What a waste.
We don't need to see three minutes of the heroine rearranging the furniture in her hotel room. We saw her sleep (or try to sleep). We saw her driving. We don't need to see her watching a couple in the next room having sex. (Settle down, they're on the other side of a frosted glass window.) Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of wandering around Sicily. Lots and lots of pointless looking at assorted unknown people and things. We got to watch another character wait to use the restroom; yeah, absolutely true. We even had the obligatory "brushing of the teeth" scene. Oh, I can't forget (but I wish I could) the three-minute wide static shot of a conversation with the characters in the distance. We couldn't really see their faces, so we couldn't see their facial gestures to get a sense of their emotions. It was a pretentious one-shot scene that confirmed the director's lack of talent. How artistic! Yeah, yeah, it's all character development, blah, blah, blah. No it isn't.
It ultimately took over half an hour for the story to really begin. The character's incessant pondering led me to ponder, "Is this director Mark Jackson's cinematic love letter to himself?
All the "blank" scenes in which nothing happened are, I would imagine, not just thought of (mistakenly) as "artistic" by the director, but a darn fine way to keep the budget down and an easy way to fill 90 minutes so it could be called a feature film instead of a short film - it looks better on the resume, I guess.
It's apparent that writer Kristin Gore and writer/director Mark Jackson have had no experience in photojournalism. I do (thankfully never in a conflict), and I've worked with people who have been in war zones. Yes, some war photographers suffer PTSD. Yes, some conflict photographers abuse alcohol and drugs. Rather than showing her at work, even in flashbacks, we have a conversation that tells us all about war photographers. (We even get to hear the almost required tired phrase, "It's what we do..") Talking about whatever is the cheap, cheating way out; they're called "motion PICTURES" for a reason. The traumatic experiences that shaped the character should be shown, even in a quick flashback,, not talked about. (And no, I'm not a war movie lovin' kinda' guy. I usually avoid those.)
The cast was good, no complaints there, although sadly everyone's acting skills were wasted. They gave good performances in a bad film. (Kingsly only had about five minutes of screen time; he's a great actor, but his appearance was huge waste of money.)
War Story isn't "artistic." Instead, it shows a lack of understanding about how to tell a compelling story about interesting characters through film. It's truly self-indulgent on a level rarely achieved. It's pretentious. It's a waste of money, a waste of effort, a waste of great actors, and even a waste of my own time. Bravo, Mark Jackson!, you got a free trip to Italy out of the deal.
This should have been a short film, 20 minutes at most. It _might_ have had a shot of being entertaining in that case... but probably not even then.
If you can't keep people interested by giving them a little entertainment, then all the artistry packed into a film means absolutely nothing. (We can be entertained by films with mature subjects and themes, believe it or not.)
I'm a film snob and I love great artistic films, but even that love of film couldn't get me to feel warm and fuzzy about War Story.
I hate this film.
