Review of Overlord

Overlord (1975)
7/10
Sympathy and Syphilis
26 October 2010
"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.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed