FOR those who were not around in the Seventies (you didn’t miss much), Jose Padilha’s account of the 1976 hijacking of an Air France flight from Tel Aviv to Paris contains a few shocking moments. Yes, in those pre-9/11 days it really was possible for armed terrorists to board flights and boot open cockpit doors.
Less welcome than the history lesson is Padilha’s draining of all tension in a tale so action packed it has already been the subject of several other thrillers.
The first sign of film-making trouble to come lies in the opening scene of dancers going through a routine. Padhila then cuts to two terrorists, German left wing-revolutionaries Wilfried Bose and Brigitte Kuhlmann (Daniel Bruhl and Rosamund Pike) boarding the plane after a stopover in Greece.How the dance routine and the hijack are connected is anyone’s guess at this stage. But appearing to explore terrorism through the medium of contemporary dance is certainly an, er, interesting creative choice, one you hope the picture will soon drop and we can all pretend it did not happen. Alas, no such luck.
Once the flight is underway, Bose and Kuhlmann lose no time in getting down to their grisly business. The plan is to take the plane to Entebbe in Uganda, where dictator Idi Amin has agreed to give the terrorists safe haven while they issue demands to the Israeli government.
In Tel Aviv, cabinet opinion is divided on how to respond. Defence minister Shimon Peres (Eddie Marsan) urges a swift military rescue, while prime minister Yitzhak Rabin (Lior Ashkenazi), fearing fatalities among the hostages, considers negotiation.
The tension should be rising by the second, except it does not. Instead of building on what is there, Padilha, working from a screenplay by Scots writer Gregory Burke (responsible for the brilliant Black Watch and the outstanding drama that was ‘71), allows the film to hare off in all directions.
As was the fashion in Seventies disaster movies, time is spent exploring the lives and motivations of minor characters. But in those films the exploration came at the start and was used as a way to build tension. Look at these ordinary Joes, little do they know what lies ahead on this fateful day, etc.
In Entebbe, the detours, coming as they do in the middle of the picture, simply bring the action to a halt.
We do, mind you, get to find out the relevance of the dancers at the start: one of them is the girlfriend of a soldier on the raid. Doubtless, the dance itself was meant to convey some message about the search for peace in the Middle East, but I'm afraid the point passed me by. Whatever the reason for its inclusion, it hardly excuses the film’s over-reliance on it as a motif, most ludicrously when the raid on Entebbe unfolds.
Elsewhere, the exposition heavy dialogue shifts from creaky to dull. The treatment given to Bruhl’s character, making him out to be appalled at how things were turning out, is forced and unconvincing, while Pike’s story hints at something interesting only to get lost amid the melee.
Netflix continues its advance into cinema with the glossy and engaging science fiction thriller Anon (15) ***. Clive Owen stars as Detective Sal Freeland, a cop whose job is made easier, if far more boring, by the fact that everyone’s every waking moment is recorded. To find out whodunnit, Detective Frieland only has to hit rewind. But then along comes a killer who has no digital footprint. How can the police catch such a ghost in the machine? Written and directed by Andrew Niccol, and also starring Amanda Seyfried as a super hacker who comes to the attention of police, Anon makes good use of a limited budget by piling on the Philip K Dick-style glamour and ideas. An intriguing watch, even if the too clever by half story runs out of puff early on.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article