|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 26, 2014 3:42:31 GMT
I hail from a military family, and so I'm familiar with a lot of what goes on.
As far as the movie goes, personally I'd have liked some additional focus on the Afghanis who stuck their necks out to help him.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 26, 2014 5:06:43 GMT
I hail from a military family, and so I'm familiar with a lot of what goes on. As far as the movie goes, personally I'd have liked some additional focus on the Afghanis who stuck their necks out to help him. Isn't Jack Ryan the Tom Clancy guy? |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 26, 2014 17:33:02 GMT
.The trailer sells the film as being all about Mark Luttrell's attempts to escape and evade the Taliban. Instead, 60+ minutes of the film's 121 minute run time are focused on the ambush and the loss of the first helicopter. Luttrell is on his own for just a few minutes, and the Afghanis who helped him are treated more like plot devices than actual human beings; the only one the film even tries to flesh out is a young boy. The film is far more graphic than it needs to be, including two extended sequences showing the men falling down cliffs and getting battered on the way down and a scene in which Luttrell removes the shrapnel from his own wounds. Between the vulgar language, the graphic content, and the misplaced focus on the violence, I can't recommend this film. It's really, really disappointing, especially since the people who did the film had everything they needed - including Luttrell himself - to make it come out right. I'll have to take his word over yours.  As far as the violence and blood..., well, combat is pretty violent and bloody. To get it "right" that has to be shown. As far as the language...., well, military types are pretty foul mouthed. To get it "right", that has to be shown. Civilians will never understand what getting it "right", means as far as the military goes. Band of Brothers and The Pacific, both got it "right". Both were full of blood, violence and foul language..... Luttrell interviewAnother Lutrell interviewIn terms of bad language I've noticed that at least as far as the Army is concerned those who don't or rarely swear are usually identified by name - especially in units that saw combat. This seems to indicate that such individuals are unusual, which when you think about it makes sense - 'Drat' somehow doesn't quite express what it feels like to come under artillery fire. (The same holds for soldiers who don't drink). It is interesting to note that in the air-force the opposite occurs, in that the pilots who swear a lot are the ones who are pointed out - and even then pilots seem to use milder language than their ground based counterparts. (Sailors of course are known for swearing. Its a job requirement.) In terms of blood and guts films and TV shows probably understate what it is like, certainly in heavy combat. This is because they aim for a particular rating, and if they showed the full horrors of war they'd get an adult rating at best or be refused a rating at all. (Because, you know, its perfectly fine to send 18 year olds off into a war zone but immoral to show the effects of war/combat to 30 year old's....Then again it is also 'immoral' to say 'hell' in a children's cartoon according to US censors.) |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 26, 2014 22:24:30 GMT
I hail from a military family, and so I'm familiar with a lot of what goes on. As far as the movie goes, personally I'd have liked some additional focus on the Afghanis who stuck their necks out to help him. Isn't Jack Ryan the Tom Clancy guy? He is, but "Shadow Recruit" is an original work and not based on anything Clancy wrote in life. Kinda like how all Bond films after "License To Kill" were created by the studios instead of Fleming. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 27, 2014 0:49:50 GMT
Isn't Jack Ryan the Tom Clancy guy? He is, but "Shadow Recruit" is an original work and not based on anything Clancy wrote in life. Kinda like how all Bond films after "License To Kill" were created by the studios instead of Fleming. I think I missed a topic shift between Shadow Recruit, and the other movie you and Cyber are discussing. I was wondering about the Afghani connection. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 27, 2014 16:37:28 GMT
It's two discussions going at once.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 28, 2014 0:53:06 GMT
It's two discussions going at once. I have it straight now. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Feb 1, 2014 4:12:51 GMT
If you were looking to catch "Labor Day", then don't waste your time or money.
I'll give the film credit for doing what they could to ensure that it was a solid period piece (right down to acquiring vintage G. I. Joe figures for the kid to play with), but that's all it has going for it; the movie itself is ponderously slow, and the climax is telegraphed well in advance.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 1, 2014 5:21:51 GMT
I watched Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, and the verdict was mixed. Mrs TLW liked it better than the original, while I thought it suffered a bit for being a sequel. it still had its good moments, even if some things were a bit predictable.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Feb 9, 2014 3:09:20 GMT
If your kids can handle a character being "killed" and a handful of dark sequences, then The Lego Movie is more than worth the price of admission.
If it doesn't get at least an Oscar nod, there will be nerd rage.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 9, 2014 3:18:13 GMT
If your kids can handle a character being "killed" and a handful of dark sequences, then The Lego Movie is more than worth the price of admission. If it doesn't get at least an Oscar nod, there will be nerd rage. I've had it in the netflix queue since September. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Feb 15, 2014 3:35:05 GMT
Saw Robocop this afternoon.
It had the potential to be a good movie, but the writers ruined it by turning it into a political spiel.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 15, 2014 4:59:15 GMT
Saw Robocop this afternoon. It had the potential to be a good movie, but the writers ruined it by turning it into a political spiel. according to Faux News, the Lego movie was also ruined by turning it into a political spiel. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Feb 15, 2014 23:09:29 GMT
Saw Robocop this afternoon. It had the potential to be a good movie, but the writers ruined it by turning it into a political spiel. according to Faux News, the Lego movie was also ruined by turning it into a political spiel. Robocop turned the Omnicorp CEO (played by Michael Keaton) into a straw corrupt corporate executive and presented news show host Paul Novak (Samuel L. Jackson) as a foul-mouthed jingoistic blowhard who regarded anyone who wasn't for turning America into a military dictatorship as a traitor. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 16, 2014 14:19:58 GMT
according to Faux News, the Lego movie was also ruined by turning it into a political spiel. Robocop turned the Omnicorp CEO (played by Michael Keaton) into a straw corrupt corporate executive and presented news show host Paul Novak (Samuel L. Jackson) as a foul-mouthed jingoistic blowhard who regarded anyone who wasn't for turning America into a military dictatorship as a traitor. well, the original didn't have a jingoistic reporter... and it was the Omnicorp #2 who was corrupt - the CEO was reasonably neutral. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Feb 17, 2014 1:21:45 GMT
Robocop turned the Omnicorp CEO (played by Michael Keaton) into a straw corrupt corporate executive and presented news show host Paul Novak (Samuel L. Jackson) as a foul-mouthed jingoistic blowhard who regarded anyone who wasn't for turning America into a military dictatorship as a traitor. well, the original didn't have a jingoistic reporter... and it was the Omnicorp #2 who was corrupt - the CEO was reasonably neutral. They shifted the neutral guy to being the head of Omnicorp's parent company. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Feb 23, 2014 22:15:00 GMT
Saw "Pompeii" yesterday.
For the price of a ticket, you can rent "Gladiator", "Titanic", and a documentary on Vesuvius from Netflix.
...and not miss a thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 24, 2014 4:00:14 GMT
Saw "Pompeii" yesterday. For the price of a ticket, you can rent "Gladiator", "Titanic", and a documentary on Vesuvius from Netflix. ... and not miss a thing.my SIL saw half of pompeii last week... she made a comment about the demographics of pompeii. Apparently it was populated exclusively by prostitutes and gladiators, or some such. for the nail in the coffin - Mrs TLW didn't ask me to put it on the queue. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 27, 2014 6:05:06 GMT
Enders Game: how to review this movie without a major spoiler.
in short, they started it with a spoiler. they made such a fundamental change from the book as to make the movie a completely different story. I found that profoundly disappointing. they didn't trust the storytelling and by doing so they weakened the story considerably.
that said, it was still a dramatic and suspenseful story, the cinematography and special effects were stellar; and I did not notice any bad acting.
therefore my review is mixed. technically, it is a good show, thematically, it is a good show. however, it still gets a "did you READ the book?" final score.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Feb 27, 2014 6:33:12 GMT
Enders Game: how to review this movie without a major spoiler. in short, they started it with a spoiler. they made such a fundamental change from the book as to make the movie a completely different story. I found that profoundly disappointing. they didn't trust the storytelling and by doing so they weakened the story considerably. that said, it was still a dramatic and suspenseful story, the cinematography and special effects were stellar; and I did not notice any bad acting. therefore my review is mixed. technically, it is a good show, thematically, it is a good show. however, it still gets a "did you READ the book?" final score. OSC himself actually had a hand in making the adaptation, and so whatever was changed was likely changed with his blessing. |
|
