Lebanon

It sure is way better than Fury. It is also rather immersive since its been spoken in a local language. It is about men in war, not heroes, men. There is not much in the characters, but since the performances are great, you can really see that no one of them is having a nice time inside that hot, sweaty and terrifying steel box, and the fact that the whole movie is shot inside the tank and only view outside is the tanks gun sight.

Sure there are some things that aren't right, for example the tank looks too big from inside and the guys should definitely wear something in theyre head.

Anyway it sure is a very distressing, gross and terrifying war movie that isnt enjoyable to watch, that doesnt mean that it wouldnt keep me on the edge of my seat for the whole short runtime.

It's only so so. As mentioned before, there is no character development, the dialogue and plot is unrealistic, the movie plods, and builds to no climax or resolution. Yes, war is hell, and some people are unprepared for the human face of killing. it's all been done before. And the novelty of he entire film taking place in the tank gets old after the first 20 min. It's just not a very good movie on any terms. It starts with a lot of potential, and then goes nowhere; you never care about the characters, so you never care what happens to them. It's fine for a foreign rental, but best war movie ever? Hardly. Might want to watch Glory or Black Hawk Down again...

"Man is steel, the tank is only iron." Sign inside the Israeli tank.

Lebanon is a claustrophobic cinema verite about an Israeli tank patrolling the First Lebanon War in 1982. On its way with paratroopers to survey a leveled, hostile town, the tank encounters enemies, and the inconvenience, boredom, and terror of living inside an iron box with not even enough room to pee. The above sign is amply ironic about the decidedly unsteel-like humans. The voice of Central Command coming over the communication network reminds me of Pinter or Beckett, ominous and remote, not anyone's idea of a benevolent god.

Comparisons have been made between this film and Das Boot (1981), the memorable submarine movie, also mostly shot inside the warship. However, Das Boot seems like a 4000 square foot condo next to Lebanon's 600 square apartment, so much more room does the sub seem to have with walking and just standing upright. Comparisons also have been made with last year's Oscar winner, The Hurt Locker. Their minimalism has much in common, but Hurt Locker gives richer characters and more breathing space.

The conflicts in Lebanon besides the grubby, grueling tank interior include the choice of shooting the enemy or not. The Solomon choices of blasting or not a car with passengers, a farmer's truck, and a young boy are dramatically intense. Also, when a Syrian prisoner is taken, the choice of how to treat him is not so easy because a supposedly helpful but devious Phalangist (Christian Arab) may want to torture him, unbeknownst to the Israelis.

The close up camera work is expertly done as it invites the audience to look while being repulsed at the same time, not an easy cinematic feat. The first and last shots of a sunflower field are another ironic touch.

This is a film to help us understand the harrowing life of soldiers and the ambiguous morality of war.

To be sure, this movie is innovative. The point of view of the tank commander, the claustrophobic interior of the tank. But really thats all. There is no meaningful character development and no change of scene. The basic message is war is hell, but that has been done so many times before.

Essentially it is 90 minutes of various shots of dirty unshaven men complaining, tank interior rumbling, oil and blood. periscope views of the outside where civilians get killed.

To call it Das Boot in a tank is an insult to that fine film, which has great characters, proper character development, genuine suspense and a crippling emotional climax. This movie has none of those.

Added to this is a long list of inaccuracies about tanks and tank warfare that have been written about elsewhere.

There are a few token allusions to the Lebanese war, evil Phalagists and the murder of civilians. Perhaps that's why it got a prize. I am no supporter of the Israeli Defence Force, but I prefer my movies to have more depth and nuance.

The film presents a concentrated and specific indictment of war through presenting innocent and unwilling young men who are unquestionably brave under fire, but virtually helpless in a dicey and deteriorating situation. Such an anti-war arc is more effectively used in Bernard Wicki's extraordinary 1959 German anti-war film Die Brucke, also about a doomed squad of young men, because the latter provides fuller backstories for each man. Maoz's young actors are vivid and believable. Shmulik (Yuav Donat), Assi (Itay Tiran), Hertzel (Oshri Cohen) and Yigal (Michael Moshonov), the crew; Jamil (Zohar Staruss), their arrogant (and hitherto unfamiliar) superior officer; or their Syrian captive (Dudu Tassa); and the several others are all good. But they only appear to us in the tank as the operation begins; it all takes place in a few hours, and there is no time to provide back-stories; they are appealing but somewhat generic.

Despite his personal experience (25 years ago) in the 1982 war, some of Maoz's writing falls prey to clichés of the oversensitive rookie, the brusque superior officer, the insistence of bodily needs, and so on. A lot of the dialogue seems stagy, even though this staging trumps anything you could do in a theater.

'Lebanon' is nonetheless a superb piece of film-making and no mere tour de force, because it all takes place within a tank, but DP Giora Bejach, as Maoz puts it, was "two photographers," depicting the events inside but also shooting through the tank's sights so we see the world outside as the crew sees it, including several devastating scenes in which Lebanese civilians are ravaged, humiliated and killed -- in particular a mother (Raymonde Ansellem) keening over her dead little daughter whose dress catches fire, leaving her naked. This is far more shocking than any of the provocations in Lars von Trier's 'Antichrist,' which seem contrived and calculated in comparison. Lebanon is very fine in its resolution of the problem of the claustrophobic setting.

The film exposes the Israeli violation of international law. The tank crew is told that a town has been bombed, and their job is to accompany troops who are going in to wipe out anyone left alive in it. The commander repeatedly orders the bomber to use white phosphorus bombs, but says they're illegal so they will call them "flaming smoke."

Action in the tank is specific and compelling. These guys are little more than boys. The newest member is the gunner. He admits he's shot only at "barrels" before this, and when the time comes to shoot, he can't pull the trigger, with disastrous results. What happens when you're in a tank and can't leave it, but it becomes disabled in enemy territory? In 'Lebanon' you find out.

I differ with Derek Elley's view (in VARIETY) that this film is superior to 'Beaufort' and 'Waltz with Bashir.' Both provide a a larger context on the war; the "visceral" vividness of the young men's experience doesn't compensate for this lack. I'm also surprised VARIETY says this film "has the least to do with Lebanon per se," and "could be set in any tank, any country." Mr. Elley seems to have forgotten about the Lebanese civilians as well as Arabic-speaking "terrorists" (the IDF term for the enemy) who are very vividly seen in this film, and not in the two others, both of which, however, are excellent films. They're all good, and all have severe shortcomings as views of the Lebanese war.

Maoz won the Golden Lion in Venice for this directorial debut. Sony will distribute the film in the US. Seen as a part of the New York Film Festival at Lincoln Center 2009.