OT: Let's talk about movies (and TV shows)... Part VI

[aar000n]

I been watching a lot of shows. Constantine seems good so far, I like the flash and arrow, Also once upon a time, movie wise I am a bad horror movie junkie. Even good but I am on a streak of picking bad movies to see.

 

[Mrb1p]

Watched You're next. Expected a dumb movie with no real plot. Was pretty much happy with the movie.

 

[ClasslessGuy]

Watched The Conjuring last night. It was good.


It scared the bejesus out of my wife....

Not bad for that type of movie. In the horor genre nothing beat amytiville for me.

 

[aar000n]

wrong thread But I liked the Conjuring a lot.

 

[Runner77]

I been watching a lot of shows. Constantine seems good so far, I like the flash and arrow, Also once upon a time, movie wise I am a bad horror movie junkie. Even good but I am on a streak of picking bad movies to see.

I was liking Arrow at the beginning but now the show is falling into a horrible stereoptype where everyone is an archer, knows marshal arts and is some kind of vigilante or redeemer.

Similar to Nashville -- where you guessed it -- everyone is a singer.

Who writes these silly scripts.

 

[QuebecPride]

Fury (2014)

[SPOIL] You must have missed the scene where the German tank takes out three American tanks by itself. The same German tank that took two tank shells before going down in flames. Also, what about that German soldier on the road that destroyed one of the Sherman's with a single panzerfaust shot? If that's not German superiority... [/SPOIL]

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

[SPOIL] You must have missed the scene where the German tank takes out three American tanks by itself. The same German tank that took two tank shells before going down in flames. Also, what about that German soldier on the road that destroyed one of the Sherman's with a single panzerfaust shot? If that's not German superiority... [/SPOIL]

Nonetheless, DA makes a point. In the film, despite all the whining, the Americans were never in any real disadvantage and always had air superiority.

That's what I don't get about the movie: if you're going to do WW2-action, make it interesting, not the end of the war and on the Western front where, for Germany it was old men and young kids on the field.

 

[Mrb1p]

Nonetheless, DA makes a point. In the film, despite all the whining, the Americans were never in any real disadvantage and always had air superiority.

That's what I don't get about the movie: if you're going to do WW2-action, make it interesting, not the end of the war and on the Western front where, for Germany it was old men and young kids on the field.

If they weren't winning they might have had a disadvantage.

 

[DAChampion]

If they weren't winning they might have had a disadvantage.

The movie opens with text about the superiority of German tanks and the ferocity of German soldiers, so that's the expectation the movie sets for itself.

Beyond that it's true that every movie needs a conflict to be interesting. There were plenty of conflicts for the USA in 1945, they simply did not show up in Fury. There is a reason that the allies gave Berlin to the communists. The movie actually made the conflict easier by portraying a Nazi Germany where only one soldier knew how to aim.

 

[Kimota]

Well that's disappointing to hear. I'm a big fan of David Ayer and he rarely does films on this scale. Hopefully Suicide Squad is going to be better.

 

[DAChampion]

Well maybe I'm wrong, I'd love to hear other opinions.

With Dracula Untold I was sure that I had seen garbage. With Fury there is a small voice in the back of my head suggesting that I missed out on a lot of subtext. I'm not sure what the movie about, but maybe it was about something deep.

 

[Mrb1p]

The movie opens with text about the superiority of German tanks and the ferocity of German soldiers, so that's the expectation the movie sets for itself.

Beyond that it's true that every movie needs a conflict to be interesting. There were plenty of conflicts for the USA in 1945, they simply did not show up in Fury. There is a reason that the allies gave Berlin to the communists. The movie actually made the conflict easier by portraying a Nazi Germany where only one soldier knew how to aim.

.... I guess you really did miss the Tiger I taking out 3 shermans ALONE ? Right ? I guess you really did.

Also, I'm pretty sure the movie starts with a fight where they just lost around 90% of the tanks in their platoon. "We're it" Pitt says. Then they lose 5(6?) other tanks during the movie, 3 of which were in the same fight. During the fight against the Tiger I, you clearly feel that the tiger is a lot slower thank the sherman, turret travel included. Pretty much was as realistic as it got.

Now, I didn't really like the ending, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. 2/3 of the movie is serious and really historically correct and more of a drama than anything, then they go all-out Expendables ? I don't know. Is it to cater to a larger public ?

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

.... I guess you really did miss the Tiger I taking out 3 shermans ALONE ? Right ? I guess you really did.

Also, I'm pretty sure the movie starts with a fight where they just lost around 90% of the tanks in their platoon. "We're it" Pitt says. Then they lose 5(6?) other tanks during the movie, 3 of which were in the same fight. During the fight against the Tiger I, you clearly feel that the tiger is a lot slower thank the sherman, turret travel included. Pretty much was as realistic as it got.

Now, I didn't really like the ending, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. 2/3 of the movie is serious and really historically correct and more of a drama than anything, then they go all-out Expendables ? I don't know. Is it to cater to a larger public ?

The idea was that they wanted to make it dramatic (Sherman tankers were dying left and right; the brutality of war) but would never, ever have a WW2 movie without the Americans being supermen heros (they don't **** the girls; the ending).

It's better to full ass one thing than half ass two things, and they half assed it alright.

Despite it all, I give it a favorable review. I liked the movie for what it was.

 

[DAChampion]

.... I guess you really did miss the Tiger I taking out 3 shermans ALONE ? Right ? I guess you really did.

Also, I'm pretty sure the movie starts with a fight where they just lost around 90% of the tanks in their platoon. "We're it" Pitt says. Then they lose 5(6?) other tanks during the movie, 3 of which were in the same fight. During the fight against the Tiger I, you clearly feel that the tiger is a lot slower thank the sherman, turret travel included. Pretty much was as realistic as it got.

Now, I didn't really like the ending, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. 2/3 of the movie is serious and really historically correct and more of a drama than anything, then they go all-out Expendables ? I don't know. Is it to cater to a larger public ?

Americans bring killed off screen prior to the timeline of the movie doesn't contribute much to the tone of the movie. What matters is what is shown in the movie, not the exposition dump of backstory. We're TOLD that the Germans are fierce warriors, but we're SHOWN total Anerican domination.

As for the tank battle, that was 90 seconds in the movie where more Americans than Germans died, but regardless the Americans won that battle.

I suggest that in general it's difficult to construct a good film where the antagonist loses not just the war every single battle.

 

[RAWisJericho]

I was liking Arrow at the beginning but now the show is falling into a horrible stereoptype where everyone is an archer, knows marshal arts and is some kind of vigilante or redeemer.

Similar to Nashville -- where you guessed it -- everyone is a singer.

Who writes these silly scripts.

Let's see... they're following the comic books? There's no stereotype there. His two other sidekicks are not and will never be vigilantes.

 

[MasterDecoy]

No.

If you don't want to be spoiled, don't read reviews.

reviews aren't supposed to contain the entire plot

 

[DAChampion]

reviews aren't supposed to contain the entire plot

Look up the term "review".

 

[Mrb1p]

The idea was that they wanted to make it dramatic (Sherman tankers were dying left and right; the brutality of war) but would never, ever have a WW2 movie without the Americans being supermen heros (they don't **** the girls; the ending).

It's better to full ass one thing than half ass two things, and they half assed it alright.

Despite it all, I give it a favorable review. I liked the movie for what it was.

They don't **** girls ? American supermen, you say. Killing a war prisoner to make a point and forcing women into sex is somewhat not-so-supermanish.

The scene with the two german women is more about Wardaddy keeping some humanity even with him being the most ruthless killer on his platoon. Besides, I'm pretty sure machine has his way with her in the bed room, so yeah, she wasn't *****, but I guess well never know since we don't know if they actually did come to sexual intercourse or if the girl actually had any intention of having sexual intercourse with Machine. As I said, the last scene is weird and I'm sure I'm missing something, the ending just doesn't make any sense.

Americans bring killed off screen prior to the timeline of the movie doesn't contribute much to the tone of the movie. What matters is what is shown in the movie, not the exposition dump of backstory. We're TOLD that the Germans are fierce warriors, but we're SHOWN total Anerican domination.

As for the tank battle, that was 90 seconds in the movie where more Americans than Germans died, but regardless the Americans won that battle.

I suggest that in general it's difficult to construct a good film where the antagonist loses not just the war every single battle.

So, them mentionning in the movie that they lost most of their platoon prior to the movie doesn't contribute to the tone but the text at the start does ? I think both do, or both don't. We're also told that the III Reich is nothing but a dream at this point and that every thing is falling apart, so much that they have to use mostly hitlerjugend as soldiers. The movie also takes part in April 45, three months after the start of the battle of berlin, which finished in May, which also corresponds to V-Day. It is to be expected that they don't have much to show for. The germans also won the last battle and the first (Which is not shown, I concur.)

 

[MasterDecoy]

No.

If you don't want to be spoiled, don't read reviews.

maybe you have an unusual way of reviewing a movie, but i have not read a review describing the entire plot of a movie in... well, never. outlines? yes. the whole thing complete with punch at the end? no.

what's the point of reading a review if you've already seen the movie?

anyways doesn't matter, wasn't planning on seeing it regardless. maybe warn spoilers next time then?

i wrote this whole thing about the western front being a joke compared to the eastern front but the forum ate my post so ill just say this instead: besides Cross of Iron, Enemy at the Gates, and Stalingrad (the '93 german movie), any decent western movie about the eastern front?

my personal dream is to see a modern, high budget movie about the 5th SS Wikings division. for obvious reasons, it would never happen of course....

 

[Rise from the Ashes]

Peaky Blinders is a pretty good show which goes under the radar

 

[Mrb1p]

maybe you have an unusual way of reviewing a movie, but i have not read a review describing the entire plot of a movie in... well, never. outlines? yes. the whole thing complete with punch at the end? no.

what's the point of reading a review if you've already seen the movie?

anyways doesn't matter, wasn't planning on seeing it regardless. maybe warn spoilers next time then?

i wrote this whole thing about the western front being a joke compared to the eastern front but the forum ate my post so ill just say this instead: besides Cross of Iron, Enemy at the Gates, and Stalingrad (the '93 german movie), any decent western movie about the eastern front?

my personal dream is to see a modern, high budget movie about the 5th SS Wikings division. for obvious reasons, it would never happen of course....

Why exactly ? Care to elaborate ?

 

[MasterDecoy]

Why exactly ? Care to elaborate ?

im a huge world war 2 nerd and this is the division that participated in the most brutal fighting on the german side. elite, well equipped, well led, experienced, impeccably trained, fought everything everywhere and were always outnumbered. movie or tv series, it'd be like a band of brothers except everyone dies every few episodes and they lose the war. if it's the 'ss' thing that's throwing you off, it was the waffen ss, slight difference and as far war crimes go, it's got a cleaner record than most (especially when you compare to, say, the 3rd ss Totenkopf). it's just something i'd be interested in seeing. it's a side of the war film makers haven't really touched yet: war from the german side

 

[DAChampion]

maybe you have an unusual way of reviewing a movie, but i have not read a review describing the entire plot of a movie in... well, never. outlines? yes. the whole thing complete with punch at the end? no.

what's the point of reading a review if you've already seen the movie?

anyways doesn't matter, wasn't planning on seeing it regardless. maybe warn spoilers next time then?

i wrote this whole thing about the western front being a joke compared to the eastern front but the forum ate my post so ill just say this instead: besides Cross of Iron, Enemy at the Gates, and Stalingrad (the '93 german movie), any decent western movie about the eastern front?

my personal dream is to see a modern, high budget movie about the 5th SS Wikings division. for obvious reasons, it would never happen of course....

You've never read a movie that discusses plot points? That provides the plot for contextualization?

 

[MasterDecoy]

You've never read a movie that discusses plot points? That provides the plot for contextualization?

my fault i guess, Rikiki Bousquet made the same mistake, but when i read "reviews", i think of this: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fury_2015/, not a detailed critique. mea culpa

for what it's worth, i still enjoyed your post so there...

 

[Runner77]

Let's see... they're following the comic books? There's no stereotype there. His two other sidekicks are not and will never be vigilantes.

I get that part. However, there is always a modicum of artistic discretion exercised on a tv script -- it's a different medium, you can get away with different elements in a comic book that just don't translate as well when rendered a tv series. Let's see ... one of his sidekicks is an archer, several villains are archers and all superheroes and villains know marshall arts. It's getting difficult to find normal human beings on that show, that have any redeeming value.