Discussion in 'Movie Lounge' started by LarryB, Jun 9, 2007.

  1. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member

    I'm a bit late to the game but I finally saw this last nigth (at CJ's urging). I found it mildly entertaining but ultimately, rather insignifcant. IMO it was little more than a romantic adventure story, with more violence than I care for, and a corny ending thrown in for good measure.

    7.5 out of 10.

  2. stephenj

    stephenj Active Member

    I liked it quite a bit. IMO it was one of the 10 best movies of last year. beautifully shot and full of great action. Methinks it was dunned by many critics and avoided by many moviegoers because of the bad publicity aura around mel re the drunken outburst, etc.
  3. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member

    I think it got some bad publicity because it was pandering, and inaccurate to the extreme in offensive ways.

  4. Shane

    Shane Active Member

    I can't help believe you saw a different movie than I did but then again you didn't completely pan it. I mean you give it a 7.5 out of 10 which means you thought it was way above average. I'm a bit confused by your review statements.

    I think it got bad publicity because of Mel. Just like a people would have a certain reaction if Michael Moore had a film come out.

    It was inaccurate but it never meant to be accurate. Mel has stated this.

    The incredible aspect of the film is how Mel essentially filmed it. The actors he got weren't actors. He essentially taught them to act.

    Plain and simple it was a chase film and a well executed one at that. I was griped to my chair the entire time. It's quite an enthralling piece of work. The side backdrop was the civilization and how they destroy themselves from within. The violence was no different(worse) than Saving Private Ryan. Passion was FAR more graphic(for obvious reasons). Sometimes reality isn't pretty.
  5. Karl Englebright

    Karl Englebright New Member

    I agree Shane. Anybody that focuses on historical inacurracies I think is missing the bigger picture.
  6. Greg W

    Greg W New Member

    I have never understood people that pick apart movies. Seems to me like the point of a movie is to transport you, for a short time, to another place. Now, a documentary, or biographical movie that's claiming to be a true story is another thing, if they're showing inconsistencies, but...a fiction film, like this? What's the point of picking it apart?
  7. Shane

    Shane Active Member

    If Mel had stated "Based on a true story" then by all means. Some might pick it apart if they have some sort of agenda(Larry is not the case). I mean if they made a film about Oklahomans that was completely innaccurate I can see some folks here might have issues with it. I know other "indian" movies have faced similiar criticism like "Dances with Wolves" for instance.

    One thing is for sure, Mel is a visionary. Yeah he has some issues that can't be fixed(his anti Jew issues) but unless he's inserting that into every film(which he's not) then I don't have issues. Hollywood directors tend to do this more often than not. Name me another director who would have taken a stab at this film. I can't think of any. People complain about how Hollywood regurgitates films left and right with the same idea and yet miss films like this. I think it's a perfect example of something new and fresh.
  8. CJ

    CJ Bronze Member Admin War Zone Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Mel has done well enough that he can foot his own bill. That makes at least his last couple films independent films. Think about that and compare this to the last few independent films you've seen! I'm not saying this movie is perfect but this criticism comes from the same people who watch the Sopranos?! BTW, I heard a GREAT line about a month ago from John Waters. Paraphrased, he said these days he's not worried about how they portray homosexuals in films as much as he's worried about how they portray heterosexuals. Its all unreal. Take the most "real" character story out there and its still surreal. If it weren't no one would f-ing watch it.
  9. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member

    I didn't hate the film, nor am I angry with Gibson for making it. I simply don't care for his message.

  10. Jason Lorette

    Jason Lorette Active Member

    I have yet to view this one...but really want too...I hope that Mel continues to make 'off-beat' films like this...it's very refreshing.
  11. chad

    chad Well-Known Member War Zone Member Top Poster

    I can't make up my mind. It's not that I don't want to see it I just wonder how much I "need" to see it. I needed to see Saving Private Ryan and I did. I also saw The Thin Red Line, but I really did not need to and after I did see it, I wondered why I saw it... almost 10 years later I still sort of wonder why...
  12. Shane

    Shane Active Member

    Join the big club on that film. There is a long line of TRL haters out there. I never really saw what people thought they expected from Malick. His genius escapes me.
  13. Ken McDaniel

    Ken McDaniel Active Member War Zone Member

    There are still a lot of critics out there that lump TRL in with SPR. Over time, Saving Private Ryan kills Thin Red Line.
  14. Karl Englebright

    Karl Englebright New Member

    I agree!
  15. Shane

    Shane Active Member

    In my opinion, it's not saying much. I think SPR is vastly overrated. I think people go gaga over the Omaha Beach and ignore the rest where the film tends to fall flat. It's very reminiscent of WOTW where the first part was intense then boom the movie implodes.
  16. Karl Englebright

    Karl Englebright New Member

    I guess I don't agree with the notion that the rest of the movie falls flat. I don't really understand where the "flat" comes from. Is it that there isn't a lot of action after that? That the story doesn't move along, in your opinion? By the way, I'd say the last part of the movie is just as, if not more intense than the opening part. To me, it's the slower moments where the movie allows me to catch my breath and think a little deeper. Kind of what the characters end up doing... :)
  17. Shane

    Shane Active Member

    No. The story past that point seems very contrived. The ending... well Larry can explain it better than I can but the ending felt forced. Almost like Spielberg wants to manipulate you into a response rather than let the movie allow you to respond in your own way.
  18. CJ

    CJ Bronze Member Admin War Zone Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Are you talking about the end of SPR now or Apocalypto?
  19. Karl Englebright

    Karl Englebright New Member

    Well, it's SPR... I know, it's gone a bit off-topic. Sorry!
  20. Dennis Pagoulatos

    Dennis Pagoulatos Active Member

    TRL isn't really a war film IMO, but it's much better than SPR. SPR has a lot of thrilling and memorable scenes, but it is hampered by Schpielberg's over the top emotional manipulation of the audience in his storytelling- some people like this- I don't care for it. If you eliminate the "bookends" showing the present day (notwithstanding his hot daughters in the background) the movie would be stronger- but even with that edit, it's still a little bit too manipulative for my tastes...

    I liked Apocalypto, but I like B-movies, which is essentially what it is. I don't give a rip about historical accuracy- it's like expecting "Night of the Living Dead" to be scientifically and historically accurate


Share This Page