NOW WATCHING

I'm on a roll at the moment watching films I really enjoyed. First it was Gran Torino, now The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and The Reader in which Kate Winslet plays an ex SS Guard at Auchwitz, not particularly convincingly it must be said, but at least she gets her norks out several times throughout the film.
 
I watched Passchendaele (2008 Canadian), written, produced and starring Paul Gross.  Here's the rundown.

1.  When Michael saved David.  What's with the Jesus analogy?  A historical movie should not be over-the-top heroic, but rather realistic.
2.  Too much emphasis on love interests.  How casual towards sex are these women from 1917?  Surely not nearly as much as the movie makes them out to be.  Hollywood could not have made it more sex oriented.  Nurses and soldiers were not fornicating seconds before battle.
3.  It is a stretch that Michael should meet Sarah again.
4.  Not enough battle scenes that depict the horror of Passchendaele.  The scenes that were included were excellent in the sense that mud, rain and rats were a constant.  But emotionally, the actors were not "into it" probably because the script or the director did not demand it.
5.  The moods of horror, panic and bravery were not well depicted in the movie and I believe most of that is due to writing.  I did not feel it from the actors or from the cinematography.  During some moments, the casual way comrades handle death is meant to be comical to the detriment of the movie.  For example, when the British born Dobson-Hughes gets blown up, Commander Currie dismisses the incident with a punch line by naming a replacement in a same breath as Dobson's death.  One really has to see the movie to understand what I mean by "punch line".
6.  The whole reason for the characters' (re-)enlisting is love.  That's a huge stretch.  Soldiers don't go to war to be closer to their loved ones.
EDIT: 7. When Michael recalls the haunting memory of a German boy-soldier he bayoneted, both he and Sarah smile at the memory.  Even if this is meant to be an awkward smile, it just fails to convey that message.

I cannot give this movie a pass.  LC you've talked about this movie before it came out.  Maybe you've already voiced your opinion on this movie, could you point it out to me if you did?

___________________________________

I also saw The Wrestler, which is a far better movie than above.  The storyline is about a washed-up, old wrestler who is too broke emotionally and financially to retire from the cruel, addicting life of professional wrestling.  While the topic is not nearly as glorious as fighting for your country, the grizzly truth and good acting by Mickey Rourke make this a great rental. 
 
Genghis, please use spoiler tags on those comments... just saying...

Genghis Khan said:
2.  Too much emphasis on love interests.  How casual towards sex are these women from 1917?  Surely not nearly as much as the movie makes them out to be.  Hollywood could not have made it more sex oriented.  Nurses and soldiers were not fornicating seconds before battle.
Click to expand...

I'm not to sure about that...

You ever been to war..?
I haven't, but all the emotions involved in the run-up must be trough the roof, if you look at it from the most basic psychological/emotional level...

Haven't you ever wondered how the countries involved in WW1 had enough manpower to go at it in WW2..?
I have...
And here's what's what:

The morality that the church preached, and that society CLAIMED to uphold, was, just like our modern day morals and ethics, the first thing to go out the window when no one was watching...
You can fiddle away at all kinds of sanctimonious crap until your nostrils are bleeding, but in the end, human nature haven't changed for 50.000 years... and I don't think it will any time soon...

However, I do believe you if you feel that the movie makers fucked up when they tried to display the sexual norm (read: shame) of the day...
 
The catch was that England didn't need that same manpower... they had their air force.
 
And His Majesty's Royal Navy.

GK, I liked the movie.  Moreso on second and third viewing than the first.  It's not really a war film - it's a love tragedy set in war.  Which I can deal with, I just wasn't quite expecting it first time out.
 
Thanks for your reply LC.

Mr. AJ - it is not pre-marital sex that I found unbelievable, but rather the approach, which stems from the fact that mannerisms and as you say "moral shame" was not explored in the movie.  The audience, at least me, was under the belief that the love scenes took place in the latter half of the 20th century.  I realize I criticise and explore this movie more than other movies, but I did have higher expectations.  Since it is primarily a
love story
a more traditional
letter writing from home front to the barracks
would have been more realistic.
 
It sure could have been better.  But I am taking it for what it is, I guess...I wish it was more, but that doesn't stop it from being good in its own right.
 
I saw Gran Torino written and starring Clint Eastwood.  Like much of his work since Unforgiven (1992), this movie is a combination of machismo with a healthy dose of reflection upon life.  Eastwood plays a war veteran whose loneliness and past guilt leads him to help a young Hmong boy in the neighbourhood avoid a local gang and provide a source of direction and purpose.  For its humourous grittiness and honesty, I find this a great movie.  Eastwood's character acts as a old man of his background is expected to act.  When Eastwood's life
becomes threatened due to his involvement in the Hmong neighbourhood
, I believed his actions were true to the character.
 
Comic relief from all these war movies everyone seems to be watching: Harry Potter.

I went, I saw, I yawned. I think I only go because I like the old-time British actors it features occasionally (Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman particularily). Have noticed that the movies are starting to get further and further in detail from what happens in the novels. The last movie should be interesting to watch, I wonder what they're going to do with it.
 
I'm going to see the Half-Blood Prince in less than 3 hours.  I re-watched the previous 5 to remind myself.  Hopefully, this one is the best.  I believe I enjoyed the Prisoner of Azkhaban (#3) the most.
 
The problem I have with the recent Harry Potter films is that I didn't like the last few books, the grim turn it took and more adult nature of the story lost some of its original magic for me. I understand that she tried to make the books sort of grow up with the characters, but it unforunately lost too much of its original draw and is probably a good example of going too far in developing your stories. I hate stories or series that never change much and always use the same themes and so on, but on the other hand you can't change so much that it loses what originally made it good. I can't put my finger on what exactly went wrong with them for me, but I just didn't enjoy the last couple of books as much as the first 4 or 5.

Seeing as the films obviously follow the books, I didn't enjoy the Half Blood Prince, the book was rather forgettable so it was only interesting so far as reminding me what happened. A couple of important plot points but seeing as the final book finished it all off a little suddenly, it makes this book/film feel rather pointless. Perhaps she wrote this plot with the intention of going much further than 7 books but then ran out of ideas or gave up with the 7th book and crammed it all in, because this book/film feels like its building up to something, quite dragged out really with all the further explanations of Tom Riddle and so on.

I need to re-read the 7th book though because I honestly can't remember how badly crammed it is or not. I came out of the film wondering why create such a dramatic and slow build up when there's only one story left?
 
Ardius, the last book will be two movies, at least that's what I'm told.

I rather like the serious turn.  This is my favourite movie thus far.  Frankly, the reason I did not read the books was due to the kiddie feel of the first one.  Recently I read about 20 pages of the Half-Blood Prince and it was interesting.  I can't say I will read the series, but I've enjoyed all the movies, some more than others.
 
I've recently been listening to a band called Wo Fat who sound like a cajun version of Clutch,The music made me reach for the DVD of a film called Southern Comfort.

Its about a group of National Guard Reservists on a training exercise in the Louisiana Swamps. They fuck up and get chased by local Cajuns. Its a cross between The Warriors and Deliverance with a touch of First Blood thrown in. As well as the film itself being excellent, the music, by Ry Cooder is particularly haunting.
 
Just saw Public Enemies with Johnny Depp, Christian Bale and Marillon Cotillard. Not a bad movie, wasn't a fan of the camera angles often used (made it seem rather amateur but maybe that was the desired effect), and some good acting from the actors mentioned. A nice little summer movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top