The Way Back (2010)

A group of men break free from the security and barbed wire fence of a Siberian gulag in search of freedom, however the guards are very small beer to the real prison – the ravages of nature itself and the great distance which must be crossed before they can be truly free.

Given that the focus of the film appeared to be one of endurance in the face of great suffering, this film is a bit of a hard sell for the casual viewer looking for something to watch of an evening; certainly for me this was part of the reason it took me a minute to decide to watch it. While it was an OK film, I'm not entirely sure if it was worth the two hours plus that it took to watch because it gives the viewer very little to engage with in doing so. The story is impressive in terms of the toll and also the sacrifice involved and accordingly the film wears it very seriously indeed. Hollywood excess is avoided and any crass sentimentality is absent, both of which I appreciated being omitted and restrained, and Weir documents the journey with a solemn air throughout. The first problem is that it feels like you're in a church – bowed with reverence witnessing things of importance but not really engaging with them because you're not really worthy. This feeling of worthiness really kept me at arms' length from the characters and the challenge they faced, to the point where it felt a little indifferent towards any specific one of them – not in a cruel way, but the feat appears to have been the focus rather than the people.

This is still able to make an interesting film though, because the feat is quite a thing and, as I said, the film is very careful to do it justice and not sentimentalise or trivialise it. This is my second problem with it – it probably overdoes it in this regard considering that so much of the story is questionable. I try not to let "facts" get in the way of enjoying a good movie because as a Brit I am used to seeing Hollywood twist history to make it more sellable to the mid-West etc. Thing is though, it is hard to accept that this is a good story when the film emphasises that it is true and also treats it with such reverence and respect for fear of getting it "wrong". Quite how one can get it "wrong" when so much of it is in doubt is anyone's guess, but the film takes this route and it hurts it in the process. It still makes for a very sturdy film but there without caring about the characters or really feeling in their trial, it didn't do a terrible lot else for me and I was surprised by how much of it I was just able to watch with very little involvement other than my eyes and ears.

One thing the film does do really well though is the delivery (visually speaking of course). The locations are immense and are put on the screen by director Peter Weir and cinematographer Russell Boyd in such a way that captures not only their natural beauty but also the sheer, uncompromising size of the places. It looks great throughout and I was surprised when I looked it up to find that Boyd didn't even merit an Oscar nomination for his work here (although it is an award category that has yet to give one to Roger Deakins so no surprise). It perhaps contributions to the "look at this epic story" worthiness that the film has, but in the case of the looks, it is worth it.

The cast also match the worthy tone and don't have a lot of time for character in between portraying hardship and perseverance. Sturgess struggles to really make an impression but he is

Fmovies: Peter Weir's first film in seven years is another exercise in sturdy direction with strong social themes running through it - recalling many of his previous works in style and content. It follows a group of escaped prisoners from a Siberian gulag in 1940 as they brave the treacherous wilderness of Asia for freedom from the Soviet regime. It's tough viewing for the most part but there is a surprising amount of comic relief along the way, provided chiefly by Colin Farrell's salty character. The group scavenge for food, even fighting off wolves for the carcass of an animal at one point - but the constant bickering and relentless doom and gloom does begin to wear. The film picks up however once Saoirse Ronan enters the picture and her youthful feminine presence brings an interesting dynamic. Emoting with a flawless Polish accent (almost like a mini-Streep) her character is one of the more compelling and layered and gives this emerging young actress a chance to display her skills. The cinematography is serviceable but hardly spectacular - capturing a harsh, arid landscape as opposed to Malick-like celebration of nature.

As the film wears on, the struggle to survive intensifies, particular when they reach the Ghobi desert - the scenes are very well done but viewing becomes quite grueling. Harris bring a certain integrity to his role in a rather unshowy performance with not much character introspection (I can see why his Oscar buzz has disappeared). In fact character development across the board is quite lacking, and watching the plot unfold, with the knowledge of the outcome of the story already provided in the opening titles - the narrative becomes quite arbitrary and the story doesn't always sustain interest. The final leg of the journey through the Himalayas almost seems rushed compared to the bloated second act. Still, it's a very well-made film with good acting and visuals - just don't expect to be inspired.

I mean these men escaped a Russian gulag and WALKED 4,000 miles from Siberia to India, come on...

So this movie is based on the 1959 memoir "The Long Walk" (of which there is some debate over its validity). Regardless I really enjoyed it, the story is incredible and I'd been looking foreword to seeing what they would do in the movie version. Throw in a top notch cast as our Siberian gulag escapees (Colin Farrell, Ed Harris, Jim Sturgess) and this should have been fantastic. All I can say there is maybe my expectations were too high because honestly I came away a little disappointed, actually preferring the book.

The movie itself was very long and kind of jumped around. Granted they had a lot of material to cover as our men escape under cover of a snowstorm and undertake a treacherous journey across thousands of miles of hostile terrain. They face freezing nights, lack of food and water, injuries, mosquitoes, an endless desert, the Himalayas, and moral questions of when to leave someone behind.

The cinematography is beautiful, the scenery breathtaking and everyone does a great job. Ed Harris is excellent as the American Mr. Smith (love him) and Colin Ferrell (love him a bit more) was awesome as a tattooed gang-style prisoner, with an amazing Russian accent. As a point of interest his character is not in the book. The scenes in the blizzard and the Gobi desert stand out to me and are brutal but well done. 08.11

The Way Back fmovies. This film tells two stories. The literal one involves a group of Gulag escapees that cross the whole Eurasian continent in order to escape from Russian oppression.

The scenery is amazing, the acting is solid, but, as it has already been noted in other reviews, the action isn't driven by dialogue. At first glance it could seem that some of the characters lack depth, it could seem that the supporting characters lack complexity and history that is so needed for emotional attachment.

But to achieve full understanding of the film, some knowledge of the history of Europe is mandatory. When the metaphor provided by the literal storyline is understood, the characters light up in a completely different light. Suddenly the unrealistically long and hazardous trip takes the revealing shape of the 50-year-long European genocide, repressions, suffering and struggle for independence; a struggle that has been wrongfully forgotten by many in the West.

Thank you for telling our story.

The story of a small group of people escaping from a Siberian Soviet prison, part of the "Gulag" in wartime and walking 4000 miles to freedom looked a trifle grim in the trailer, but Peter Weir has managed to produce a rather beautiful film out of it, using Bulgaria and Morocco as locales rather than Siberia and the Gobi desert. Only Darjeeling in India plays itself. My only trouble with it is the rather uneven character development. The story lends itself to ensemble playing but we learn little about two or three of the walkers. In the case of the lead character Janusz (Jim Sturgess) who is the source of the story this is explicable as we are seeing the others though his eyes, but it has to be said that both "Mr Smith" (the excellent Ed Harris) and the Girl (Saiorse Ronan) leave a lasting impression.

I know there is some doubt as to the authenticity of the story, taken from a 1955 book by Slavimir Rawicz a former Polish army officer, and indeed what the group are supposed to have done looks impossible but that's not a problem, because the relationships ring true. It is remarkable how an almost random collection of individuals, including one with a very unsavoury past, can, driven by sheer necessity, wind up functioning as a team. Partly this is due to the leader actually having some navigational knowledge and therefore inspiring confidence in the others. Mr Smith remarks early on that the Janusz has a serious weakness; he is kind, but when the chips are down we see that even the hard-bitten Mr Smith is capable of compassion.

Strangely enough, after the initial scenes in the prison camp, and the escape, there is not a lot of drama. The group encounter very few people on their travels and those they do meet take little interest in them (perhaps they had not heard about the bounty for escapees). Obtaining food and water is obviously a big issue, so mind out for the messy hunting scenes. I was astounded at how well their footwear stood up to the punishment; my hiking boots are not good for 400 miles let alone 4000. Actually they must have wandered around a bit - the northern end of Lake Baikal and Lhasa in Tibet are about 1800 miles apart, though the prison camp was somewhere north of the lake. It's also not clear how long the walk took, but at times it seemed like years. Weir's great achievement is to keep us watching a very drawn out tale. Personally I think I would have died of boredom if I had been in this particular walk, if starvation hadn't got me first.

Anyone familiar with Peter Weir's incredible body of work - particularly his earlier Australian-produced movies - knows that a new Weir movie is an important event indeed. Almost all Weir's too-infrequent movies are at least noteworthy (Witness, Dead Poets Society) if not downright great (Year of Living Dangerously, The Last Wave).

With The Way Back, Weir may have made his greatest film ever. An epic and unrushed (2 1/4 hours) trek from a Soviet Gulag to the green hills of India, this is a beautifully filmed and superbly acted piece. Let it take its time; it is thrilling and appalling, but also beautiful.

The story, which Weir apparently has long wanted to film, is based on the account of a Polish army officer who later moved to England and wrote (with a ghost-writer) the book "The Long Walk," describing the journey he took with seven others. The movie is quite true to the book, right down to the American "Mr. Smith," Ed Harris' character. While the veracity of the story in the book has been questioned, that doesn't interfere with the great film-making.

Harris is fine as always, as is Colin Farrell as a Russian thug, but it is Jim Sturgess, as the Polish leader of the expedition, who has the most bravura performance.

Bravo to the cast, cinematographer, and most of all, Mr. Weir.