Roman-pc

One of the first things I noticed in the movie is the seemingly faithful Afghanistan landscape--most of which is mountainous actually, instead of the sandy "desert" most people associate with the country. This misconception is the result of equating the area to the "Middle East" while Afghanistan more rightly belongs to "South Asia" albeit occupying a crossroads of sorts. Another movie released around the same time titled KANDAHAR gets this detail wrong (they filmed almost entirely in Saudi Arabia which is not a good stand-in for the country at all). Having said that, ironically THE COVENANT was filmed primarily in Spain of all places--almost half a world away from the place they were claiming to represent--but the arid, hilly landscape we see in this movie feels much closer to Afghanistan in fact. Which brings me to the point I value most about this film, namely the authenticity in spirit.

Such authenticity in spirit goes a long way towards engaging us in the story, the characters, the action, their fate throughout. The tremendous care with which the Spain landscape was framed to represent Afghanistan extends therefore to the scenario. We as audience care about these characters every step of the way. The interpreter--Ahmed--is played by an actor born in Iraq, now living in Denmark. But his performance is so good in an understated way that we never notice or think about the oddity of a Middle Eastern man playing a South Asian. Jake Gyllenhal is no less excellent, contributing well to a taut, intensely engaging film.

Having been on safari several times all over the world, NO sane person drives their own vehicle into the forest, much less WITHOUT a guide who is familiar with the territory. So here's the premise in a nutshell: a wealthy American family books a hotel in the environs of the Amboseli National Park, Africa--when the hotel tells them that their booking does not include a safari, the dad decides to drive by himself into the jungle. This setup is already a fail for me, but the writer makes it worse by making the characters say and do unbelievably stupid things.

There's mention of a "guard"--on safaris I've been on there were guides sure, but no guards and no guns. Wild animals view safari vehicles differently--as a rule, most safari jeeps are open top, only a few feet away from wildlife. Yes it's safe, provided you stay in your vehicle. Of course our American family here walks around by situational necessity you could argue--but nothing excuses the asinine things they say on spotting a deer carcass up a tree. (You don't have to be a wildlife expert exactly to surmise that's clearly a leopard kill.)

In short, on both realistic human and wild animal behavior the movie fails big time--I kept watching only to root for the animals against the airheads here and for the wild African landscape.

The critics have evenly panned this movie, calling it outright bad, in fact superbad--which only means I would find it entertaining. Well, it's not bad at all. In fact, the opposite--while the Langley, Virginia monitoring portal feels fake, this movie gets a lot of the inside details right, especially the ground reality in the region. The writer has some background in military intelligence, and it shows in the intricacy of details.

The same intricacy could be a double-edged sword though--because I have followed the American involvement in the region fairly closely for several years, I appreciated the depth but I can understand how more casual viewers could be turned off by so much seeming convolution.

I also appreciated the extra care the makers took to portray all players in a balanced way: we see the Iranian family side; Islam as a religion is not actually demonized; although the Pakistani ISI agent is clearly an antagonist, we hear about his aspirations to live in London or Paris. This muti-layered portrayal doesn't really take away from the overall entertainment though--I found this movie engaging from beginning to end.