 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Thin red line posted by Emit on July 28, 2000 at 10:14:28:
I generally liked the movie, which was, I thought, in sharp contrast with SPR that I considered absolutely offensive. Pardon me for using this parralel, but it is only natural (see another such "pair: FMJ vs. Platoon, with pretty much the same observatins).It is, in my view, not a great movie in a true sense of that word, but it is NOT an irritating movie at all. Today that is not a trivial prase for an American movie.
Directing is not going to win any major awards and some people objected to certain scenes as being too corny, but at least it did not stoop down to cheaper-than-cheap effects and managed to maintain a good level of professionalism, while retaining a very strong human element - something completely missing from the cliche-and-cardboard cutouts-driven SPR.
A movie that I would like my kids to see.
I agree with you regarding SPR. I did like the beginning of the movie, the first scenes on the beach, because of the way the war was harshly portrayed, but after that, it moved onto your typical war movie. How could characters who survive through that much bloodshed be so willing to go on seemingly untraumatized (except for Tom Hanks' shaking hand) and fully willing to sacrifice themselves?I can compare it to TRL though. TRL makes fun of movies like SPR. Look at the hollywood actors. All of them are hollywood typical soldiers. They mindlessly give themselves over to the army. Nolte's character, the general, talks about all he has given to the army only to receive nothing in return. This is what all the hollywood characters do (Nolte, Harrelson, Cusack, Clooney)... they fight and die for nothing and consider it a noble/heroic sacrifice. The bigger the actor, the more hollywood like his character is. I loved that aspect of the movie. Get them all there in some remote island, make them hang around and be filmed in several scenes, then cut most of them out and use them as examples of the stupidity of hollywood war movies.
The character Bell, the complete opposite, thinks he is being heroic by not ordering his men up the hill to certain death. The general thinks it is heroic if they die, almost as if they are sacrificed.
I also, though some remarked that it was overdone, liked the symbolism of birds. The soldiers fight for freedom (air/birds/flight=freedom, ground/soldiers/death=slavery), but to do so they must completely relinquish their own freedom. In the scene with Sean penn's character and whit, there's an empty bird cage with an open door, as if what was imprisoned has now been set free. There's also a shot of a bird dying on the ground. They all seem to back up the idea of freedom/slavery.
Not to mention the way they fight for what is moral and right, when to do so, they must immorally and burtally kill.
Basically, I felt like, while SPR was a movie about sacrificing oneself for one's country, TRL was the exact opposite and I hated it when people thought the two movies were somehow similar or related, when the only similarities between them are their inherent differences.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
