Buster Keaton.As long as we agree that the greatest action director of all time is either John McTiernan or Paul Verhoeven we're all good.
As long as we agree that the greatest action director of all time is either John McTiernan or Paul Verhoeven we're all good.
McTiernan made Predator (87) and Die Hard (88) back-to-back.As long as we agree that the greatest action director of all time is either John McTiernan or Paul Verhoeven we're all good.
McTiernan made Predator (87) and Die Hard (88) back-to-back.
I get the symbolism. What I don't get is using George Clooney in a role that any bit player could have done. If you want the voiceover to have gravitas, don't distract the audience with George Clooney. Because when the viewer sees George Clooney appear on the screen they start wondering what he's going to do and say because they assume his character must be important to the plot. So they sit through the entire voiceover only half listening to it, straining to hear what the Clooney character is saying thinking it must be important somehow because George Clooney.Most war movies are epically boring thanks to them just re-hashing battle scenes.
sure, superfluous Cameos can be distracting. Then again, the acting in the movie is pretty terrific, especially by Penn, Harrelson, Nolte, and Koteas. Unfortunately the weakest link acting wise was the lead Cavaziel, and that really hurt the movie's ability to stay centered.
The battle scenes were fantastic, and of course the cinematography and music were elite.
The Thin Red Line is based on a novel written by an actual soldier which was every bit as philosophical as the movie:
""When compared to the fact that he might very well be dead by this time tomorrow, whether he was courageous or not today was pointless, empty. When compared to the fact that he might be dead tomorrow, everything was pointless. Life was pointless. Whether he looked at a tree or not was pointless. It just didn't make any difference. It was pointless to the tree, it was pointless to every man in his outfit, pointless to everybody in the whole world. Who cared? It was not pointless only to him; and when he was dead, when he ceased to exist, it would be pointless to him too. More important: Not only would it be pointless, it would have been pointless, all along."
so you can take up his personal experience of war and what were the important things to discuss about it with him.
Of course you play a character on here, so i'll just assume you actually claiming to believe that war movies should be nothing more than battle re-enactments is a bit. Just like you not understanding that Clooney being talked over is symbolizing the meaningless of what he's saying must also be a bit.
Guadalcanal Diary was a better film than Thin Red Line.i.e. The book wasn't called "The Battle of Guadalcanal"
"The mission is the man".And of course the entire plot of Saving Private Ryan was bullshit. The story was based on a guy who had three brothers dead/missing, but they didn't have to send some crazy rescue party after him, he just showed up at a camp looking for his brother and was sent home when they found out who he was. One of his brothers was actually stuck in a japanese camp and they didn't rescue him, they just assumed he was dead, until the camp was freed at the end of the war.
Actually the scene where Mellish dies in hand to hand combat while Upham is frozen in fear, unable to come to his aid is far more visceral than the opening scene on the beach.Come on how often have you re-watched private ryan to the end? You watch the opening scene and then "pause for later".
I saw it 3 times in the theater, then bought the DVD.I haven’t seen it in years, but I’ve probably seen it start to finish 5 times maybe? And I look forward to seeing it again since so much time passed. It was so damn good.
Uh, yeah they would and they did.but like that's the entire point of the film - that the US army would care so much to send an entire rescue unit out in the middle of the war to bring back a soldier. but they didn't and wouldn't.
But not as nice as the Bridge of Spies. Hanks didn't have to die for that bridge.In fairness, it was a really nice bridge.
James Caan did "Thief" in 1981 and the plot was the "one last score".Cliches are ok if the movie is well made. I rave about Heat constantly, and even by 1995 the "Aging theif pulling off one last score" was old. Heck, It wasn't even Mann's first film doing it.
Canadian soldiers would have wasted him before he was even an official POW. They didn't have the resources to even take prisoners.This is fair, they should have just shot him. War crimes were all the rage at the time.
(A) you really love George Clooney eh?….couldn’t even think straight once he appeared.I get the symbolism. What I don't get is using George Clooney in a role that any bit player could have done. If you want the voiceover to have gravitas, don't distract the audience with George Clooney. Because when the viewer sees George Clooney appear on the screen they start wondering what he's going to do and say because they assume his character must be important to the plot. So they sit through the entire voiceover only half listening to it, straining to hear what the Clooney character is saying thinking it must be important somehow because George Clooney.
And on a deeper level a viewer could also think that the selection of Clooney is the director's way of fucking with the viewer; being deliberately obtuse just to screw with them. Just to demonstrate what an "auteur" he is. Yeah, well fuck you, Terry.
James Caan did "Thief" in 1981 and the plot was the "one last score".
Yep and Mann directed that one as well.James Caan did "Thief" in 1981 and the plot was the "one last score".
This!Wrapped in a very entertaining collage.
Spielberg also assumed that we have seen a war movie or two… so he pushed the medium and literally showed us something novel that created a different viewing experience