This is a curiosity. I like it. It's entertaining, and sufficiently engaging to keep watching through to the end. I don't have any specific reason to doubt the skills of anyone involved. I'd like to see more features from everyone involved.
Yet whether we're talking about Heath Brown's score, the editing or production of writer-director Glenn Triggs, or the performances drawn out of the cast, almost everything in '41' is unremarkable. I don't mean bad - it's absolutely not bad - just unremarkable. Almost nothing here is especially noteworthy; nothing leaps out as a defining element. I watch it and think to myself, "That was good!" - then move on with my day, end of story.
I did say "almost"; there are a couple scenes in the screenplay that stick out. For one thing, halfway through we get a dialogue in which protagonist Aidan joins a group of high-minded middle-aged men philosophizing about this and that, and he approaches them with questions about the time travel quandary he has stumbled into. One of these conversationalists is especially cynical, and as Aidan defines the hypothetical terms of time travel, that naysayer casts aspersions on the notions being put forth. In short: A character within the film is critiquing the plot of the film. I couldn't help but laugh; this was clever.
Second, in the last quarter of the feature, as Aidan seeks resolution to the issues at hand, he makes use of the time travel he has discovered in a way I certainly didn't anticipate. From very early on in '41' I thought I knew exactly where the plot was going to end up - and I was wrong. Kudos, Mr. Triggs; you got me.
And yet for all that the ultimate ending, the very last few minutes, aren't satisfying. I don't find this conclusion to the story convincing, as though there's a hole somewhere in the twisted weave of the time travel, and its tangled ramifications, that I can't quite place my finger on. Maybe that's just me. But it does mirror, in its own way, the vast majority of these 80 minutes that is just simply flat in tone, unprovocative in its build, and overall mystifying.
Again, '41' certainly isn't bad. I do like it; I think it's worth watching, if not necessarily going out of one's way to find. I just feel so much of it to be weirdly undistinguished, however well done it may be.
This movie has an admiring audience, and apparently I'm just not part of it. I'll say this much though, my curiosity is piqued by the bizarre duality of being largely unexceptional, yet still solidly crafted. It may be a subjectively wrong way of keeping my attention, but it was kept nonetheless. Well played, '41' - I think?
