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.

Pressure might be the best film ever made about a weather report, which also happened to be the most crucial one in history. Andrew Scott further solidifies his case as a leading man with another intriguing performance that highlights his soft-spoken, introspective qualities. Recommended. detroitcineaste

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Weather is something that affects us all, though it’s also something to which most of us pay little attention unless there are potential or actual consequences at stake; then they often take on paramount importance. The impact can be somewhat ameliorated with an accurate forecast, but that’s often problematic, even with today’s advanced technology. So it can be hard to fathom what it might have been like to predict the weather without it, as was the case in the 1940s, when meteorology was just beginning to come into its own as an accepted science. Such was the case in June 1944, when Allied Forces in Europe were planning the D-Day invasion of France’s Normandy coast, the largest contingent of air, ground and water forces ever assembled, and the subject of the latest offering from writer-director Andrew Maras. Given the complexity of the operation, the lead organizer of the attack, Gen. Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower (Brendan Fraser), wanted an accurate weather forecast – one that provided “certainty” – for the time frame of its implementation (weather in Europe in late spring could be highly unpredictable, with a mix of both pleasant and exceedingly stormy patterns). If contending with that weren’t enough, Allied Forces also had to deal with the intricate logistics of the campaign and keeping it under wraps from German forces that might be more than ready for its launch. The pressure for success was great, too, in the wake of a disastrous dress rehearsal that took place several months earlier. So, to get the result he wanted, Ike recruited soft-spoken British meteorologist Capt. James Stagg (Andrew Scott), regarded as the best in the business. However, Stagg’s cautionary approach to forecasting did not sit well with Eisenhower, especially since it ran counter to the work of resident, long-trusted weatherman Irving Krick (Chris Messina), whose views often clashed with his more conservative British counterpart. Thus began the battle for whose forecast would ultimately prevail, with both the Supreme Commander and his British colleague, Gen. Bernard “Monty” Montgomery (Damian Lewis), breathing down their necks. Who would prove correct (and how)? More importantly, though, would D-Day take place on its scheduled date of June 5, or would it have to wait until the next projected favorable window of opportunity, June 18? Much was thus riding on this go/no go decision, and it all appeared to come down to what was regarded as a seemingly inconsequential consideration. To be sure, this aspect of the D-Day story was undoubtedly important and not particularly well known until recently, yet its role was positively undeniable, given its turning point nature to the outcome of World War II. And that’s made abundantly clear through this war film with a twist. The film presents a clear chronicle of the scenario, with fine period piece production values, well-staged battle sequences, and capable performances across the board, including those already noted, along with Kerry Condon as Eisenhower’s chief aide. However, the picture tends to become repetitive in explaining how events unfolded. What’s more, it has an aura of somewhat inflated self-importance about its story, attempting to lead viewers to believe that its narrative is more epic than it actually is (no disrespect intended). I essentially see this as a well-made TV movie that doesn’t quite have the degree of impact that a theatrical release should have. Admittedly, this offering is probably best seen on the big screen, though don’t be disappointed if it doesn’t quite live up to grander expectations. In light of that, then, unless one has a sense of urgency to see “Pressure,” waiting for it to come to streaming may ultimately be the best option.

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.