Movie thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter alien
  • Start date Start date
Yeah it is very well done.
Although not a political film, it does raise a serious question which is ever present for anyone in war time situations. That is one of moral and ethical values. The question is, 'do these values transcend the fundamental drive for survival in these situations'? It is a complex question and one that those working behind the lines encounter regularly. I personally had a very uncomplicated view of what my decision would always be. Interested to hear what others would have done had they have been in these soldiers shoes.
 
@stryker said:
Yeah it is very well done.
Although not a political film, it does raise a serious question which is ever present for anyone in war time situations. That is one of moral and ethical values. The question is, 'do these values transcend the fundamental drive for survival in these situations'? It is a complex question and one that those working behind the lines encounter regularly. I personally had a very uncomplicated view of what my decision would always be. Interested to hear what others would have done had they have been in these soldiers shoes.

I would have tied them. I wouldn't be able to kill and I wouldnt have done what happened (trying not to give to much away) . Out of curiosity, was that part an accurate reflection of the book?

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
@Cultured Bogan said:
@turnstyle said:
I watched saving mr banks and also 12 years a slave.
I had no hopes for mr banks, so it was no biggie that I didn't think much of it, but I was looking forward to 12 years and have to say I found it quite superficial and underwhelming really.
I guess a recent movie it could be compared to is django unchained and there is really no comparison to be had.
Shame. I thought it would be really good…

I quite liked Saving Mr. Banks. Colin Farrell was brilliant in that.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

yeh colin farrell was very good: not too over the top in his pleasantness and good in the part of loveable loser type father.

i think i am affected by tom hanks. i just dont really like him as an actor!
ha ha… 2 academy awards and numerous others shows what i know!! :wink:
 
@Furious1 said:
@stryker said:
Yeah it is very well done.
Although not a political film, it does raise a serious question which is ever present for anyone in war time situations. That is one of moral and ethical values. The question is, 'do these values transcend the fundamental drive for survival in these situations'? It is a complex question and one that those working behind the lines encounter regularly. I personally had a very uncomplicated view of what my decision would always be. Interested to hear what others would have done had they have been in these soldiers shoes.

I would have tied them. I wouldn't be able to kill and I wouldnt have done what happened (trying not to give to much away) . Out of curiosity, was that part an accurate reflection of the book?

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

im a very anti war type person, but i get annoyed when real life soldiers are court-martialled and/or subjected to public criticism for mistakes made in war situations that are really not their fault. there is no such thing as a "clean war": we are fed only what we are told to be fed via the major news networks.
man, its life and death for these guys and i for one wouldn't take any chances for me or my fellow soldiers/marines.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

as for the situation referred to in this movie, i wouldn't have hesitated to have shot them and the goats (so they didn't wander back).

but i am always grateful i have never had to make such a choice and hope i never do.
 
@turnstyle said:
@Furious1 said:
I would have tied them. I wouldn't be able to kill and I wouldnt have done what happened (trying not to give to much away) . Out of curiosity, was that part an accurate reflection of the book?

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

im a very anti war type person, but i get annoyed when real life soldiers are court-martialled and/or subjected to public criticism for mistakes made in war situations that are really not their fault. there is no such thing as a "clean war": we are fed only what we are told to be fed via the major news networks.
man, its life and death for these guys and i for one wouldn't take any chances for me or my fellow soldiers/marines.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

as for the situation referred to in this movie, i wouldn't have hesitated to have shot them and the goats (so they didn't wander back).

but i am always grateful i have never had to make such a choice and hope i never do.

Yes Furious, that happened in real life. Under the Rules of Engagement, which is followed strictly, unarmed civilians are seen as friendlies first and foremost. The fact the R&S SEAL team (Reconnaissance and Surveilance) were spotted by unarmed civilians is what is known as a soft compromise. Lt Murphy made the correct decision in letting them go and evacuating the area. Unfortunately, radio signals were interrupted by the atmosphere of the mountains and as such, the team had to reach higher ground to use the sat phone. This allowed the combatants, including the target to circle under the team and lay in ambush.The ensuing firefight forced the team to descend into a valley where they were outpositioned on all sides and under very heavy fire, lost their battle for survival.
In hindsight, it is easy to say that taking out three villages is worth more than 19 soldiers lives. In reality it became more than that as Shah became lyonised amongst the insurgents as a "yanky killer" and has been attributed with many more lost lives. That being said, there is an honour amongst soldiers and a code that must be followed. You cannot make decisions like that on the run as there is a chain of command. We need as many of the Afghan nationals on our side as is possible and indescrimanant killings of civilians is a sure fire way to dissolve these relationships. Murphy made the correct decision, but in this instance it proved to be fatal.
It is a tragedy.
 
Tough decision faced by the soldiers obviously but what you say is correct. Looking forward to seeing the film myself as the tactics and warfare portrayed is much closer to that of the real world and not the typical Hollywood fare where the "stars" conquer all far too easily. Despite the military might of the US they don't necessarily have the best special forces soldiers in the world.
 
@stryker said:
Yes Furious, that happened in real life. Under the Rules of Engagement, which is followed strictly, unarmed civilians are seen as friendlies first and foremost. The fact the R&S SEAL team (Reconnaissance and Surveilance) were spotted by unarmed civilians is what is known as a soft compromise. Lt Murphy made the correct decision in letting them go and evacuating the area. Unfortunately, radio signals were interrupted by the atmosphere of the mountains and as such, the team had to reach higher ground to use the sat phone. This allowed the combatants, including the target to circle under the team and lay in ambush.The ensuing firefight forced the team to descend into a valley where they were outpositioned on all sides and under very heavy fire, lost their battle for survival.
In hindsight, it is easy to say that taking out three villages is worth more than 19 soldiers lives. In reality it became more than that as Shah became lyonised amongst the insurgents as a "yanky killer" and has been attributed with many more lost lives. That being said, there is an honour amongst soldiers and a code that must be followed. You cannot make decisions like that on the run as there is a chain of command. We need as many of the Afghan nationals on our side as is possible and indescrimanant killings of civilians is a sure fire way to dissolve these relationships. Murphy made the correct decision, but in this instance it proved to be fatal.
It is a tragedy.

of course youre exactly right, and they did the right thing. i understand that there are still laws in war, my hypothetical choice was predicated pretty much solely on the fact that they had the radio and i felt they were scouting.

still, i hope that i am the sort of person who isnt so opinionated that i speak in absolutes about matters i pretty much know absolutely nothing; of which this is one.

as for the movie, it is a very good war movie. far better than zero dark thirty and the hurt locker imo. another relatively recent one i liked was Green Zone, whilst Brothers and to a lesser extent, Jarheads i liked as well.
Brothers is really good. a more heavy emotional returning soldier type movie but i really enjoyed it.

although a completely different genre, watching this reminded me of Touching the Void, which is an amazing documentary if you havent seen it.
 
Interested to see how Russel Crowe's new flick Noah goes. The dude directing it isnt your normal Hollywood puppet and has made some strange pictures before.

Its funny to read about the war that has erupted online about it.
Atheists are attacking it for it's ludicrous storylines….pretty dumb thing to do when it is based upon a story told in history's most ficticious book.
But worse than that,
Fundamentalist christians are attacking it for not depicting the story closely enough and not portraying the events as they happened...Isnt that the most insane garbage you have ever heard?

To me it looks like it has been done quite well and if you can suspend your disbelief at the totally implausible story, it may be worth a view. Some good actors and a director who works outside the norm + a huge budget also help.
 
@stryker said:
Interested to see how Russel Crowe's new flick Noah goes. The dude directing it isnt your normal Hollywood puppet and has made some strange pictures before.

Its funny to read about the war that has erupted online about it.
Atheists are attacking it for it's ludicrous storylines….pretty dumb thing to do when it is based upon a story told in history's most ficticious book.
But worse than that,
Fundamentalist christians are attacking it for not depicting the story closely enough and not portraying the events as they happened...Isnt that the most insane garbage you have ever heard?

To me it looks like it has been done quite well and if you can suspend your disbelief at the totally implausible story, it may be worth a view. Some good actors and a director who works outside the norm + a huge budget also help.

And its banned in mostly muslim Indonesia. Cinemas have been threatened with "big punishment" by the government if they play it.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
Just saw Noah. Crowe and Watson overacted, it was too long and cliched, and the intensity wasn't maintained throughout the movie. In saying that, some scenes were incredibly intense and incredible. Overall 6/10

Happy to answer any questions people may have?

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
Anyone seen the new teenage mutant ninja turtles trailer?
Heart broken.

Looks absolutely rubbish.
 
The turtles looked too snub nosed, a shame really for something that had so much promise and memories from childhood

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
@Demps said:
Anyone seen the new teenage mutant ninja turtles trailer?
Heart broken.

Looks absolutely rubbish.

What did you expect Demps :roll

Dwayne Johnson's take on Hercules looks alright though, and the new X-Men film looks excellent. Massive cast in that one.
 
@Blake93 said:
Just saw Noah. Crowe and Watson overacted, it was too long and cliched, and the intensity wasn't maintained throughout the movie. In saying that, some scenes were incredibly intense and incredible. Overall 6/10

Happy to answer any questions people may have?

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

Yeah I saw it as well. Dissappointed. I thought it was overlty preachy, new aged hippy bulldust. There is some good visuals and the depiction of Noah as a man was interesting but…expected more to be honest.
 
@stryker said:
@Blake93 said:
Just saw Noah. Crowe and Watson overacted, it was too long and cliched, and the intensity wasn't maintained throughout the movie. In saying that, some scenes were incredibly intense and incredible. Overall 6/10

Happy to answer any questions people may have?

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

Yeah I saw it as well. Dissappointed. I thought it was overlty preachy, new aged hippy bulldust. There is some good visuals and the depiction of Noah as a man was interesting but…expected more to be honest.

The film did $44 million in the US last weekend. Critics have given it solid reviews but most people who saw the film agree with your thoughts Stryker, and the film won't have legs in the long run.
 
TMNT doesn't look too bad. I''ll see it just for Megan Fox alone.

I'll be shattered if Splinter and Shredder aren't in it.
 
@stryker said:
@Blake93 said:
Just saw Noah. Crowe and Watson overacted, it was too long and cliched, and the intensity wasn't maintained throughout the movie. In saying that, some scenes were incredibly intense and incredible. Overall 6/10

Happy to answer any questions people may have?

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

Yeah I saw it as well. Dissappointed. I thought it was overlty preachy, new aged hippy bulldust. There is some good visuals and the depiction of Noah as a man was interesting but…expected more to be honest.

Favourite scenes?

SPOILER ALERT!!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.

I personally thought the scene when Crowe found out Watson was pregnant was the best scene of the whole movie. Got chills at how ruthless Noah was at that stage of the movie.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
@stryker said:
pretty dumb thing to do when it is based upon a story told in history's most ficticious book.
But worse than that,

I wouldn't call the Old Testament the worlds most fictitious book… I would say it is by far the worlds most misinterpreted and misunderstood book.

Much of the Old Testament is not meant to be taken literally, but fundamentalist Christians and militant atheists do so to further their own misguided causes.

As for the movie, will I see it? No. I have blacklisted rusty's movies ever since I realised there is a remote chance my watching them could help him fund the rabbitohs.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 

Latest posts

Back
Top