Johny Himalaya

I wanted to like Danger Close, as I had followed its production online and was very keen to see it once it was released. I saw the film twice at the cinema, before I wrote this review, just to make sure I wasn’t being too critical. And to be fair there were some things I didn’t mind about it. Travis Fimmel is a brilliant actor, whose work in the series ‘Vikings’ was outstanding. Fimmel put in a great effort to infuse some complexity into the written role of Maj Harry Smith. He improvised some interesting quirky and dark moments in the first part of the movie, However he was limited in what he could achieve overall due to the writers lack of believable storytelling. Evidence of distortion of truth includes a scene where Maj Smith physically disciplines Pte Large for a negligent discharge of his weapon. And again when Pte Large decides it is a good idea to start a blue with Maj Smith, striking him in the back with his weapon. Did this really happen? By the end of the movie when Smith tries to bond with Large, you have a hard time buying into it. The writers also felt the need to fabricate the part where Fimmel faces wave after wave of assaulting enemy, firstly with his M16 rifle and then his pistol. In reality Maj Harry Smith actually never fired a shot during the entire firefight. Like Fimmel, Luke Bracey was solid and portrayed a convincingly brave and committed leader, however choosing him to play Sgt Bob Buick, who by many accounts was an unpopular annd controversial platoon sergeant, was a mistake. And why was the role of NZ Artillery Forward Observer Morrie Stanley played by an Aussie? A Kiwi actor like Rhys Darby would have done a top job and could have provided some genuine comedy. As a re-enactment of Vietnam-period Australian Army tactics and gear, Danger Close’s production values showed attention to most details. There was obviously some research and care put into props, costuming, weapons, vehicles, etc. Where the reality tended to fall down was in the actors lack of soldier skills. Travis Fimmel showed commitment to good weapon-handling. Many of his fellow cast members, however, seemed to struggle throughout the movie with firearm basics such as trigger discipline. This was one re-curring issue that was particularly frustrating to watch. The film had some great talent available, was big on special effects and explosions, but ultimately it managed to avoid any sense of surprise, suspense and any real drama. Controversy was most definitely present in the 1966 battle of Long Tan and has since been well-documented by historians and argued over amongst veterans (both Australian and Vietnamese) to this day. Why then, were the many inconsistencies not explored in more depth? Instead, Danger Close delivers a very safe narrative based on the standard ANZAC myths of disregard for authority and ‘mateship’. In this day and age the audience is more than ready for an update.