Rating: 
It’s true: Peter Weir hasn’t made a bad film. From his early lesser known triumphs that include perplexing car carnage horror debut The Cars that Ate Paris and claustrophobic thriller The Plummer, through to the award winning likes of Gallipoli, The Year of Living Dangerously and Witness and on to more recent modern classics including Dead Poet’s Society and The Truman Show this is a director, not unlike David Cronenberg, who is incapable of churning out a disaster. Even his financial film failings (The Mosquito Coast and Fearless) are intelligent instantly likable affairs. So it’s fare to say when walking into a Weir film one’s expectations are lifted above the norm.
The Way Back, Weir’s first film in seven years, is based on the audacious (but probably fictitious) account of the Russian prison escape and subsequent 4,500 trek – from Siberia via the Gobi desert to India – by seven Polish/American prisoners in 1940. With punishing snow/desert terrain the mission appears doomed from the start, however these men ultimately seek freedom and would rather die attempting it than perish as prisoners of Stalin. One thing The Way Back doesn’t lack is stamina.
And true to form Weir doesn’t disappoint. He invests time in allowing us to get to know his characters, shows archetypal skill in weaving out well-rounded performances – of which particular merit must go to a never better Colin Farrell as a gutsy sneaky prisoner type – layers his story with humour and pathos, directs with stylish, confident flare and finally brings us the jaw-dropping spectacle we yearn from such a survival-against-the-odds yarn. To top this there’s a marvellously moving score by Burkhard Dallwitz which notches the film up to near Leanesque levels of epic indulgence. But regrettably there’s something curiously amiss.
And it took me a little while to realise the problem was ultimately that of emotional detachment. For some strange reason The Way Back lacks the emotional element that is essential for this kind of story. It’s not that the characters are particularly clichéd – though we have the weathered veteran type in Ed Harris‘ American emigrant and the young arrogant type in Jim Sturgess operative leader – or that there’s a lack of girl power to keep things grounded – Atonement’s Saoirse Ronan provides that necessity – but when characters begin to lag behind and die it’s more of a ‘oh!’ than a ‘oh no!’ It’s a pity as Weir really does paint the gruelling oppression with gutsy realism. We shudder as we see the group experience freezing conditions, we boil up as they burn and blister across deadly desert plains, we rejoice when they briefly find water and then wince when we glimpse at their terribly worn feet and elongated toe-nails. But unfortunately we are not moved enough and after a while their trek across the Gobe becomes a trifle tiresome and, akin to the doom-ridden characters, we just want it to all be over.
While Weir’s film does justice to a compelling story there’s little in the way of great Gallipoli style audience to character connection. Consequently The Way Back is a journey you rather wouldn’t have taken. However there’s still much to admire, including excellent chemistry from an impressive cast, a super uplifting score which will pleasingly play in your head for hours after, miles upon miles of eye-catching scenery and superb direction from Australia’s finest auteur.
The Way Back is released on Dec. 26th in the U.K. and Dec 29th in the U.S.
Want to write about this topic and have your work read by thousands every day? Click here to become a contributor to WhatCulture.
3 Comments
I largely agree with this view, however, I beg to differ on what you saw as an issue of “emotional detachment”.
While I do agree that there was something missing, I think it was Weir’s intention for the film to be as brutal and honest as possible, therefore making the characters extremely tough and consequently a little difficult to relate to. If this was Spielberg it would no doubt have watered-down characters and cheesy music in a cheap ploy to try and bridge that problem, however this was Peter Weir and I admire him for his honesty.
As for that ‘something’ missing, I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I think it was the way that the narrative seemed a bit porous and off-the-pace at times, as if large parts of the story had been skipped.
WASTED 2 HOURS. The landscape could never make up lack of story, character development, monotonous & ponderous score, banal humor, erratic pace and nothing for actors to get their teeth into and no directorial talent. The only redeeming point in the film is when Collinn Farrel decides he is not going to put up with the pointless exercise and decides to bow out gracefully from the farce.I could not see the point of token presence of Saoirse Ronan. Even though the promos mention the group crossing Himalayas into India, all you see is the group walking over a snowy hill and stepping into lush greenery of Indian teas estate. I could not see the whole point of the film. If you want to see a film about human endeavor then try seeing Eric Vali,s ‘Himalaya’ where you actually get to see Himalayas. I came out of the cinema angry feeling cheated and having wasted my time and money.
This is a great great movie, and for those who are whining like babies on the fact that they wasted a couple of dollars on a superb movie like this, consider your self cheap.