Lebanon (2009)

I had mixed reviews prior to seeing Lebanin and sadly this was a film that lacked in many departments and I am glad I resisted ordering on blu-ray.

Situated inside a tank for several claustrophobic days during the Israel-Lebanon war and seen, largely, through the gun sight of the gunner this could have been a tense, gritty film with much in common with submarine films or the decent 80's film The Beast.

Some reviews I have read complained about the emotive or manipulative images or events portrayed and I share these sentiments. The camera unnaturally/gun focuses in close up on "evocative" images like corpses, a poster of the virgin mary, more corpses, crying women - the gunner is spends the film watching like a tourist providing the audience with dramatic/tragic scenes in close up. Which feels unnatural, scripted and left myself and other reviewers feeling manipulated.

The grime of the tank is palpable and the soldiers become dirtier as they creep further into (or out of) contested territory. This might have been a device designed to reflect the mental state of the soldiers (and interesting) - but the psychological states of the inexperienced and uninteresting crew was beyond us. We just didn't care by the time things got tense.

Perhaps if the driver's view, and the commander's, were included instead of just the gunners this might have helped the film. As it was the gunner spent the whole time turning the tank barrel to follow people in close up instead of doing his job and watching for enemies. It felt wack.

Viewers that think a camera being shaken in the last word in action and that believe what is put on screen before them is implicitly true and authentic might love this film. The wife gave up at about 30min, I fast forwarded the last 20 min.

Get The Beast out or watch Das Boot again instead...

Fmovies: It's only so so. As mentioned before, there is no character development, the dialogue and plot is unrealistic, the movie plods, and builds to no climax or resolution. Yes, war is hell, and some people are unprepared for the human face of killing. it's all been done before. And the novelty of he entire film taking place in the tank gets old after the first 20 min. It's just not a very good movie on any terms. It starts with a lot of potential, and then goes nowhere; you never care about the characters, so you never care what happens to them. It's fine for a foreign rental, but best war movie ever? Hardly. Might want to watch Glory or Black Hawk Down again...

I would have given this a one star but in the end, I don't want to discourage someone from making a real movie about this genre. This has got to be the worst tank crew in the history of armored warfare. Now, I know some IDF tankers personally. They consider themselves elite. The general IDF conscripts are sometimes bad but not the Armored Corps or their paratroop units. Their bravery and skill defended their borders against much larger and desperate tank assaults from Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Sometimes simultaneously. This crew couldn't hold back a team of boy scouts armed with slingshot. I am going to see if they'll comment on this but this movies is an insult to that bravery.

First off, this no one obeys orders. The gunner is a coward who follows his own troops with his gun sight (camera trick use d to film the action I know but it totally fails in that it is not what he's supposed to be doing, at all) and searching for targets. When he is presented with a target, not once does he actually fire on command. I am not debating his target opportunities, those were so cliché and predictable I wanted to turn the movie off.

A commander is supposed to be looking for targets and leading the tank. Two things he does not do during the entire movie. The loader is insubordinate to the point where I was hoping someone would just shoot him or, at least, kick his ass.

After a while I wanted the Captain Jamil to just shoot them all and I could not blame him in the least for what he did.

Too many other unbelievable things going on here. What tank commander allows just anyone to open the hatch. First off you can't unless someone inside unlocks it. You can't just walk up to a tank on a battlefield and open it like a car. Second. I want to be in that tank. They had enough room for a prisoner, interrogator and at one point a dead body? Who allows that?! Put it on the outside in a Body bag or under a blanket. Jeez. They had so much extra room they could put a bloody body in there ? That had to be the biggest turret I've ever seen. I actually felt like moving in, they seemed to have enough space. I did not feel claustrophobic at all. The crew's treatment of the tank should have been a court martial offense. Throwing trash on the floor, rounds lying in the oil/water mix, crap everywhere. You don't leave junk or trash lying all over your Armored Vehicle. A) There's no room and B) you don't want that junk to get in your way when your fighting.

Finally the "reflective" or "contemplative" camera style of just leaving the lens on an object for 5-10 minutes at a time (especially at the beginning) was sooo annoying I had a hard tome not hitting the FF button just to get through it.

Bottom line, see a movie like "The Beast" if you want to see tank crew action. Even Denzel does a good job in his Courage Under Fire movie. Skip this, it has not point, no action and no logic. This was not, anywhere near, and accurate representation of the war, of fighting men in a tank, of anything really. What a waste of a great topic for the sake of "Art".

Lebanon fmovies. "Man is steel, the tank is only iron." Sign inside the Israeli tank.

Lebanon is a claustrophobic cinema verite about an Israeli tank patrolling the First Lebanon War in 1982. On its way with paratroopers to survey a leveled, hostile town, the tank encounters enemies, and the inconvenience, boredom, and terror of living inside an iron box with not even enough room to pee. The above sign is amply ironic about the decidedly unsteel-like humans. The voice of Central Command coming over the communication network reminds me of Pinter or Beckett, ominous and remote, not anyone's idea of a benevolent god.

Comparisons have been made between this film and Das Boot (1981), the memorable submarine movie, also mostly shot inside the warship. However, Das Boot seems like a 4000 square foot condo next to Lebanon's 600 square apartment, so much more room does the sub seem to have with walking and just standing upright. Comparisons also have been made with last year's Oscar winner, The Hurt Locker. Their minimalism has much in common, but Hurt Locker gives richer characters and more breathing space.

The conflicts in Lebanon besides the grubby, grueling tank interior include the choice of shooting the enemy or not. The Solomon choices of blasting or not a car with passengers, a farmer's truck, and a young boy are dramatically intense. Also, when a Syrian prisoner is taken, the choice of how to treat him is not so easy because a supposedly helpful but devious Phalangist (Christian Arab) may want to torture him, unbeknownst to the Israelis.

The close up camera work is expertly done as it invites the audience to look while being repulsed at the same time, not an easy cinematic feat. The first and last shots of a sunflower field are another ironic touch.

This is a film to help us understand the harrowing life of soldiers and the ambiguous morality of war.

Lebanon is based on director Samuel Maoz's own experiences as a soldier in the 1982 Israel- Lebanon conflict. The film focuses exclusively on the experiences of the four young Israelis that are responsible for operating a tank that rolls into Lebanese territory at the start of the war.

For almost the entire duration, the characters and the audience are trapped inside the vehicle; we can see only what they can externally through the narrow tunnel vision of a gun turret periscope. With no wider political context and little character background, this viewpoint successfully creates a claustrophobic, tense atmosphere and provides originality and intrigue to what might have been overlooked as 'another war film'.

The soldiers, confined to the tank, are inexperienced, tired, hungry, thirsty, scared, homesick, dirty, feverish and unable to work competently as a team. In the opening scene, their collective callowness leads to the deaths of a fellow soldier and an innocent civilian. From here, difficulty after difficulty presents itself in the form of hostile forces, indignant superior officers, technological issues and internal disputes.

The way the characters respond, the powerful use of imagery - and the contrast between the constant mechanical noise and darkness inside the tank, and the bright environment and varied action outside - combine to shape a potent viewing experience.

To be sure, this movie is innovative. The point of view of the tank commander, the claustrophobic interior of the tank. But really thats all. There is no meaningful character development and no change of scene. The basic message is war is hell, but that has been done so many times before.

Essentially it is 90 minutes of various shots of dirty unshaven men complaining, tank interior rumbling, oil and blood. periscope views of the outside where civilians get killed.

To call it Das Boot in a tank is an insult to that fine film, which has great characters, proper character development, genuine suspense and a crippling emotional climax. This movie has none of those.

Added to this is a long list of inaccuracies about tanks and tank warfare that have been written about elsewhere.

There are a few token allusions to the Lebanese war, evil Phalagists and the murder of civilians. Perhaps that's why it got a prize. I am no supporter of the Israeli Defence Force, but I prefer my movies to have more depth and nuance.