|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
38.100.19.236
In Reply to: RE: Agreed as to BHD, but as for SPR... posted by Jazz Inmate on October 06, 2010 at 18:05:09
and that Matt Damon's acting is hardly a deal breaker. My problem with the movie has to do with Spielberg having to give it a big ole Hollywood type ending. The movie asks a very interesting question: How important is the life of one person in the conflict; was it worth a mission that would claim many other lives? The big ending battle, which results in an important military victory (hold a very strategic bridge), completely abandons any consideration of that question; I guess we dumb viewers just have to have that big cavalry charge (P 51 mustangs) and American heroes doing big things!!
The camera work, setup of battle scenes, use of sound, etc. were fantastic. That silence at the end, where Hanks goes temporarily deaf, reminded me of the GREAT Russian war film "idi i smotri" (Come and See).
Follow Ups:
The silence after the explosion bit is done to death. It was done better in BHD. It was also done well in Clear and Present Danger when Harrison Ford's convoy was attacked by rooftop hostiles with RPGs.
I disagree strongly about whether it's worth lives to save a life being an interesting thrust. There's nothing to explore in the question because any soldier could die in any moment in war. Spielberg really missed the boat. Our soldiers have a commitment to leave no man behind--that's what BHD was about. The idea that soldiers would be disgruntled to go save the last remaining child of a mother who had sacrificed all her other boys to the war...that just didn't ring true to me.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: