Overlord

Overlord-1080P

Overlord-720P

Overlord-480P

Overlord-360P

So often, we hear of an "original" film (or other piece of art), but how often do they really live up to that billing? As part of IFC's tribute to Z CHANNEL, it was refreshing that they included Stuart Cooper's OVERLORD (doubly so for myself, since I only watched bits and pieces of it myself when Z CHANNEL aired it back in the day!). An artful blend of documentary footage and black and white photography (by the legendary John Alcott - how did Cooper get him for such a low budget film?) that tells a very insular story of one British soldier's fateful part in WWII. The film is short on "plot", but it is intended more as a mood piece. The documentary footage is often remarkable. All but the most fanatical WWII devotee is likely to have seen only tiny fragments of the stock film used within. If I had to describe the film to someone, it would be as a combination of a TWILIGHT ZONE episode, Carl Dreyer's VAMPYR and Peter Watkins' similarly skillful faux doc THE WAR GAME (or Woody Allen's ZELIG if you will).

all seems be perfect in this film. acting, script, music, image. all is perfect. because it is the kind of story who present yourself to you. because the care for detail is almost magic and does every scene full of realism and sensitivity. it is one of rare films who has the gift to be out of words. a film about war but not in common manner. far to be a blockbuster, it is almost a poem. or a profound experience. bitter, clear, cruel, precise, delicate, honest work, it is only a masterpiece. who impress with extraordinary force. who creates an unique atmosphere. who use the silence and documentary slices with brilliant science. a perfect film. not exactly a war or a military operation. but about a life. about life, generally.

"Overlord" is a very good film, but marred by one constantly reoccurring flaw - the editing. The editing is so choppy, so ill-conceived that the film is never allowed to completely get off the ground. The newsreel footage could have been used much more effectively for punctuation as opposed to content. There's so much of it at play here that any new footage seems almost like an afterthought. And for a film whose running time barely tops an hour and twenty minutes, there's quite a lack of dramatic drive behind it. Every time "Overlord" settles into a powerful or gripping sequence (and there are several), five to ten minutes of uninterrupted stock footage breaks up the flow. Those are the bad points. Now for the good. The acting is the first thing that comes to mind. Brian Stirner plays Tom, the main character. He conveys emotion with such purity, from trepidation to fear to honesty to joy. His face draws you in with its uncomplicated childlike demeanour. The supporting actors are all equally impressive. No one ever feels like anything less than fully real. John Alcott, as far as I'm concerned, is the real star here. His cinematography perfectly mirrors the wartime footage used, but still giving it his distinctly powerful personality. He adds so much to this film. Stuart Cooper brings it all together, but his poor eye for editing sabotages his own best strengths. This is a very, very good film. But the pacing flaws present throughout make it extremely difficult to get into. If a more linear approach could have been adopted while still maintaining the powerful melancholy poetry of "Overlord", this could have been a great film.

Someone gave me the DVD of Overlord at Christmas and I thought it might be interesting for those who browse through these reviews to hear from someone who had a very very very small part in the making of this film, but who was in a position to observe some of the work that went into it. I was a young and inexperienced assistant editor at the time and I was present for much of the editing and completion of the film. We were mainly based in Stuart Cooper's house in Notting Hill- then not so fashionable, and moved later to Twickenham studios. I remember a roving showbiz correspondent putting his head round the door there and asking who was in the film, anyone he'd heard of? I couldn't help him and he withdrew in disgust. Quite rightly, John Alcott is honourably mentioned in reviews and Stuart's commentary for the look of the film and the accomplished matching of old and new. I would also mention Jonathan Gili's contribution, then an editor, who later went on to direct and produce many great and quirky documentaries for the BBC. Jonathan worked with Stuart to construct the rhythm and the blend of the archive and 'live action'. His poetic timing and intrinsic wit added immeasurably to building the motor of the picture, making it purr where it could easily have stuttered. He also shared a sense of perfectionism with Stuart. Paul Glass's score, conjured out of penury of time and money, added a depth and resonance way beyond the means at the production's disposal, and I would draw attention to it. Lastly, but certainly not least, I would mention Alan Bell the sound editor. I will never forget the awe I felt when I stumbled into the dubbing theatre at Twickenham Studios and heard for the first time the all tracks run through of the scenes where bombers are unleashed over darkened cities. Up to then, the archive footage, with which I had become familiar, had been splendid, poignant and distant. Alan's delicacy and imagination combined with the music to turn it into a terrible elegy; for sound editors the brutal and spectacular is sometimes easier, and the more delicate and mysterious more difficult, but Alan managed both. Remember, this was a time before stereo was commonplace and the word digital did not impress. Jonathan is now dead, so is Alan; John Alcott too; and Paul Glass must be pretty senior now. Overlord was made on a shoestring; I seem to remember that a 2CV was used as a camera car for tracking shots, despite John Alcott's cachet. The formality of the mis en scene can be explained partially by this fact. Faute de mieux, it faithfully -and conveniently- echoes the shooting styles of films of the 40s. But in essence the predictable dialogue and selection of scenes of Tom's life were created to mirror the structure of the Overlord and Bayeux tapestries, if I recall correctly. Not startlingly individual, but about ordinary men in extraordinary times. Where Stuart and Christopher Hudson elaborate this is in the dream and premonition scenes and this is a nod to 'film art'- perhaps the new tapestry format! Stuart, I believe, struggled hard, persuading, inspiring and cajoling, to turn the film into something far more ambitious than planned. And the fact that he did so is to his credit.

Fantastic, hidden gem of a movie with artistic elements you will only find in very rare 21st century indie films. But this film is more than just artistic, it weaves superb acting with abstract imagery. Cinematography beyond compare. I've never seen anything like this...absolutely stunning black & white with mixed real WWII footage integrated into the movie. And the British Imperial war footage is not the expected randomized grainy short clip montage, in no particular pattern. These film reel shots are crystal clear, HD quality close ups of casualties, airplane machine gun attacks, explosions, bomb runs, fires from aftermath, foot soldiers, vehicles, all in context of the artistic goal, related intimately with the main character's fears, and with greater context of the current and desperate situation the Allies faced in Europe. I highly recommend this work of art for any and all film buffs.

Read some of the reviews as was so hyped up that i was going to see a lost hidden gem of a war movie ( which is my favorite genre ) What i go is a mix of mostly newsreel footage and the most simplistic story about the most uninspiring character possible. Yes it does at the end convey the futility and tragedy of war , but then war is futile and tragic so as in this case it does not take much to convey it stay away unless you are looking for a sleeping pill.