There have been a number of relatively realistic movies about war that have been released over the past twenty-five years or so -- "Platoon," "Saving Private Ryan," "Blackhawk Down" -- but this one has to be among the most brutal of them.

For one thing, combat in a rain forest is about as awful as it gets. The opening images tell us what to expect. First, there are some arty shots of leaves and war materials, all dripping with water, and a few shots of animal life -- borrowed, maybe, from the poetic "The Thin Red Line" -- while a solemn voice describes the situation facing an untrained and ill-equipped group of Australian engineers hastily conscripted into a military unit designed to stop the Japanese advance across the mountains of New Guinea, save Port Moresby, and thus Australia. The Americans are in no position to help and the "chocos" are outnumbered ten to one by the enemy.

Then we see a mountain of yellow mud from which a half-clothed man emerges as in an animated cartoon. The man is coated from head to foot with dripping mud and carries a rifle that can barely be distinguished for what it is. He slips and slides down a mountain trail, past a long line of stretcher bearers hauling the wounded uphill. He finds the mate he was looking for. But when he shakily unbuttons the man's shirt, the intestines spill out, and out of them slides a living snake. It's a combination of a bad dream and a flash forward but it tell us this isn't going to be lighthearted fare.

It's a riveting story of a patrol, half a dozen or so men, sent forward as an "early warning line" to warn of the approach of the Japanese. Half of them die. And when they die, they don't just stop a bullet, grasp their chests and slump wide-eyed into the sludge either. They are riddled by machine guns; they have a bayonet thrust through their orbital socket into their brain; they're tied to a tree and used as bayonet practice. Squibs? They're so yesterday.

There was hardly a moment when I could look away from the screen, although at times, what with the raggedy uniforms and the coats of blood and ooze, it was hard to tell one character from another. There were also moments when the dialect was a bit confusing. "Chocos and sinkers in the same bloody hole." (At least that's what I think they said.) I also wondered exactly how graphic a violent film had to be to achieve its end. The horrors of living in a tropical rainforest are bad enough -- the ants, the mosquitoes, the constant filth. All the men are sick with one disease or another. Do we need to see one or two taking a particularly urgent dump because of dysentery? Do we really need to see a helpless man shiver and scream while a bayonet is thrust through his eye? I'm not arguing that explicit brutality makes for a poor movie. I'm just raising the question of how far we ought to go.

It's an exhausting tale. Men haul themselves up mountains and slide back down again through the dripping shrubbery, carrying packs full of equipment. And at times I was as lost as they were. By the end, you're likely to feel as spent as the survivors. And when a colonel addresses the men and gives them the expectable pep talk, it seems like a necessary catharsis. He almost chokes up when he tells them that they've been made to witness some things no one should ever have to see, and he is so right.

The performances are fine, with no one standing out in any of the few principal roles. The direction is professional and the sparse musical score apt. The camera does wobble once in a while but only functionally, when it adds to the tension of a scene. The technique isn't used indiscriminately as it is in so many current action movies like the "Bourne" franchise. The few scenes of combat are well handled. It always adds a touch of verisimilitude when a man under fire has to stop to reload and we see his hands trembling as he inserts another clip.

A nice job by cast and crew, covering a part of the war that was almost completely lacking in glamor but necessary nonetheless.

Watching war movie is quite often a painful time,seen all those bloody killings are hard to see, in other hand this genre show us how it happened and consequently allow me more knowledge over the history, however the history are told by the winners, so be carefully over it, although l'd thousand war movies it was the first one to tell over japanese invasion on Aussie territory, Kokoda's event was totally obscure until now, an valuable picture made in the real rainforest, a hard job to do due the challenging ground, the Aussies Chocko soldiers really was there, a weak point is about expendable Colonel's speech at final, totally useless to those what war really means!!

Resume:

First watch: 2018 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7.25

Kokoda is not perfect. Nor is Beneath Hill 60. What they share is being 21st century Australian war movies. With a miniscule budget, both crafted a realistic but reverent portrait of accidental heroes on strange Queensland sets, Tamborine and Townsville respectively. Malick did an overblown Hollywood $50million extravaganza in Mossman a couple of years beforehand, proving all war is pointless. Sorry, Terrence, but you are dead wrong. Civilisation is worth protecting. I had no idea this was Alister Grierson's first outing. It seems so much more accomplished. There is a script waiting for you- Peter Ryan's "Fear Drive My Feet".