OT: Movies You Have Seen Lately - Page 5

Aloofi · #41 February 26th, 2003, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gregebowman:
But I have to disagree that Saving Private Ryan was that. I think you got the message that these soldiers fought, all too many died, for their beliefs. There wasn't any running off to Canada back in the 1940's

Oh, Saving Private Ryan was one pure anti war propaganda.
Lessons from the movie:
1- Soldiers lives are disposable to their commaders.
2- If you are brave you die
3- If you take point you die
4- If you obey your commaders orders you die
5- If you save civilians you die
6- If you help your squad mates you die
7- If you are a coward you survive
8- If you hide you survive
9- Don't ever go to war.

All of these are lies. But the worst thing is that these anti war feelings are so deep in your mind, as you have been exposed to this since you were born, that it all seem perfectly real.
I'm sure there are zillion more little details in this movie, but I haven't seen it in quite a while.

Stone Mill · #42 February 26th, 2003, 06:28 PM

Saving Private Ryan was about contradictions, and that is exactly why it is excellent.

The main question posed is "Does a humane act in a horribly heinous environment of war still have value?"

In the end- a wonderful contradiction... Ryan is "Saved" by one humane act (recovery mission)and returned to his family.

However, Capt Miller's other humane act (releasing the German Soldier) comes back to destroy him...

gregebowman · #43 February 26th, 2003, 06:45 PM

I think that why you feel Ryan was an anti-war movie was that it was too realistic. Too much blood and guts. I remember growing up and watching all those old war movies made in the 50's and 60's, and you didn't see any blood and guts. You saw a guy get shot and fall down. So I think we weren't too conditioned to seeing a realist war movie, at least as a society. Now, Hollywood has no problem showing the blood and guts, and IMO, that's why some people are thinking it's an anti-war movie. No, it's showing war as it more or less is: ugly, terrifying and not something to worship.

Atrocities · #44 February 26th, 2003, 07:55 PM

Dare Devil = B movie with B acting, and just play BAD movie. Don't waste your time or your money.

I think that now a days, the critics are being bought off. This movie is evidance of that.

Ragnarok · #45 February 26th, 2003, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Dare Devil = B movie with B acting, and just play BAD movie. Don't waste your time or your money.

I think that now a days, the critics are being bought off. This movie is evidance of that.

You're one of the first people that I've heard rate this a bad movie. Everyone that I've talked to said it was a good movie. Not great, but good. I enjoyed it myself. One thing I don't like about it though is they took too many ideas from Spiderman. I thought I was watching Spiderman all over again at times.
The best part of Daredevil though was the previews for X-man 2. That is going to be one sweet movie.

Aloofi · #46 February 26th, 2003, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gregebowman:
I think that why you feel Ryan was an anti-war movie was that it was too realistic. Too much blood and guts.
No, it's showing war as it more or less is: ugly, terrifying and not something to worship.

Too realistic?
Since when showing blood and guts is realism?

That blood is there just to scare the hell out of you. Most people that go to war DON'T get killed, or wounded, or anything. In real battle you DON'T see what's going on 2 meters away from your position, but in movies you see EVERYTHING that's happening at the same time in the whole battlefield. And everything happen very FAST instead of very slow, as the movies try to tell you.

Ragnarok · #47 February 26th, 2003, 11:17 PM

My .02 cents worth.

Quote:

Most people that go to war DON'T get killed, or wounded, or anything.

Then why are there so many memorial walls and things of that nature with names of ones who did get killed in battle?
I highly doubt any of us have been in battle to know if anyone gets wounded or not. So none of us can say for sure. But I am fairly certain people do get wounded. Whenever there is war, or battles, people are going to get hurt and killed. There's no doubt about that.

Quote:

In real battle you DON'T see what's going on 2 meters away from your position, but in movies you see EVERYTHING that's happening at the same time in the whole battlefield.

If a movie focused only on a certain part of the battlefield and not see "EVERYTHING," then the movie would not be all that interesting. It could be if done right. But when you're trying to fit a long story in a hour and 45 minute space, you have to have a camara view of EVERYTHING around the battlefield.

Quote:

And everything happen very FAST instead of very slow, as the movies try to tell you.

I agree with you here. But it all really depends on the battle situation, sometimes it happens slow, sometimes it happens fast. It all depends on what they are currently trying to do.

But anyway, that is just my opinions on the matter.

gregebowman · #48 February 27th, 2003, 12:11 AM

I can't imagine what being in a real battle might be like. During my time in the Air Force, we had exercises and such, but since I was always in a medical unit, we didn't too involved in the actual fighting part. The closest I came when I was in Korea, and they had frequent exercises, which meant I had to put on all of the chem gear. And that's no fun. I almost went to Persian Gulf I, but due to a matter of logistics, there wasn't enough room for about 30 people in my unit. Still, they went to a site just barely within Scud missile range and never saw any action.

Kamog · #49 March 12th, 2003, 09:31 AM

Have you seen the movie "Cradle 2 the Grave"? Is it any good? I'm thinking of possibly going to see it. I have seen a few earlier Jet Li movies, and they were OK, but not great... is this one the same sort of movie as the other ones?

Edit: By the way, why is this one called "Cradle 2"? What happened to "Cradle 1"? I don't remember there being a "Cradle 1", or did I just miss it?

[ March 12, 2003, 07:33: Message edited by: Kamog ]

Ruatha · #50 March 12th, 2003, 09:44 AM

gregebowman >
So you're into the med profession aswell.
I'm an ensign in the Swedish army (reserves).
Originally I was a medic in a rifle platoon but now that I'm a doctor I'm placed a bit further behind the lines.
Still we haven't had a war since 1814, unless you count UN missions. So I will hopefully never treat any gunwounded patients except the sedated pigs we practice on.
Still. I'm thinking of going on UN missions in about 10 years, when the kids gets older. But then I'll propably just have administrative functions as by the I'll hopefully be a major.(? English rank? - Major)

The interesting thing is that studies of the recent wars (1950->) shows that most incapicitated soldiers are suffering from psychic problems instead of physical wounds. Still. a war with no wounds and deaths is kind of a contradiction....
If the soldiers feel that they will be taken care of if they are wounded this degree of psychic problems drops rapidly though.

But yes, in all wars there are spilled guts, pneumothoraxes and missing limbs, etc.

As to movies -> still I promote " A crying Game", british film. And "Amelie from Montmarte", french film and "Women on the Verge of nervous brakedown", spanish film.

(Edit spell and movies + correction, se post above.)

[ March 13, 2003, 11:21: Message edited by: Ruatha ]