Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Re: Easily the pukiest movie of the decade

Posted by jamesgarvin (A) on November 13, 2004 at 14:17:52

In Reply to: Re: Easily the pukiest movie of the decade posted by Victor Khomenko on November 13, 2004 at 12:00:38:

"a shamless speculation on strong emotions"

I am not sure what this means. You mean that Spielberg "speculated" what the d-day invasion was like? If so, then you are wrong. He used actual soldiers who consulted, and the verdict redered by others that were actually there speaks volumes that he accomplished his goal. I was not there, neither were you. I'll defer to those that were there. Unless you feel that reading about it is the same as having lived it. To which I now served in Vietnam.

"let's just agree that was a mutual accomplishment"

Huh? The French government opened their arms to Germany. Other than the Soviet Union, which signed a non-agression pact with Germany, and the Nordic Countries that were "neutral", and England, European contries were largely missing. The Soviet Union entered the fray only because Hitler broke his agreement. And then most of the damage was done by the Russian Winter. There was a French underground, but that underground would not have freed occupied France if not for the United States. On the other hand, there is no doubt in my mind that the United States would have successfully freed France with, or without, the resistance. England certainly was a major contributor, but the bulk of the troops were American. And who fought Japan? They signed a treaty with Germany. Do not recall Europeans being involved in that conflict.

"It is built on worn out cliche's and cheap effects - like that miraculous shot by our sniper."

Hate to burst your bubble, but there were snipers during WWII that possessed incredible ability to make impossible shots (to you or me). They were largely loners, not being part of a "unit".

"Yes, I consider Tarantino a wasted talent, but I am not sure what this has to do with SPR."

Because there are some people, I might call them arrogant, that believe anything from Hollywood must be bad, and they look to films from Hollywood knowing that they will dislike it. As though their "taste" is too highbrow to enjoy anything from Hollywod. Analogous to those that think all audio equipment made in the Far East must be bad, and so they listen believing they should think it sounds bad.

I get the impression that you watch films from more of an "intellectual" level. Emotions at films bad? I watch films to learn, to feel empathy, happiness, sadness, joy, anger, and to experience and see places and things that I would not otherwise see. "Saving Private Ryan" provided me the closest experience I hopefully will ever have to war. It allowed me to appreciate their sacrifice. If you are so emotionally detached from the world at large that this "purpose" is meaningless, that films are merely an exercise, and you watch films merely to fulfill some "artistic" urge, then I am sorry you could not enjoy the rush of the opening invasion scene.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Schiit Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---