Wow, I think it looks hideous. Although I'd like to know why Tom Skerritt is speaking from the deck of the aircraft carrier everytime he's in contact with Bruce Willis? Does he think he'll get better reception outside?
Re: Re: Tears of the Sun Well, I meant "incredible" not in the "It's a beautiful work of art that's going to win an academy award" sense, but in the "a lot of ************ is gonna get blown up" sense. Alex
Looks like an abomination. The trailer pretty much tells you everything you need to know, doesn't it? One beautiful, angel-hearted rescue worker and her cute African foundlings are trapped in the heart of Dark Africa, right in the path of masses of faceless, savage rebels...thank God there's Bruce! Willis! and his gallant U.S. Special Forces, who won't just 'extract' themselves when the going gets tough and the bad, bad rebels trap them. Oh no! By God, they'll mow every last one of them down if they have to...and they'll have to. 'We're going to complete this mission.' Funny how this cack gets especially popular every time we go off to invade another country. The only noteworthy thing is how, having exhausted Russia, the Middle East and Colombia as Bad Places, the moviemakers have sent Our Boys to sub-Saharan Africa; the start of a new trend?
Don't take it so seriously. It's an action movie, mindless entertainment. Don't view it as some sort of political statement, and you'll be just fine. Just sit back, get some popcorn, and watch some ************ blow up. War/military movies are always popular. "Top Gun", "Saving Private Ryan", "Thin Red Line", "Pearl Harbor", and "U-571", to name just a few, all came out at times when we were involved in no major conflict whatsoever. Yeah, a number of of war movies did come out about a year ago ("Black Hawk Down", "Behind Enemy Lines", "We Were Soldiers"), but they were all in production long before 9/11. This is the first one that might possibly have been produced entirely after 9/11, and even if that's the case it's likely that someone had the idea for the movie before then. (Hey, there's a conspiracy theory for you: Hollywood producers caused 9/11 in order to get better turnout for war movies) Russia isn't our enemies any more (in fact, the only big-production war movie that came out last summer, "K-571", had Soviets as the good guys), and Colombia hasn't been in that much stuff ("Clear and Present Danger", "Crocodile Dundee 2", and that Ahnald movie that came out about a year ago are all I can think of). Arabs are hardly ever used as the bad guys because it's un-PC to do so; while I'm sure there are others, "The Siege" is the only one I can think of off the top of my head. Even in "Sum of All Fears", the bad guys were changed from Arabs in the original Clancy book to European neo-Nazis in the movie. As for sub-Saharan Africa, this is only the 2nd recent movie I can think of set there. The first was Black Hawk Down, which can't really be used in this argument seeing as how it was, you know, a true story and all. (I should mention that I'm hardly a movie buff so I'm sure there are lots of movies out there I can't think of that use Arabs and Colombians as the bad guys) Alex
This movie looks bad. And by bad I mean terrible. If I want to see stuff blow up then I'll wait for Terminator 3 or The Matrix sequels.
Everything about this movie screams "Crappity crappity crap!" I was going to post something smartass like "Why didn't they just get rid of the plot altogether and call it Die Hard 4: Dying Is Really Really Hard?" then I read this. This movie was supposed to drop last summer, then pushed back to fall, then to winter and now the current release date of March 7. Even curiouser and curiouser, the film was originally titled Man of War, which was changed to Hostile Act, then to Hostile Rescue, then to Tears of the Sun, which had been the working title for Die Hard 4, back to Man of War because Bruce Willis agreed to do the Die Hard sequel, and then again to Tears of the Sun.
What a great country. Where else would our resident ubermenscher have his world view reaffirmed via crunchy hollywood pacifists?
Is there any doubt that a retarded chicken picked at random could peck out better titles than these? Hostile Rescue? Gawd.
Are Bellucci’s breasts real? I am not questioning her acting abilities, but I don’t think many rescue worker/medical doctors need big tatas. I would question the casting. I think they did an admirable job otherwise. Willis does look like a good hearted solider, and those Africans do look really evil, but come on, Bellucci, a doctor?
Not to inject a semi-serious tangent into a discussion of Monica Belucci's rack, but... Alex's comments above about war flicks reminded me of a panel discussion I once watched dealing with the novel "Cold Mountain." On the panel were a handful of fairly famous writers, including Frazier himself, Reynolds Price, and some others. Anyway, this one woman short story writer (O Henry Award Winner, but I can't remember her name) raised the question at one point, "Is this an anti-war novel?" After a couple of the guys kind of belittled the comment as banal and obvious, one of them responded, "Is there even such thing as a PRO-war novel?" Now after the soundbite quality of that question wears off, I still think there is something fairly true about the way in which novels, by nature, question and doubt and challenge ideas, so that it would be tough to make a truly "pro-war" one. Perhaps I haven't read enough war pulp fiction--is there a military version of the dime novel genre out there? Probably. But I gather they were talking about people serious about writing. To bring the point back to this thread though, in the same way one could argue that you can't write a pro-war novel, I'm not sure you can make a truly anti-war movie. At least in the narrative feature film method. There's just something about the spectacle of them that always ends up glorifying the subject, even in the rare cases when the director is trying to criticize. Take even "Schindler's List" for example: war still becomes the backdrop for a John Wayne type hero at the center of a romanticized narrative. Anyway, so there's the challenge: Has there ever been a truly anti-war film? I guess "Shoah" comes to mind pretty quickly, though is that a war film?
There are a lot of cheap Tom Clancy clones out there (I wouldn't put Clancy himself in the cheap bin). "Platoon" and "Apocalypse Now" spring to mind. Alex
Seriously? Paths of Glory immediately springs to mind. You can stay with Kubrick and get Dr. Strangelove. Gallipoli is another. La Grande Illusion is a great example, and a masterful film. Welcome To Sarajevo is a solid, albeit more subtle, recent example. And who can forget "Damn all flags!" from McQueen's The Sand Pebbles. All that, and I didn't even have to touch the fertile ground of Vietnam movies.
Wake and Alex, My point is that films like "Apocalypse Now" and "Gallipoli," while ostensibly being "anti-war" ultimately end up glorifying it. I don't think there can be any argument about "Apoc. Now" in this regard--when Duvall says "I love the smell of napalm in the morning!" every right wing war monger in the world smiles and thinks, "Yeah...feckin A!" I think that is one film unanimously considered cemented on every guy's "Badass flick" list. Anyway, "Dr. Strangelove" came to my mind as well, Wake, and I'd agree on that one to some extent. Though there's not really much "war" in it--mostly office scenes. That is probaby key, so I'll restate the hypothesis in another way: there are any number of movies about how war is bad--but I would say that they are effective as "anti-war" films in relative proportion to the ABSENCE of battle scenes within the films themselves. I think Kubrick understood this. Stone, Spielberg, and Coppola do not. By the way: the Kubrick example might lead to a separate claim: Is the best/only way to make an effective anti-war movie to play it as farce? Dr. Strangelove Catch-22 MASH, etc...
This reminded me of a discussion I had with a friend when "Saving Private Ryan" came out, about Spielberg's motivation behind the film. Although the film portrays the worst qualities of man that war brings out and basically says "War is hell," most of the characters, although conflicted, are ultimately heroes. Spielberg surely understood that a part of the audience would leave the theater would see a celebration of the WW2 generation while others saw an anti-warm film.
Way to turn this thread into something interesting, Dr.... The above reminds me of Spielberg's quote regarding "Saving Private Ryan": "All war films are anti-war films." I think it's a crock. A war film that says "bad ************ happens in war" is not an anti-war film. A war film that says "this cinematic war isn't worth the price those involved are paying" IS an anti-war film. So while "Apocalypse Now" may attack the real Vietnam War, it glorifies and exploits the war within the movie. (I also agree with your distinction, Dr., between anti-war films and anti-war war films.) So per my criteria, here are some anti-war war films: "All Quiet on the Western Front" by Lewis Milestone "Steel Helmet" by Sam Fuller "My Name is Ivan" by Andrei Tarkovski "A Thin Red Line" by Terrence Malick
I'd have to add "A Midnight Clear" to your list, Gringo. If it's not 'anti-war', I don't know what is. And the book it's based on is even better...and more shattering.
With regard to 'Apocalypse Now', I see your point. But 'Gallipoli'? I still see that as a profound anti-war movie. I think, like the 'Saving Private Ryan' example, it's important to evaluate what a viewer takes away from a film. Granted, this is obviously a personal filter, but I think its a better starting point than the number or scale of battles scenes within a film. So while Gallipoli may have some deft battlefield recreations and show the comraderie between soldiers, the horror of the last scene is what has always resonated with me. And I think that was the director's intent. Similarly, I highly recommend 'Paths of Glory', is considered by many as the greatest anti-war film. I may check that out again this weekend as a jumping off point for this discussion. This is a ridiculous statement. For example, I'm a huge fan of Ed Zwick's 'Glory', and that is a decidedly pro-war film. It certainly doesn't glorify war, but it is a pro-war movie.