Pressure

Boring? Never. Thrilling and history-making? Indeed. Maras and Haig easily rise to the challenge to make the weather worth watching.

Pressure serves as a reminder of the many stories and individuals whose expertise and fortitude created the world we enjoy today. It also gives voice to the slim margins by which the war was decided. Perhaps the greatest act of service Pressure lends audiences, though, is the reflection of what all the sacrifices, violence and destruction was for.

A movie that stands up for science in an age of science-denying charlatans is a blessing. And this “true story” hews closely enough to the facts to play as history.

Pressure is an interesting, entertaining thriller that harkens back to a kind of studio picture that is now only made by mid-majors like Focus Features.

Fraser’s Eisenhower is physically imposing — much more than the real man — and stubborn too, though in a louder way. But he’s frankly less interesting than Scott’s multifaceted Stagg, a character and performance that elevates an otherwise efficient, well-made war movie into something more intriguing.

Pressure moves along with enough of a hook to keep one invested, despite its predetermined conclusion and overly familiar structure. As far as paying respect to the unsung heroes that meteorologists were in the war effort, the film carries out its duty. In terms for bringing the winds of change to the subgenre of WWII films, the result is more static than airborne.

Despite a few sparky face-offs between the actors, Pressure feels destined for a less notable fate: to cause plenty of armchair naps once it hits streaming.

There are not many good WWII movies anymore. However, every couple of years, someone has a story to tell about an important historical event from WWII. This year, the story is "Pressure." A well-made film about the weather conditions potentially affecting the D-Day landing. "Pressure" isn't going to win a lot of awards, but for war buffs like me who love good war films, it will do. 8 out of 10.

Solid historical drama. Dialogue driven, yet the weight of the situation is felt. The weather has never been more interesting. Good, not great.

This film is based on true events that shaped the Allied Forces invasion on D-Day. Just 72 hours before that event, General Dwight D. Eisenhower (Brendan Fraser) called in a noted British meteorologist (Andrew Scott) the determine the best day for the invasion. If he’s wrong, they’ll potentially lose World War II to the ****. Now that’s pressure! Scott turns in a deeply nuanced performance, as he grapples with the facts and conflicting opinions, while Fraser comes across gruff and demanding. The writing and direction play out in the traditional mode with solid dialogue, short scenes and predictable interactions. While there’s never much tension, the film is an interesting drama about a little known factor that influenced the future of the world.

I'm sorry, this is an anecdote, at best, for a WWII story and not capable of sustaining a feature film. D-Day was delayed 1 day, wowowowow.

Complete crap for a "modern audience." A total disgrace to **** (Eisenhower), as portrayed by Brendan Fraser, is the ultimate miscast of the decade. Countless books have been written about Eisenhower, universally describing him as an absolutely steely, charismatic leader with extraordinary endurance. But in the best traditions of the corporate scum catering to the "modern audience," this film is entirely busy destroying those historical images. Here, Ike is reduced to an emotionally unstable jerk, tormented by fear. Modern Hollywood is simply physically incapable of portraying a strong, competent male figure anymore. A leader must necessarily be written as an emotionally vulnerable snot on the verge of hysteria, an inferiority complex, and a panic attack. And yes, he literally CRIES. It's an absolute joke.