving and in a way that is a huge relief. It makes it seem like the film is going to be primarily about Nicholas Hoult character’s reluctance to fight, whereas thankfully this merely serves as a contrast to the ending and doesn’t dominate the film like it does in ‘Fury‘ and others. It’s more of a starting point for the growth of Private Ocre as the story progresses, as his mindset changes from one of ‘get your head down and get through this’ to ‘I should be trying to do more’. Unlike ‘Fury’ (sorry!) this happens naturally over time and not in an unrealistic 24hr period or through a series of contrived events.

“Wait….. did I leave the gas on?”

The trailer also suggests that Henry Cavill’s special forces officer is going to be a bit of a one-dimensional, all-action-hero and a bully, but thankfully they’ve avoided this cliche too. Captain Syverson is one of the better portrayals of an officer in a war film. He’s intelligent, passionate about what he’s doing and willing to listen to the ideas of others. He still swaggers around, chewing tobacco and swearing, but he’s respected and effective.

Now, I know what you’re thinking, “There must be a salt-of-the-earth, officer hating sergeant to round it all off? Someone to unnecessarily create conflict by being insubordinate?”. Nope. They didn’t do that either. Sergeant Harper, played by Logan Marshall-Green (the poor man’s Tom Hardy) is respectful and professional throughout. He’s the stoic rock of the film in a nicely understated way. “So what about the baddies? There must be big boss baddy right? Like ‘Blackhawk Down’?“. Wrong again. You barely see the shadowy insurgents. Just like in real life, they blend into the crowd.

“Anyone else want to tell me how bad ‘Batman Vs. Superman’ was?”

So if it isn’t about cliched character conflict, (which is the basis for most war films), what on earth is this film all about? Quite simply, it’s about the war itself. In this case the impossibility of fighting a tactical war, when your enemy is an unseen insurgent, and the commanders at a strategic level have little understanding of what’s happening on the ground. You want to help the local population, but they just want to be left alone. It is possibly one of the most realistic war movies to date. The action is quick and gritty, with the insurgents disappearing as quickly as they arrive. There are no long and drawn out set pieces here, just short and sharp confusing engagements. There’s little anguish when things go wrong. The soldiers just pick themselves up and keep on going. The mission, no matter how small and how insignificant in the bigger picture, is everything to them.

 

So is it any good? Armed with notepad and pen, we gleefully started jotting down the errors. Very old tanks that definitely aren’t Abrams. MRAPs vehicles that wouldn’t be introduced for another 5 years. A type of leatherman multi-tool that wasn’t invented until 2010! Oh the humanity! But then, very quickly we stopped taking notes. The acting was spot on, and the interaction between characters was perfect. Soldiers behaving like soldiers. If they were all a little uglier, then it would be even more realistic. Very quickly we got drawn into this little film, as it took us right back to our own experiences of war.

However, if you believe Rotten Tomatoes, then it would suggest you steer clear (47% at last check). There are complaints that it doesn’t have a message or an underlying theme, or that it’s a genre piece that produces nothing new. These opinions totally miss the point. ‘Sand Castle‘ is a deeply personal account of what it is like to be a pawn in a global war, where the rules and strategies being employed make little sense when you are faced with the realities of an insurgency. Not only that, but it was written by someone who has been there and lived through it. It may not seem ground breaking, but that’s because you’ve seen each of its scenes somewhere else, as a smaller part of a much bigger blockbuster. You’ve seen the tragedy play out on 24hr rolling news. Over the last 15 years, our senses have been dulled and our reactions blunted by a constant drip feed of similar hopeless stories. Some of us have had the misfortune to live through them ourselves.

This is one of the minority of cases where the critics are dead wrong. Don’t listen to them, listen to the soldiers.

At this current moment, people are over-saturated and bored with war stories from the Iraq/Afghanistan era. It’s been going on for over a decade and a half and isn’t over yet. No matter how good a film about the period might be, its impact is reduced massively by over familiarity.  The best WW2 films were made in the 70’s, nearly 30 years after the conflict had ended, and by that point, the collective memory was beginning to fade.

So, do one of two things. Either empty your head of all preconceptions, then sit down and really concentrate on this gem of a film, or forget it for 20 years and come back to it when the war in Iraq is (hopefully) a distant memory. Regardless, if you know anyone who has experienced war recently, and you want to know what it was probably like, this is a good place to start.

‘War Machine‘ is out on Netflix on the 26th of May. Watch the trailer here.

Follow Bare Arms on Instagram @barearmsfilm 

Hacksaw Ridge – Part 2: The Review “Help me get one more…”

Some of the most nerve shredding battles committed to celluloid and not a dry eye in the house, but was it worth a 10-minute standing ovation at Venice? Read about how ‘Hacksaw Ridge‘ almost never got made here.

At the start of September, The Venice Film festival premiered Mel Gibson’s first attempt at directing a film since 2006.  Hollywood and the world of cinema have been wary about Mel since some drunken outbursts five years ago, and some were sceptical that he would ever work in the film industry again.  Not only did ‘Hacksaw Ridge‘ get some impressive plaudits from the audience, it got a 10-minute standing ovation…

Mel Gibson doing his ‘I’m no longer crazy!’ face.

Empire Live 2016 was Empire Magazine‘s first film festival. A weekend of previews, workshops and live events hosted at the O2 at the end of September, including Q&As, sing-a-longs and even a ‘Ghostbusters’ “slime-a-long”.  With all the excitement surrounding ‘Hacksaw Ridge‘ after Venice, it was slotted into the program and announced with only a few days to go.  Despite not yet having a UK release date, or even a distributor, a cinema full of lucky people got to see it 6 weeks before it is released in the US and Australia, and probably 6 months before it arrives here.  So, is it actually any good? Did it deserve a standing ovation?

The film opens with a voice-over by Andrew Garfield in the affected Virginia drawl of Private Doss whilst a slow-motion battle rages on.  Bodies are flying and people are being killed left right and centre, but through the medium of close-up it is unclear exactly what is happening.  The visuals were so confusing and absorbing that it was impossible to focus on precisely what Garfield was saying.  Presumably it was some unnecessary sentiment about war being bad, but it could have quite easily been a shopping list for all that it mattered.  Garfield’s vocal impersonation of Doss is both oddly high pitched and soft at the same time, and whilst it may not be totally accurate to the real man and the words forgettable, its manner and timbre gives you glimpse of what you need to know about his character.

The film is broken into two distinct and contrasting parts that could almost be separate stand-alone films with a bit of fleshing out.  The first is a set up for the second and charts the life of Doss and his brother growing up, raised by their caring mother and troubled father in rural Virginia.  Hugo Weaving is fantastic as Doss Snr. the veteran of the Great War and a shell of a man who is clearly still haunted by the events of 25 years ago.  Whilst he is violent and aggressive to his family he is not an ogre to be hated, but someone to be pitied, which is credit not only to the acting, but also the writing which has created a character that could have so easily been one dimensional.  We shall have to wait and see if the awards season recognises his performance.

Slowly and deliberately the film reveals Doss’s reasons for choosing the path of pacifism, which are not solely religious as you might expect, but also heavily influenced by a desire not to end up like his abusive father.  His caring nature and character are further unveiled by his attempts at the courtship of Dorothy Schutte, played by Theresa Palmer, and his interest in her work as a nurse.  In a neat piece of symbolism, we see him using his belt for an entirely different purpose to that of his drunken father in a previous scene, further exploring the divide between their characters.  Palmer’s portrayal of Schutte and her relationship with Doss, leaves you feeling warm and fuzzy and could have been channelled directly from the famous actresses of the 1940’s.  Her deliberate double takes and mock anger give the whole first act a nostalgic feel to it, as does the sunny weather and perfectly manicured flowerbeds of the hospital and the town.  It almost looks like a film set…

Garfield and Palmer as Desmond and Dorothy

By this point, some people (author included) may be feeling a little underwhelmed and slightly undersold at the saccharine nature and idealism of this so called ‘war-film’.  As heartwarming as the blossoming relationship is, it isn’t necessarily what people have come to see and the artistic depiction of war at the start of the film seems like a long time ago.  Soon the events of Pearl Harbour start to bring things into sharp focus, and both Doss brothers volunteer for service despite (or maybe in spite of) their father’s wishes.  It’s at this point that Desmond’s idealism has to come face to face with the practicalities of war, mainly manifested by another actor in search of redemption, in this case Vince Vaughn channelling a pastiche of ‘Full Metal Jacket‘ and the spirit of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman.

One of Vaughn’s strengths has always been the ability to do deadpan comedy. From ‘Old School‘ to ‘Dodgeball‘ he has been at his best when saying something inherently silly in a deadly serious way.  Part of the problem with him attempting serious roles is that he can’t get any more serious.  Emotionally he has no where to go to distinguish between funny-serious and serious-serious.  If he’s acting serious, it’s the same expression and so you are expecting him to be funny.  It is distracting and one of the reasons why ‘True Detective‘ fell so flat in the second series.  Sgt. Howell is a part that could have been written for Vaughn, and one that he clearly relishes.  It is his welcome menacing comic relief that marks a subtle change in the tone of the film.  Suddenly it is shown, that true to his father’s warnings, Doss’s idealism may not be compatible with the rigours of military life.  This mid-section of the film really belongs to Vaughn.  By getting the funny-serious out the way in the first 5 minutes, it then gives him permission to take the character elsewhere.  His anger when he discovers Doss’s intentions and beliefs is genuinely terrifying, but he later lets slip during a chink of compassion that this all may just be an act in itself.  For a supporting role with comparably little screen time, Sgt. Howell is one of the most complex characters within the film.  Part pantomime villain, part mother figure, part barrack room judge and portrayed absolutely correctly for a military sergeant.  His concerns are always for the effectiveness of the squad of men that he has been entrusted with, whilst at the same time showing compassion for the individuals within it.

 

There still isn’t much that is new here however.  Like the courtship scenes before it, it all seems comfortable and familiar, almost reminiscent of a score of other films.  Training montage gives way to a character losing the trust of his peers, only to begrudgingly regain it again.  Despite the tension building court-room scenes, we all hope we know where this film is going.  At just over the half-way mark, we haven’t seen anything of the battle hinted at in the opening montage.  When the events finally transport themselves to the far east, the desire of the more gung-ho members of the rifle company to see some action is mirrored in our own blood-thirsty urges for the film to get to the ‘exciting’ bits.

The very second that the bullets start to fly and bodies start to fall, all of this is stripped away and replaced with a sense of horror and remorse.  Instantly you feel guilty for having wanted to see these men in combat.  There is no glory as soldiers are forced to do some abhorrent things in order to survive in the face of a seemingly inhuman enemy.  For what seems like an eternity you are totally immersed in the brutality of war.  Not since the start of ‘Saving Private Ryan‘ has there been a battle depicted in a way that was so utterly shocking and absorbing at the same time.  Whilst that dropped you into the action in a without much warning or set up, ‘Hacksaw Ridge‘ has spent over an hour lulling you, and the soldiers on screen, into a false sense of familiarity and security.  This means that the nerves are totally unguarded and all prepped for a brutal shredding when the world finally collapses.  This is war at its most unflinching and harrowing.

This transition between the two continents and parts of the film is Mel Gibson’s greatest move.  Immediately Doss’s idealism and morals are put to the test.  We are all behind him when he goes toe to toe with the might of the U.S. Army for the belief in his values, but once he his faced with the ferocity of the Imperial Japanese Army we are cursing him for being so naive and urging him to pick up a rifle to defend himself.  Like a good magic trick, we are suckered into thinking one way, only to have the carpet viciously pulled from under our feet.  The ‘niceness’ of the first half it seems was simply to set up the trauma of the second.  The meat of the film is in the war scenes, but without the slow and deliberate set-up of the first hour or so, it would not be nearly as effective.  The initial attack gives way to counter-attack and the futility of what the G.I.s are trying to achieve becomes horrifically apparent.

Sam Worthington as Doss’s company commander

 

As amazing as the battle scenes are though, they aren’t perfect.  The portrayal of the Japanese soldiers is over simplified as the ‘baddies’, despite some attempts towards the end to humanise them.  Vince Vaughn’s approach to combat is John Wayne-esque as he trots around the battlefield, barking orders and appearing bulletproof.  There are a couple of moments where Mel Gibson has a chance to truly test Desmond’s beliefs, by placing him in a difficult situation where he might have to pick up a rifle to save a fellow soldier, but rather annoyingly he holds back.  Biopics are always a tricky beast to manage as people’s lives don’t fit neatly into a 90-minute running time.  You have to decide what to keep and what has to go, and sometimes what to embellish and what to tone down.  This becomes especially tricky if the subject is still alive or well known.  You can’t mess around too much with true events or you might incur disapproval or even legal challenges.  Whilst the real Desmond might never have been placed into a position where he might have been tempted to pick up a weapon, it would have raised the dramatic nature of the film if the Garfield’s Doss had been tested more rigorously.

 

The script sticks closely to the stories told in the 2004 documentary, with some slight reshuffling of the time-line and compressing of the events in Japan to portray a few months’ worth of events into a few days, but it is the second attack on the ridge that lets the last part of the film down.  Gibson decides to return to the slow motion action we saw right at the start, but this time with a patriotic music score in the background and quite clearly showing the USA performing markedly better than their first attempt.  The sun is out, the Japanese have lost, the war is won, but it’s done in an almost jingoistic way that makes you roll your eyes.  Has no one learned anything in the last hour of battle?!  After a final act of heroism (that is borrowed from the story of another soldier) Doss is injured and stretchered off the cliff silhouetted by the fading light.  It is here that the religious undertones become obvious overtones and symbolism goes into overdrive.

The last few moments of the film are clips from the 2004 documentary which bring into sharp focus what Desmond T. Doss achieved, and reminds you that what you have been watching actually happened.  The real Doss and some of the soldiers he saved, get their chance, most of them from the grave, to give their account of the incredible events.  If nothing has managed to make you misty eyed up until this point then this last portion will have you choking back tears and praying the lights don’t come up too quickly.  You are likely to leave the theatre physically and mentally exhausted.

The real Desmond Doss

‘Hacksaw Ridge‘ is an excellent film that you must see in a cinema to get the full effect of the incredible battle scenes which are its pinnacle.  It deserves most of the praise it has been getting, but it has its flaws.  Garfield’s performance is utterly believable throughout, and he is supported by a good cast, but some parts are heavily laboured and over simplified.  Some of Doss’s most impressive feats are not featured as they don’t fit into the film, but for those in doubt of his bravery and humility, read up what happened in the hours immediately following his injury.  Gibson may be back on form, but he would have done well to ease up on the religious symbolism.

Eye in the Sky – “Never tell a soldier, that he does not know the cost of war”

‘Eye in the Sky‘ has the honour of being Alan Rickman‘s final swansong. Filmed before his death, and released shortly after, it serves as a fitting bookend to an incredible career. Although as Lt. General Benson, he plays second fiddle to Helen Mirren’s Colonel Powell throughout the film, he gets the last word in this taught 90-minute thriller. A snivelling civil servant calls him “…disgraceful”, to which he very calmly and decisively cuts her down to size in his trademark purr, finishing with a line so good, that I was convinced it was a quotation;

“Never tell a soldier, that he does not know the cost of war”.

This week we were supposed to release our critique of the new series of ‘Our Girl’ for which we helped the BBC shape the script, but we ended up getting so frustrated at the inaccuracy of some parts of it that we felt we needed to have a stiff drink and a lie down. Instead of immediately venting via the medium of this blog, we decided to give it another episode to even out and find an even keel. Coincidentally we managed to get our hands on a copy of ‘Eye in the Sky‘ this week which we have been wanting to watch since its limited release at the start of the year, and we had promised a review of.

Luckily for our blood pressure issues, ‘Eye in the Sky’ blows ‘Our Girl‘ straight out the water when it comes to military accuracy, with the minor exception of Helen Mirren’s beret (head over to Bad Berets: ‘You could land a helicopter on that!’ for an explanation) and fortunately it only makes an appearance in the last 60 seconds. As we commemorate the 15th anniversary of the world altering events of 9/11, ‘Eye in the Sky‘ highlights just how far warfare has changed in the years since. The subject of this film is the evolving capability to perform surgical strikes on specific targets, after many hours of surveillance, often without putting a foot on the ground. Does this increased distance from our target desensitise us from the reality of what we are doing, or does it immunise us and allow us to make difficult decisions without being overly clouded by emotion?

At its heart this film is about conflict, but not the obvious kind that you would immediately assume. Instead it is about the disconnect between military action, political will, moral responsibility and legality. There are no good guys and bad guys (except the obvious terrorists of course, which are more plot devices than actual characters), but rather a smorgasbord of politicians and military personnel with their own views and beliefs. The events in the film span a 12-hr period and one capture operation in Nairobi, Kenya, but the protagonists are split between a handful of military bases and government meeting rooms across the globe. Each one serves as a different slant on the same picture in the increasingly complex and developing situation. Quickly, as with many operations, the scenario changes to a point where capture is made almost impossible without the loss of many lives. Suddenly the mission changes up a few gears into a kill mission, much to the horror of the watching politicians who don’t have the stomach for it.

In most films, having such a large number of characters and locations would make it difficult to follow, but ‘Eye in the Sky‘ makes it work exceptionally well, flicking between them at crucial moments. It not only helps explain difficulties in the passage of information, even in an age where we can stream video around the globe, but also accurately portrays the nature of the lengthy verification and authorisation process that these strikes must go through. Not everyone has the complete picture or understanding of the event, and inevitably those with the leanest information are those with the authority to make the decisions. No set of guidelines or rules of engagement can possibly be specific enough to cover every eventuality, and at some point, someone has to make a crucial decision which may or may not result in the death of innocent parties. The kind of debates that occur within the COBRA boardroom in this film, frequently happen in operations rooms around the globe.

“Are we legally allowed to strike?”
“Yes…”
“Does that mean we should?”
“No…”

‘Eye in the Sky’ cleverly ramps up the necessity and urgency to conduct a drone strike in far from ideal conditions, but in such a way that the right answer is never immediately obvious (if there is one at all) and in constant flux. Various characters change sides in the debate, especially once the responsibility of decision making is taken off them. I suspect anyone watching it with military experience will immediately identify with the British Army and US Air Force personnel and become frustrated at the politicians who pontificate, delay and pass the buck, but the real heart of the film is with the drone operators. Caught in the middle is Aaron Paul as the young officer, who by the luck of a rota is tasked with commanding the drone and responsible for launching the weapon. If there was any argument to suggest that drone operators treat their role like a video game, his torment and reticence to pull the trigger dispels it immediately. You suspect that whatever the outcome, and despite his relatively junior position in proceedings, it will be him that carries the majority of the burden.

If Aaron Paul is the heart, then Helen Mirren represents the brain in this moralistic struggle. There are no clear sides in this debate, but from the very outset she’s after a result that has eluded her for years, and for her the end always justifies the means. Her tenacity and urgency is the antithesis of politicians. We feel her intense stress as time is frittered away by those above her, causing emotional outbursts and in one scene forcing her to fiddle with a set of worry beads. I have seen a number of senior commanders unintentionally doing similar things, including one who would wind his forelock around his index finger when making tough decisions. She is portrayed as cold and calculating, but as the film winds down you sense that she isn’t totally devoid of emotion and her demeanour is one of necessity in a male dominated world.

The film leaves you without any neat answers, or forced judgements, which in this day and age is rare. It leaves you to make up your own mind about the morality of what you’ve just witnessed. Whether you are in the military or not, this is a must see film that has garnered little of the attention it deserves. I would suggest it should be compulsory viewing at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and other officer training establishments. No where else is the complex morality of war better played out so effectively than in this film.

Kudos goes to everyone involved in making it, especially for not pulling any punches and for avoiding the typical Hollywood ending. You’ll come away from it feeling emotionally drained and mentally fatigued. This isn’t an action film, more of a philosophical debate about the ethics of warfare, but one that will keep you thinking long into the night. Personally I side with the General….

‘Eye in the Sky’ is available to stream on the iStore, Amazon and Google Play.

Sicario

We originally wrote a short review for Sicario after its cinematic release, but in the meantime it has been nominated for three Oscars. This week it gets its home release so we’ve updated and embellished our original review.

It is quite rare to sit through a film these days and then instantly want to see more of the characters. Normally Hollywood requires everything to be neatly wrapped up within the running time, or to end on a cliffhanger with an obvious opening to a money grabbing sequel. Sicario is different. You get dropped into the middle of the story and you don’t get a a neat conclusion. Like all the best films, it will probably leave you with more questions than when you started, but you aren’t alone. Emily Blunt plays FBI Agent Kate Mercer who is kept equally in the dark throughout and acts as a conduit for the viewer to observe proceedings.

After her strong performance as the female special forces warrior Sgt. Vrataski in Edge of Tomorrow, Blunt gets another chance to flex her action muscles…and boy does she do it convincingly. At times she is reminiscent of Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley, both tough and sensitive in the same breath. Mercer gets used as a passenger to legitimise the shadowy schemes of Matt Graver, a CIA agent played by a laconic Josh Brolin. Accompanying him is Benicio del Toro as the elusive Alejandro Gillick, whose soft demeanour is clearly hiding a traumatic past.

The film is gloriously shot due to British cinematographer Roger Deakins, who was nominated for an Oscar for the thirteenth time this year for his part in Sicario (yet remarkably has never won. Leonardo Dicaprio has nothing to complain about in comparison!). If you have never heard of him, in the past he has been the man responsible for the look of most of the Cohen Brothers’ films, Skyfall and The Shawshank Redemption to mention a few.

There are four stand out sequences that are each a master-class in the building of tension. One of these scenes is technically and visually exceptional, and would have probably won Deakins the Oscar on its own, however for the third year in a row the award went to Emmanuel Lubezki for his work on The Reverent . It involves the tactical assault of an illegal tunnel system seen through the eyes of Graver and Gillick, wearing night vision and thermal goggles respectively. The constant switching between the two different visualisations not only looks fantastic, but it also enables the viewer to easily distinguish who’s point of view they are seeing without the need for dialogue.

The other memorable scenes include the opening sequence featuring an FBI SWAT team assault onto a suburban bungalow, a snatch and grab operation across the Mexican border and a scene where we discover Gillick’s true motivation and his role in the proceedings. Each of them is engrossing, but in different ways. From start to finish I was hooked. The pace is perfect. It wasn’t exhausting like some pure action films, but my attention was undivided for the duration. Josh Brolin does his usual job of acting cocky and brash whilst Emily Blunt is strong and determined, yet fragile at times, but the film really belongs to Benecio Del Toro. He is quiet and understated throughout, playing third fiddle until he gets his own jaw-dropping moment in the closing stages.

Sicario is easily the best film I’ve seen in a long time, but I can’t help selfishly wanting a sequel / 6 part HBO series to follow it up, which would probably only diminish its impact. You care about what happens to Gillick and Mercer (less so Graver) and you only get to scratch the surface of the world they have become embroiled in. If you didn’t get the chance to watch it on the big screen, grab the opportunity now. For what is a relatively low budget film ($30 million), it looks and plays out like something with four times the money behind it.

Sicario Trailer

The Night Manager: Ep 1-2

If you had tuned in to watch The Night Manager on BBC One, you might have mistaken it for the opening credits of any of the recent James Bond films. A clever sequence unfolds which merges modern weaponry with images of opulence and luxury. It flits back and forth between the two subjects, accompanied by a dramatic string score which gets the heart rate elevated, almost in preparation for what is about to come. Speedboats become missiles, whose vapour trails turn into champagne bubbles.  My personal favourite was the fine china tea set that became the barrels of the Gatling gun mounted on the side of an Ac-13o Spectre gunship. I was so immersed in the visuals, that I forgot to read who was starring in the drama, so it came as a pleasant surprise when some of the best actors in the UK started popping up.

Tom Hiddleston is probably best known for his gleefully over-the-top, scene stealing performances as Loki, the Norse god and brother of Thor in the Marvel universe. Thankfully, in The Night Manager he gets to play Jonathan Pine, a more subtle character with infinitely more depth which better shows off his acting ability. At points I felt like this could be his de-facto audition for the Bond franchise. Slick and charming, yet secretive and clearly holding down some serious issues. If they were ever to do a proper 007 origins story from the days of his military service, Hiddleston would be a sure fire bet. In this however, he quietly and gracefully goes about his job as the night manager of an exclusive hotel in Cairo, just as everything outside is collapsing due to the Arab spring of  2011.

Since John le Carré wrote The Night Manager over 20 years ago, the political landscape has caught up with the plot.  The BBC’s new adaptation fits well around real world events such as the uprising, and it feels fresh and up to date. There have been one or two previous attempts to turn the book into a film, but the plot has always been too complex to squeeze into 120 minutes. Yet again the small screen has shown up Hollywood, with the six hour running time giving the story the freedom to move at a more natural pace.

Hugh Laurie is barely in the first episode, but you get a feel for his character quite quickly. Richard Onslow Roper may be formidable with the power that he wields, but he isn’t a snarling megalomaniac with a facial scar who keeps a tank of sharks. More of a toned down Tony Stark who hasn’t had his “road to Damascus” / change of heart just yet. Roper is another multi faceted character and you get the feeling that the relationship between him and Pine will be the making of the entire series. His true nature hasn’t yet been revealed, but he must be pretty bad to receive the title ‘Worst Man in the World’. In the second episode he gets more of a showing, but not enough to convince you either way.

The other two key players are Roper’s right hand man Corcoran played by Tom Hollander, and Olivia Coleman as a British intelligence officer Angela Burr. In the original book, Burr was a man, but Coleman brings a much needed conscience to the script in the form of her ongoing battle between getting Roper locked up (for as yet unknown crimes) and putting Pine in harms way. She has one of the most expressive faces of any actor, and it is a genuinely delight to watch her on screen.

Tom Hollander seems to either get roles as an unlucky incompetent or a vicious sarcastic bastard. In this he is definitely the latter. What Roper seems to lack in violence, Corcoran more than makes up for. Hollander treads a fine line, but doesn’t take it as far as the pure campery of a similar character he played in the film Hannah. Of the four characters Corcoran is probably the simplest, but the one that brings the most dark chuckles as the episodes progress.

The first episode is a slow-burner of a set up. We get some of the motivations of the characters, but not a whole lot of exposition. It is rewarding not be patronised with over explanation and constant signposting, but it does leave you instantly wanting to watch the next episode (luckily for you, it is already on the BBC iPlayer, so you can have a mini-binge). The second episode has better pace and more grit, slowly drip feeding titbits of information and back story to flesh out the other characters.

The similarities to Bond are apparent, but the differences are what makes this series a must-see. Everything is leaner, darker and far more realistic. The glorious locations and sinister governmental bureaucrats are on hand, but gone are the plot holes papered over by overblown car chases and jarring product placement. In their place sits expertly crafted dialogue and three-dimensional characters. The spies practice some actual espionage instead of announcing their own names the minute they walk into a bar, or blowing up every mode of transport they use. The world isn’t in dire peril or on the brink of destruction (yet), but bad men are still in the shadows doing bad things. Spectre showed up all the weaknesses in the 007 format. Bond needs to be much less Bourne in two hours, and far more le Carré in six.

The Night Manager is on BBC One, Sundays at 9pm and on AMC in the USA in April.

The Night Manager Ep1

The Night Manager Ep2