|
Post by EdoBosnar on Nov 18, 2017 11:36:17 GMT -5
Well, I'll agree that Lyndon has a slow pace, and honestly it's one of those movies I really don't feel the need to rewatch (much of it having to do with the time commitment). But then again, I never really find myself with the desire to rewatch any of Kubrick's movies - I think Dr. Strangelove and 2001 are the only ones I've watched all the way through twice (or more in the case of the latter). And funny that you mentioned reading Clarke's novelization before seeing 2001 - that's the same for me, so I didn't have any problem understanding what was happening. I've always thought A Clockwork Orange is a bit overrated. Yes, it's fascinating at places as you noted, but ultimately more style - and yes, shock - than substance (although I'll acknowledge that McDowell's performance was quite good). By the way, I've read Burgess' novel, with that final chapter that Kubrick ignored in the movie, and honestly I found it pretty unsatisfying as well. I guess A Clockwork Orange is just something that didn't click with me.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 18, 2017 12:33:07 GMT -5
Well, I'll agree that Lyndon has a slow pace, and honestly it's one of those movies I really don't feel the need to rewatch (much of it having to do with the time commitment). But then again, I never really find myself with the desire to rewatch any of Kubrick's movies - I think Dr. Strangelove and 2001 are the only ones I've watched all the way through twice (or more in the case of the latter). And funny that you mentioned reading Clarke's novelization before seeing 2001 - that's the same for me, so I didn't have any problem understanding what was happening. I've always thought A Clockwork Orange is a bit overrated. Yes, it's fascinating at places as you noted, but ultimately more style - and yes, shock - than substance (although I'll acknowledge that McDowell's performance was quite good). By the way, I've read Burgess' novel, with that final chapter that Kubrick ignored in the movie, and honestly I found it pretty unsatisfying as well. I guess A Clockwork Orange is just something that didn't click with me. Clockwork is one of those films and books that seems to attract a lot of people who just don't quite get the intended message. There is a really F-d up fanbase around the movie and Alex and, from my experiences as a bookseller, the book seemed to attract a rather repressed group of youngsters. I worked for Barnes & Noble for 20 years and A Clockwork Orange was on a few school's high school summer reading lists (amazingly, in Central Illinois). However, there was a whole other group that seemed to fixate on it and several other books, including Lolita, Perks of Being a Wallflower, Fight Club, American Psycho, and a few others. The common factors of this group, as I observed, included being socially awkward, bright but living more in a fantasy world, anti-corporate (in words, if not quite in deeds, as they drank plenty of Starbucks coffee in our cafe), and also a tendency to think they were the smartest people in the room. These are generalizations; but, I saw a lot of these kids who were drawn to these specific books and similar ones. We even had a ring of shoplifters who were targeting these titles. However, they weren't as clever as they thought, mainly because they were dumb enough to brag about it on a blog, like no one from B&N would see it! One of the employees did and we took extra pains to security tag these books and, sure enough, I busted them in the act. The kid I caught looked like his pants suddenly got about two pounds heavier. We knew what these kids looked like and would put out the alert if they came in the store and gave them extra attention, from just about everyone working. This time, I was positioned near the door and I could tell one of them had something. Sure enough, he set off the alarm and I asked him to step back. He was looking everywhere but into my eyes. I asked him if he had something that might be setting off the alarm and he stood there, silently. i suggested maybe a cell phone and he took it out. I asked him to step through again and he said, "Can I just pay for it?" I replied, "You are definitely going to pay for it." He went to the counter and paid and I marched him out the door. I told him he was banned and not to come back. I also told him this wasn't a game and his "friends" were setting him up for major trouble (they were watching from the sidelines, like this was some kind of initiation). He left and I turned to them and told them to leave, too, and not come back. The claimed innocence and I told them not to blog about stealing, next time, and to get out. They stayed away, after that and our inventory numbers for those titles suddenly became more stable. Sad thing is, statistically, the most shoplifted title is the Bible.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,051
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 18, 2017 13:04:05 GMT -5
FMJ is great up until the end of the boot camp scenes. Once it goes to Vietnam, I feel it loses the realism and the characters who engaged me the most. I also think it doesn't handle the Battle of Hue very well, though it isn't really trying to cover the battle, just this group's actions. As I say, the first half is one of the most brilliant films revolving around the military; but the second half falls well behind something like Platoon or The Boys in Company C. See, I let this go the last time you said it, but I gotta pull you up here and say that it simply baffles me how you can think that Platoon is superior to Full Metal Jacket. I mean, don't get me wrong, I enjoy Platoon and even own it on DVD -- and it definitely deserves props for being the first mainstream Hollywood film to wrestle with the uncomfortable legacy of Vietnam, without succumbing to the '70s nihilism of something like Apocalypse Now or The Deer Hunter -- but it's just way too "Hollywood" for my tastes. A lot of it plays out like some old John Wayne war movie, like Sands of Iwo Jima or even The Green Berets, especially with the big final battle at the end, the pantomime bad guy of Sgt. Barnes, and the slow-mo, totally over the top death of heroic Sgt. Elias. It's as if Oliver Stone couldn't quite make up his mind whether he was making a gritty war film, a soap opera about life on a military base or a haunting examination of the harrowing effects of the war on the brave Americans who fought it. For me, even Hamburger Hill is superior to Platoon. It's not as well crafted, sure, but at least it knows what it wants to say. There's also scant consideration of or reference to the Viet Cong or the native Vietnamese as anything approaching real human beings in Platoon -- and that's one aspect in which Full Metal Jacket definitely scores over it. Stone's film reminds me of something that Pat Mills, the author of the British comic Charley's War once said, and that is that most war comics, like most war films -- even the supposedly gritty, "war is hell" type movies -- are secretly in love with the concept of war as a fictional device. Platoon is definitely one of those "war is hell" movies that secretly loves the war, while Full Metal Jacket just isn't. But like I say, it's not that I don't enjoy Platoon, it's just that, to me, it's just another Hollywood war movie. Full Metal Jacket, on the other hand, is a film making artisan's pièce de résistance (at least, in my opinion). It has a bold, unorthodox structure (and I think that the unusual structure is a deliberate choice that is designed to unsettle the viewer and thrust them into unfamiliar territory, much like the American soldiers are thrust into the unfamiliar environment of Vietnam), a compelling examination of the duality of man, and a harrowing take on the psychical and sexual dehumanization of soldiers at war. Simply put, it's a stunning piece of work. I do agree that the scenes in FMJ that are set in Hue City, while wonderfully shot, don't actually look much like Hue, but, as you say, to quibble about that is to miss the point somewhat. Regardless of its authenticity though, FMJ scores for showing an urban warfare situation like the Battle of Hue, instead of the familiar jungle setting that most Vietnam films use. I could go on and on, waxing lyrical about the film and what Kubrick was trying to do with FMJ -- and I'm sure that you and I will always disagree about its merits -- but I really do believe that it is a far superior piece of cinema than Platoon. Like you, I really enjoy the first half of Full Metal Jacket, but the second half is no less visceral a viewing experience IMO.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 18, 2017 14:33:44 GMT -5
FMJ is great up until the end of the boot camp scenes. Once it goes to Vietnam, I feel it loses the realism and the characters who engaged me the most. I also think it doesn't handle the Battle of Hue very well, though it isn't really trying to cover the battle, just this group's actions. As I say, the first half is one of the most brilliant films revolving around the military; but the second half falls well behind something like Platoon or The Boys in Company C. See, I let this go the last time you said it, but I gotta pull you up here and say that it simply baffles me how you can think that Platoon is superior to Full Metal Jacket. I mean, don't get me wrong, I enjoy Platoon and even own it on DVD -- and it definitely deserves props for being the first mainstream Hollywood film to wrestle with the uncomfortable legacy of Vietnam, without succumbing to the '70s nihilism of something like Apocalypse Now or The Deer Hunter -- but it's just way too "Hollywood" for my tastes. A lot of it plays out like some old John Wayne war movie, like Sands of Iwo Jima or even The Green Berets, especially with the big final battle at the end, the pantomime bad guy of Sgt. Barnes, and the slow-mo, totally over the top death of heroic Sgt. Elias. It's as if Oliver Stone couldn't quite make up his mind whether he was making a gritty war film, a soap opera about life on a military base or a haunting examination of the harrowing effects of the war on the brave Americans who fought it. For me, even Hamburger Hill is superior to Platoon. It's not as well crafted, sure, but at least it knows what it wants to say. There's also scant consideration of or reference to the Viet Cong or the native Vietnamese as anything approaching real human beings in Platoon -- and that's one aspect in which Full Metal Jacket definitely scores over it. Stone's film reminds me of something that Pat Mills, the author of the British comic Charley's War once said, and that is that most war comics, like most war films -- even the supposedly gritty, "war is hell" type movies -- are secretly in love with the concept of war as a fictional device. Platoon is definitely one of those "war is hell" movies that secretly loves the war, while Full Metal Jacket just isn't. But like I say, it's not that I don't enjoy Platoon, it's just that, to me, it's just another Hollywood war movie. Full Metal Jacket, on the other hand, is a film making artisan's pièce de résistance (at least, in my opinion). It has a bold, unorthodox structure (and I think that the unusual structure is a deliberate choice that is designed to unsettle the viewer and thrust them into unfamiliar territory, much like the American soldiers are thrust into the unfamiliar environment of Vietnam), a compelling examination of the duality of man, and a harrowing take on the psychical and sexual dehumanization of soldiers at war. Simply put, it's a stunning piece of work. I do agree that the scenes in FMJ that are set in Hue City, while wonderfully shot, don't actually look much like Hue, but, as you say, to quibble about that is to miss the point somewhat. Regardless of its authenticity though, FMJ scores for showing an urban warfare situation like the Battle of Hue, instead of the familiar jungle setting that most Vietnam films use. I could go on and on, waxing lyrical about the film and what Kubrick was trying to do with FMJ -- and I'm sure that you and I will always disagree about its merits -- but I really do believe that it is a far superior piece of cinema than Platoon. Like you, I really enjoy the first half of Full Metal Jacket, but the second half is no less visceral a viewing experience IMO. Like I say, it's a matter of perspective. I come at Vietnam War movies from the perspective of a student of military history and from someone who was in a military commissioning program, at the time of these films. One of the reasons that previous movies were mostly jungle-based was that many of the Army experiences were built around patrolling specific sectors, largely in a jungle/paddy environment. The Marine experience was a bit different, with Hue being a major set piece, as well as Khe Sanh. Platoon better captures the authenticity of that experience, to me, than FMJ. Platoon is more of a memoir, of sorts (and a jazzed up one, certainly), but, one that feels a lot closer to accounts I read, from veterans and observers. FMJ is more built around a theme that Kubrick is presenting and I think he loses a lot of authenticity in it, in the Vietnam scenes. That was far stronger in the boot camp material and I think Lee Ermey was a big part of that. Meanwhile, I was exposed to The Boys in Company C prior to FMJ, which centers around a group of young Marines, from boot camp to Vietnam, which also has Ermey in the role of a DI, and which seemed to capture the absurdity of the war, with bodycounts and warped politics, better, as well as had a more engaging cast, all the way through the film. Visually, it can't compare to Kubrick; but, from a story standpoint, I think it is vastly better, as a whole, and more authentic. It doesn't have anything as powerful as the first half of FMJ; but, it's a better story than the second half and more consistent in the level of storytelling throughout. I would agree that Platoon is more "Hollywood," as Stone was a veteran of it, as much as the war, and he was going for commercial, as well as personal. Kubrick's may be more artistic; but, I don't think his story is as good(not the Vietnam section, anyway). For my money though, of the films of that timeframe, that dealt with Vietnam, the best (for me) is Coppola's Gardens of Stone. It captures a lot about the period, from multiple perspectives: older military veterans of the war, who were in training positions; young, idealistic recruits; young, scared recruits, good leaders, bad leaders, journalists, anti-war, pro war, the families who had to wait for news, and the people who dealt with the casualties. The love story in it between DB Sweeney and Mary Stuart Masterson is rather weak; but, the one between Anjelica Huston and James Caan makes up for it. The comradery between Caan and James Earl Jones is excellent, and the debates between Caan and Sweeney get to the heart of the military perspective of the war. Caan voices a lot of sentiment of seasoned veterans that the ARVN and the South Vietnamese government were corrupt and not worth protecting; but that the North Vietnamese government wasn't much better, that the fight was less about ideology than age old fighting between regionally disconnected groups who had been fighting among themselves for generations. They didn't believe in any of that political propaganda. At the same time, they felt that if they were going to be stuck fighting the war, they should be allowed to fight without the restrictions imposed upon them, for political expediency. They knew better than anyone that war is a failure of diplomacy and is destroys more than it preserves; but, they also felt it was better to end things quickly and decisively, to prevent greater loss of life. It was a perspective of the war that Hollywood had missed, between the jingoism of John Wayne's Green Berets, the anti-war films of the late 70s and 80s, and the metaphorical pieces like Apocalypse Now. Meanwhile, the one films about Vietnam that I thought had a better balanced view was the little seen Go Tell The Spartans. It's set early in the war, before the US presence and operations escalated. It's an anti-war film; but, it gets in well with how hamstrung the advisors were, how corrupt the ARVN and government were, while also adding a journalist's perspective to the whole situation, which was the biggest historical element shaping the American perspective of the war. Student clashes and the like were as much about authority as they were the war; but, as more and more violent imagery emerged from Vietnam, the more volatile the protests became. It's been said that the government finally realized they were losing the war when Walter Cronkite expressed his doubts, on air, about the ability of the US to "win" the war. Mel Gibson's We Were Soldiers is filled with problems; but, the combat it depicts is fairly accurate, from the accounts I have read and seen of the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley. The co-author of the book and the man Gibson portrays was heavily involved with the film. It probably more accurately presents the perspective of the professional soldier, vs the draftee or single tour perspectives we get from other films. I wonder if we will ever see a Vietnam film that really captures the experience on all sides. I don't think you ever really get that in any fictional film, no matter what the subject. I haven't seen it yet; but, the recent Ken Burns documentary has gotten raves for providing perspectives from North and South Vietnam, as well as the US. I haven't heard if it even brings up the involvement of soldiers from South Korea and Australia, to which most Americans are oblivious. It sounded like it was trying to capture that same kind of depth that the Thames Television The World at War did for WW2. I desperately want to see it; but, am waiting for the price to come down. So far, the only Vietnam-based film I saw that had much of a Vietnamese perspective was Good Morning Vietnam and that was rather filtered.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Nov 18, 2017 15:07:46 GMT -5
Clockwork is one of those films and books that seems to attract a lot of people who just don't quite get the intended message. And add to that the fact that in the book, the final chapter I mentioned kind of defuses what comes before, so - to the best of my recollection, as it's been well over 20 years since I read it - there's quite a tonal shift. Without giving too much away, the overall story assumes a very different aspect from the movie and I can't help but think that most of those little 'outsider' types shoplifting the book at your store were more than a little disappointed by it.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 18, 2017 15:20:00 GMT -5
See, I let this go the last time you said it, but I gotta pull you up here and say that it simply baffles me how you can think that Platoon is superior to Full Metal Jacket. I mean, don't get me wrong, I enjoy Platoon and even own it on DVD -- and it definitely deserves props for being the first mainstream Hollywood film to wrestle with the uncomfortable legacy of Vietnam, without succumbing to the '70s nihilism of something like Apocalypse Now or The Deer Hunter -- but it's just way too "Hollywood" for my tastes. A lot of it plays out like some old John Wayne war movie, like Sands of Iwo Jima or even The Green Berets, especially with the big final battle at the end, the pantomime bad guy of Sgt. Barnes, and the slow-mo, totally over the top death of heroic Sgt. Elias. It's as if Oliver Stone couldn't quite make up his mind whether he was making a gritty war film, a soap opera about life on a military base or a haunting examination of the harrowing effects of the war on the brave Americans who fought it. For me, even Hamburger Hill is superior to Platoon. It's not as well crafted, sure, but at least it knows what it wants to say. There's also scant consideration of or reference to the Viet Cong or the native Vietnamese as anything approaching real human beings in Platoon -- and that's one aspect in which Full Metal Jacket definitely scores over it. Stone's film reminds me of something that Pat Mills, the author of the British comic Charley's War once said, and that is that most war comics, like most war films -- even the supposedly gritty, "war is hell" type movies -- are secretly in love with the concept of war as a fictional device. Platoon is definitely one of those "war is hell" movies that secretly loves the war, while Full Metal Jacket just isn't. But like I say, it's not that I don't enjoy Platoon, it's just that, to me, it's just another Hollywood war movie. Full Metal Jacket, on the other hand, is a film making artisan's pièce de résistance (at least, in my opinion). It has a bold, unorthodox structure (and I think that the unusual structure is a deliberate choice that is designed to unsettle the viewer and thrust them into unfamiliar territory, much like the American soldiers are thrust into the unfamiliar environment of Vietnam), a compelling examination of the duality of man, and a harrowing take on the psychical and sexual dehumanization of soldiers at war. Simply put, it's a stunning piece of work. I do agree that the scenes in FMJ that are set in Hue City, while wonderfully shot, don't actually look much like Hue, but, as you say, to quibble about that is to miss the point somewhat. Regardless of its authenticity though, FMJ scores for showing an urban warfare situation like the Battle of Hue, instead of the familiar jungle setting that most Vietnam films use. I could go on and on, waxing lyrical about the film and what Kubrick was trying to do with FMJ -- and I'm sure that you and I will always disagree about its merits -- but I really do believe that it is a far superior piece of cinema than Platoon. Like you, I really enjoy the first half of Full Metal Jacket, but the second half is no less visceral a viewing experience IMO. Like I say, it's a matter of perspective. I come at Vietnam War movies from the perspective of a student of military history and from someone who was in a military commissioning program, at the time of these films. One of the reasons that previous movies were mostly jungle-based was that many of the Army experiences were built around patrolling specific sectors, largely in a jungle/paddy environment. The Marine experience was a bit different, with Hue being a major set piece, as well as Khe Sanh. Platoon better captures the authenticity of that experience, to me, than FMJ. Platoon is more of a memoir, of sorts (and a jazzed up one, certainly), but, one that feels a lot closer to accounts I read, from veterans and observers. FMJ is more built around a theme that Kubrick is presenting and I think he loses a lot of authenticity in it, in the Vietnam scenes. That was far stronger in the boot camp material and I think Lee Ermey was a big part of that. Meanwhile, I was exposed to The Boys in Company C prior to FMJ, which centers around a group of young Marines, from boot camp to Vietnam, which also has Ermey in the role of a DI, and which seemed to capture the absurdity of the war, with bodycounts and warped politics, better, as well as had a more engaging cast, all the way through the film. Visually, it can't compare to Kubrick; but, from a story standpoint, I think it is vastly better, as a whole, and more authentic. It doesn't have anything as powerful as the first half of FMJ; but, it's a better story than the second half and more consistent in the level of storytelling throughout. I would agree that Platoon is more "Hollywood," as Stone was a veteran of it, as much as the war, and he was going for commercial, as well as personal. Kubrick's may be more artistic; but, I don't think his story is as good(not the Vietnam section, anyway). For my money though, of the films of that timeframe, that dealt with Vietnam, the best (for me) is Coppola's Gardens of Stone. It captures a lot about the period, from multiple perspectives: older military veterans of the war, who were in training positions; young, idealistic recruits; young, scared recruits, good leaders, bad leaders, journalists, anti-war, pro war, the families who had to wait for news, and the people who dealt with the casualties. The love story in it between DB Sweeney and Mary Stuart Masterson is rather weak; but, the one between Anjelica Huston and James Caan makes up for it. The comradery between Caan and James Earl Jones is excellent, and the debates between Caan and Sweeney get to the heart of the military perspective of the war. Caan voices a lot of sentiment of seasoned veterans that the ARVN and the South Vietnamese government were corrupt and not worth protecting; but that the North Vietnamese government wasn't much better, that the fight was less about ideology than age old fighting between regionally disconnected groups who had been fighting among themselves for generations. They didn't believe in any of that political propaganda. At the same time, they felt that if they were going to be stuck fighting the war, they should be allowed to fight without the restrictions imposed upon them, for political expediency. They knew better than anyone that war is a failure of diplomacy and is destroys more than it preserves; but, they also felt it was better to end things quickly and decisively, to prevent greater loss of life. It was a perspective of the war that Hollywood had missed, between the jingoism of John Wayne's Green Berets, the anti-war films of the late 70s and 80s, and the metaphorical pieces like Apocalypse Now. Meanwhile, the one films about Vietnam that I thought had a better balanced view was the little seen Go Tell The Spartans. It's set early in the war, before the US presence and operations escalated. It's an anti-war film; but, it gets in well with how hamstrung the advisors were, how corrupt the ARVN and government were, while also adding a journalist's perspective to the whole situation, which was the biggest historical element shaping the American perspective of the war. Student clashes and the like were as much about authority as they were the war; but, as more and more violent imagery emerged from Vietnam, the more volatile the protests became. It's been said that the government finally realized they were losing the war when Walter Cronkite expressed his doubts, on air, about the ability of the US to "win" the war. Mel Gibson's We Were Soldiers is filled with problems; but, the combat it depicts is fairly accurate, from the accounts I have read and seen of the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley. The co-author of the book and the man Gibson portrays was heavily involved with the film. It probably more accurately presents the perspective of the professional soldier, vs the draftee or single tour perspectives we get from other films. I wonder if we will ever see a Vietnam film that really captures the experience on all sides. I don't think you ever really get that in any fictional film, no matter what the subject. I haven't seen it yet; but, the recent Ken Burns documentary has gotten raves for providing perspectives from North and South Vietnam, as well as the US. I haven't heard if it even brings up the involvement of soldiers from South Korea and Australia, to which most Americans are oblivious. It sounded like it was trying to capture that same kind of depth that the Thames Television The World at War did for WW2. I desperately want to see it; but, am waiting for the price to come down. So far, the only Vietnam-based film I saw that had much of a Vietnamese perspective was Good Morning Vietnam and that was rather filtered. Enjoying the excellent back-and-forth here and your commentary in general, Confessor and codystarbuck ! I haven't seen either FMJ or Platoon in quite a long time, but I thought FMJ's first half was actually a movie in itself, and Ermey's frighteningly realistic (I'm guessing) portrayal of Hartman (Irony, anyone?) and the plight of poor, sad Private Pyle were riveting. I will try to rewatch it, though that first part is so grueling that I may skip to the second half, the part I don't recall nearly as vividly. When I first saw Platoon, I felt much as I did during the opening sequence of Private Ryan: Make it stop! Those portions of both films brought home how chaotic, unbearably frightening and vicious combat must be. It’s too bad that even these movies have so much of Hollywood about them, even in our supposedly more sophisticated era, though. And how quickly the audience becomes accustomed to the more realistic portrayals of the violence of battle. I still wonder which, if any, movies portray combat most accurately by the standards of those who've survived it. I watched Hacksaw Ridge recently, and it has moments of the same type of lemme-outta-here intensity, but at the same time, I find myself taken out of the movie because I’m conscious of or curious about the CGI and other effects used to simulate the scenes of carnage. Plus, because the editing is so rapid-fire and the storytelling poor at times, we never know just which of the key characters has been killed or wounded. Sometimes, watching an old movie can be bracing, of only because you realize that every fall from a horse was dangerous, every scene of hundreds of combatants actually included hundreds of combatants and that there was real danger implicit in action scenes almost all the time. Now I see epic battles, (as in the LOTR movies) and am less than impressed because I know that all of the images I’m watching are digital, not human. I do think that less is often more in storytelling, both in words and in pictures. One example that jumps to mind is the scene in John Ford’s They Were Expendable (1945) when Russell Simpson, as “Dad” Knowland, an old sailor, chooses to stay behind to defend his boatyard rather than flee the arriving Japanese. No speeches, no corny farewells. Wow! Found the second part of that scene: PS: Cody, I think the Burns "Vietnam" series is available on On Demand via PBS. Don't know if that's available to you.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 18, 2017 15:44:12 GMT -5
You bring up a point that I think is symptomatic of modern movies. They have become so dependent on CGI for f/x work that they have lost any feeling of reality. They have become like video games, even when exploring a serious subject like war. Now, everyone wants to present the chaotic experience that is the D-Day sequence of Saving Private Ryan. Ridley Scott does the same thing in Blackhawk Down. What you end up with is a lot of CGI tracer rounds zipping by, a lot of CGI (or CGI-enhanced) explosions, and a lot of dirt/debris flying through the air (most of that CGI). Compare that to the scenes in The Longest Day, for example. There, you have squibs and precisely placed explosions, real dirt and debris flying, and thousands of extras to give the scene a depth. No one today could do a CGI battle of Waterloo and capture the masses of bodies and the death and destruction the way Waterloo did, back in 1970. CGI planes in something like red Tails can't match actual vintage aircraft, like in Twelve O'Clock High or Tora! Tora! Tora!, or The Battle of Britain. The comedy Those Magnificent men and Their Flying Machines actually built flyable early planes for the film. These days, you would have CGI planes, doing things that are aerodynamically impossible.
Modern film is so much more of a fantasy world than even the lowest budgeted Hollywood piece of 20 years ago, let alone 50.
Meanwhile, while I'm in crotchety old man mode, if I hear one more teen/twenty-something say they won't watch a black & white movie because it is black & white I swear I will smack them! When I was a kid, every movie was black and white, until i was in high school and my parents got a color tv (for free). Yeah, movies at the theater were in color; but, my dad was a teacher in a rural school district; movies in a theater were a rare treat. Moonraker was the first James Bond film I saw in color and in a theater.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2017 18:20:44 GMT -5
I rather watch a Black and White Film in the 30's and the 40's than Color anyday, anytime, and anywhere!
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,051
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 19, 2017 14:17:05 GMT -5
Like I say, it's a matter of perspective. I come at Vietnam War movies from the perspective of a student of military history and from someone who was in a military commissioning program, at the time of these films. Well, actually our perspectives are not so different. 20th century history and, in particular, '60s and early '70s social, political and pop culture history are a particular passion of mine. Within that context, obviously the Vietnam War is of great interest to me and I have read many books about the conflict and watched quite a few documentaries too. We differ in that I have never had been in the military, so I can't comment on Vietnam War movies from that perspective, but still, I'm a lot more knowledgable about the Vietnam War than most people born after its conclusion are. That said, I do approach Vietnam movies as just that -- movies. Of course, I like them to be fairly realistic, but I also realise that they're not meant to be documentaries. One of the reasons that previous movies were mostly jungle-based was that many of the Army experiences were built around patrolling specific sectors, largely in a jungle/paddy environment. Oh sure, I get that. Although, it's funny how Hollywood always shows these search & destroy patrols taking just a few days, before the troops return to base, when in reality, as I'm sure you know, soldiers were often out in the "boonies" for weeks at a time. My point about Full Metal Jacket's Battle of Hue sequences is that it's fairly unique, being the only Vietnam War film I can think of that shows U.S. soliders in an urban setting. I guess we'll not be able to agree on the relative merits of Platoon vs. Full Metal Jacket, but I do agree with a lot of what you're saying about each film -- it's just that my conclusions are different. Like I say, I like both films actually, I just think that FMJ is superior. Mel Gibson's We Were Soldiers is filled with problems; but, the combat it depicts is fairly accurate, from the accounts I have read and seen of the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley. The co-author of the book and the man Gibson portrays was heavily involved with the film. It probably more accurately presents the perspective of the professional soldier, vs the draftee or single tour perspectives we get from other films. Yeah, that's a good film and is very close to the book. One criticism I have is that I think it delights in the gore of the battlefield a little too much, but, on the other hand, the juxtaposition of the soldiers in combat and the wives/families waiting anxiously at home, is pretty well handled.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 19, 2017 14:43:00 GMT -5
I rather watch a Black and White Film in the 30's and the 40's than Color anyday, anytime, and anywhere! I watched Not So Dumb (1930) with Marion Davies a few days ago. I love this stuff! Davies is almost always hilarious. and Franklin Pangborn is in it!
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 19, 2017 15:43:40 GMT -5
Like I say, it's a matter of perspective. I come at Vietnam War movies from the perspective of a student of military history and from someone who was in a military commissioning program, at the time of these films. Well, actually our perspectives are not so different. 20th century history and, in particular, '60s and early '70s social, political and pop culture history are a particular passion of mine. Within that context, obviously the Vietnam War is of great interest to me and I have read many books about the conflict and watched quite a few documentaries too. We differ in that I have never had been in the military, so I can't comment on Vietnam War movies from that perspective, but still, I'm a lot more knowledgable about the Vietnam War than most people born after its conclusion are. That said, I do approach Vietnam movies as just that -- movies. Of course, I like them to be fairly realistic, but I also realise that they're not meant to be documentaries. One of the reasons that previous movies were mostly jungle-based was that many of the Army experiences were built around patrolling specific sectors, largely in a jungle/paddy environment. Oh sure, I get that. Although, it's funny how Hollywood always shows these search & destroy patrols taking just a few days, before the troops return to base, when in reality, as I'm sure you know, soldiers were often out in the "boonies" for weeks at a time. My point about Full Metal Jacket's Battle of Hue sequences is that it's fairly unique, being the only Vietnam War film I can think of that shows U.S. soliders in an urban setting. I guess we'll not be able to agree on the relative merits of Platoon vs. Full Metal Jacket, but I do agree with a lot of what you're saying about each film -- it's just that my conclusions are different. Like I say, I like both films actually, I just think that FMJ is superior. Mel Gibson's We Were Soldiers is filled with problems; but, the combat it depicts is fairly accurate, from the accounts I have read and seen of the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley. The co-author of the book and the man Gibson portrays was heavily involved with the film. It probably more accurately presents the perspective of the professional soldier, vs the draftee or single tour perspectives we get from other films. Yeah, that's a good film and is very close to the book. One criticism I have is that I think it delights in the gore of the battlefield a little too much, but, on the other hand, the juxtaposition of the soldiers in combat and the wives/families waiting anxiously at home, is pretty well handled. I totally agree with the last point, as that's Mel Gibson's pattern in these things. The man seriously needs therapy. Fair point on the patrols; but, I doubt any viewer wants to see an entire film of humpin' through the boonies. You have to give Platoon points for a pretty vivid depiction of jungle rot, though... I'm still gonna stick with Roger Ebert on FMJ, though. He pretty much mirrors my reaction to the film, though not on every point. To me, it mostly comes down to just not caring enough about Joker and Cowboy for the latter part to have great meaning and I thought Mathew Modine's performance was rather stilted, even compared to earlier film Vision Quest. Never been much of a fan of his and sitting through that weird film Birdy, with Nicolas Cage, didn't help (kind of amazed by the rating on imdb; but, to each their own).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2017 15:48:56 GMT -5
I rather watch a Black and White Film in the 30's and the 40's than Color anyday, anytime, and anywhere! I watched Not So Dumb (1930) with Marion Davies a few days ago. I love this stuff! Davies is almost always hilarious. and Franklin Pangborn is in it! Davies is so unreal in that film and always admire her acting and this film Not So Dumb is so ... so ... so ... good!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2017 17:30:06 GMT -5
I just watched THUNDERBIRDS (2004) Movie and right now this movie is 13 years old and I enjoyed it to the extent back then and this is my first time that I've seen it since then and haven't seen it in 13 years. I just find it quite a kid movie and more tailored for the younger generations of fans. I was in my mid-40's and I had to take my youngest nephew to this movie one afternoon to kill time and have dinner together before taking him back home for a family birthday party. His two older brothers were double dating and his Parents were having dinner with my older brother and his wife at the time. So, I was asked to to take care of him for 5 hours before we have cake together. Back to the movie, it's feels dated, and it's fun, but I just felt it was more geared to kids back then and still is. This is my last time I see it and I just can't stomach the puns and cheesy atmosphere that this movie brings.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Nov 20, 2017 1:53:20 GMT -5
Fire in the Sky (1993) I remember thinking this was pretty creepy the first time I watched it as a kid. At times it feels and plays out like an episode of The X-Files. The casting is good and there are some decent performances but the real highlight is the practical special effects. I felt that they mostly hold up well particularly the alien abduction experience which is the most disturbing and terrifying part of the film.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 20, 2017 2:17:02 GMT -5
I watched All These Women (1964) this afternoon. This is an Ingmar Bergman film starring several actresses from the Bergman stock company - Bibi Andersson, Harriet Andersson and Eva Dahlbeck.
It's not one of Bergman's more famous films. I had never heard of it, but it was on TCM and Bergman is a director who's always worth checking out, even if it's one of his obscure movies.
And I was not disappointed. It's actually a very amusing film. Highly recommended for film fans who like classic foreign films and are curious about Ingmar Bergman's lighter side.
|
|