The Trench (1999) - A well performed, if slightly sluggish period piece!

There are films out there, where the primary purpose isn't to deliver an engaging story, nor mind blowing visuals. Instead, these films are principally a showreel for the actors that are in it. A film where they can demonstrate their range and abilities. A recent example would be the award winning, If Beale Street Could Talk, a film that originated from a stage play. Another being the infamous Oscar winner, Moonlight, where the first class performances are what sells you on the drama within the narrative. But not all of these films are focused on peace-time dramas. A lesser known example is William Boyd's 1999 war drama, The Trench.

There admittedly isn't a lot to say about this film, mainly due to the lack of depth within it's narrative. It's literally just a group of soldiers bickering in the build up to the battle of the Somme in 1916. If this was being put on as a stage show, then I can see it being quite popular. But, if you're going into this film expecting something really deep and meaningful, then you will likely be disappointed by this film. And having read reviews from the time, my expectations were very low. However, the performances by this cast kept me interested in this film. Each of this ensemble cast gets time to shine, some more so than others thou. Don't expect to remember their names either, as even after watching this film, all I can do is refer to these characters by the names of the actors playing them. I'm sure the character Danny Dyer plays has a name, but if I'm not referring to him as Danny Dyer, I'm just referring to him as gobby drinker.

Daniel Craig admittedly feels a little out of place in a film so simple, but that's primarily due to the fact that he is so well known now as a Hollywood leading man. It feels a little strange to see him in a low budget art house inspired war movie. Nevertheless, he is definitely the standout performer in this film. Principally for the fact that he is the only performer who comes closest to completely disappearing into his role. I still refer to his character as Daniel Craig, but his performance is by far the most compelling. Craig very rarely gets to demonstrate how convincing he is as a strict, military type, but here you really feel how intimidating he can be in the face of stress and fear. He can merge between a calm, understanding persona and barking orders loud enough to get Gunnery Sergeant Hartman quaking in his boots. Danny Dyer also shows a nice range of emotions. While he spends most of the film being his trademark gobby east end type, he does get to show a more emotional side that many people at the time wouldn't have expected from him.

The film is beautifully claustrophobic, with 99% of the film taking place in the trenches on the front line. And while it is evidently a studio set, right down to the iffy looking transition from it to a real world field, the set is really well detailed, and is convincing in it's authentic look. The injuries seen on display feel authentically gruesome as well, combined with excellent uses of lighting and cinematography, the film does a genuinely good job of convincing it's audience that they are in the middle of a war zone. Whilst not the most convincing in film history, it's clear that the crew behind this were at least still trying.

While this review might be short, it's simply because very little can be said about this film. It's fine in it's own merits and works if all you want is just to see some British actors show off their acting skills. But if you want something really authentic and more grandiose in it's scale, then films like Zulu and 1917 might be more up your street. For me, I'm glad I watched it, but will I be going back for a rewatch any time soon?... Probably not!

SCORES

Story - 3/5

Character - 2.5/5

Production - 3.5/5

Acting - 4/5

Music - 2/5

TOTAL - 6/10