Author Topic: Hart's War (Read 1174 times)

Tac · « **Reply #15 on:** February 18, 2002, 07:23:26 PM »

Steve: "philosophical musings about God and nature and the insanity of war." about sums it right. The best thing is that the movie actually DOESNT talk about "god" as a religious issue but rather "creation" or the "reason for being on earth".

Only the battle scenes of SPR were of any worth. Yes, the D-day part at the start (plus the old guy and the grave scene) were incredible.. but they aint part of the main plot. Ive seen better ww2 story-telling in the old fliks of the TWILIGHT ZONE and COMBAT than that of SPR.

"SPR was some of the best cinematography and use of sound I have ever seen or experienced in any movie"

Thats the equivalent of great graphics and great sound on a pc game. Unfortunately, GAMEPLAY is what makes a game great. Remember OUTPOST vs CIVILIZATION (EGA) ?

Its a matter of opinions anyway, for me SPR was just another hollywood movie made for the enjoyment of the short-attention span masses. You have to see TRLine 3 times to really get it.

Sort of like Stephen King vs Frank Herbert deal hehe.

"There is a movie about Czech pilots in the RAF called "Dark Blue World"

DOH! Thats the one. my bad.

Animal · « **Reply #16 on:** February 18, 2002, 07:25:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund

Please do tell what the real story was...
I dont think I have ever seen a worse movie. heck Ive enjoyed Pampers commercials more than I enjoyed that movie.

I would, but after reading your last statement, I wont waste my time.

To each its own. The movie wasnt aimed at everyone, and thats why not everyone likes it.
People tend to hate movies they dont get, so thats why lately almost all movies are made easy.
You barely have to think. SPR is great, I love it, but you dont have to think any more than with 'Joe Dirt' or 'Freddy got Fingered'
I much more prefered the series 'Band of Brothers' (wich has an episode VERY VERY similar to The Thin Red Line, you'd know if you saw it)

BTW my favorite movies this year: K-Pax and Vanilla Sky (and the original "Abre tu Ojos").

Animal · « **Reply #17 on:** February 18, 2002, 07:33:00 PM »

.shreck

Hortlund · « **Reply #18 on:** February 18, 2002, 07:35:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Animal
I would, but after reading your last statement, I wont waste my time.

To each its own. The movie wasnt aimed at everyone, and thats why not everyone likes it.
People tend to hate movies they dont get, so thats why all movies are made easy.

Well, perhaps I was a bit harsh. I have seen the movie 3 times actually (If I pay for cable, I might aswell watch the movies.. right)

But I dont get TRL. The basic idea is ok. To make a personal warmovie, or what you wanna call it. And to some extent, you feel for the guys, especially that guy who spends all his time thinking about his girl back home only to recieve a dear john letter.

BUT they go overboard. When you have 10 minute camera drives around some native village combined with some horrible horrible "music", or when they spend 5 minutes filming some trees trying to capture the light or whatever it just becomes too much.

But please tell me, in case Ive missed some aspect of the movie. Because I thought it was a warmovie made personal, by focusing on the soldiers "insides" or something like that.

Animal · « **Reply #19 on:** February 18, 2002, 07:39:58 PM »

I'm at work, and instead of trying to explain it (wich will make me loose concentration on the idiots I have on the phone) I'll just do a cheap comparison.

Did you see American Beauty? the neiborgh kid, and the stellar part of the flying bag he caught on film? Thats pretty much what TRL is about, but more abstract.
Beauty everywhere, in everything.

You might see it as a flying trash bag in the wind, others see something completly different

This thread gets the BIGGEST HIJACK EVAR!! award.

Hortlund · « **Reply #20 on:** February 18, 2002, 07:49:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tac
Steve: "philosophical musings about God and nature and the insanity of war." about sums it right. The best thing is that the movie actually DOESNT talk about "god" as a religious issue but rather "creation" or the "reason for being on earth".

[/b]

Tac, are you actually saying that the best thing about the movie was that it DOESNT talk about "god" as a religious issue but rather "creation" or the "reason for being on earth"?

wow...

Quote

Only the battle scenes of SPR were of any worth. Yes, the D-day part at the start (plus the old guy and the grave scene) were incredible.. but they aint part of the main plot. Ive seen better ww2 story-telling in the old fliks of the TWILIGHT ZONE and COMBAT than that of SPR.

[/b]
Yes, but the combination of special effects, scenery and the plot all combined into one of the best movies I have ever seen.. Why?

Because it made me understand.

For a couple of hours in that movie theater I (think I) actually understood how it must have been back then. I could relate. And that is really the highest praise I can give to any movie.

I hope you understand what Im trying to get at here. The strength in SPR is not its plot, nor is it its special effects. But it is the way it relates a feeling. The feeling of being there. Isnt that ultimately what movies are supposed to do? (Im talking about real movies here, not "Nsynch goes to summercamp" or somehting like that).

SPR did this "without trying", while TRL tried and tried, but only came across as some weird quasi-philosophy garbage

midnight Target · « **Reply #21 on:** February 18, 2002, 08:20:21 PM »

Quote

Its a matter of opinions anyway, for me SPR was just another hollywood movie made for the enjoyment of the short-attention span masses. You have to see TRLine 3 times to really get it.

Sort of like Stephen King vs Frank Herbert deal hehe.

Loved Apocolypse Now, hated TRL. "Getting it" wasn't the issue. I got it just fine. The basic problem I found wuth TRL was that it tried to force feed the symbolism too much. I kept thinking "alright already, I get it". SPR was much more visceral, and enjoyable. Some of us don't necessarily have short attention spans, just short on patience for pretentious overly symbolic films.

Animal · « **Reply #22 on:** February 18, 2002, 08:23:25 PM »

Tac · « **Reply #23 on:** February 18, 2002, 08:27:30 PM »

"Tac, are you actually saying that the best thing about the movie was that it DOESNT talk about "god" as a religious issue but rather "creation" or the "reason for being on earth"?

wow... "

One of its best points. They did not turn the film into a preaching, single-point of religious view thing (like A. Now.. yuck). It was just one guy's view on things. TRL has great character development and human sentiment, when I compare it to SPR, where its all cliche and hollywood style characters.. well, it just doesnt cut it for me. I like films that explore original points of view, not just copy one and put it under a different skin. SPR was like a venezuelan soap opera. And thats going very, very low in my book hehe.

If you want to see a REALLY original WW2 film, grab a copy of GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES. And watch it with your family.

Tac · « **Reply #24 on:** February 18, 2002, 08:28:43 PM »

AAAHh animal, malparido, me debes un monitor. Tengo jugo de naranja chorreando hasta el teclado.

QUE ASCO. Ouch!!:eek:

Dago · « **Reply #25 on:** February 18, 2002, 09:40:31 PM »

I believe it is sometimes hard to say if a movie is good or bad. That judgement depends on the movie goer himself to decide if he was entertained by it, if he got anything out of it. Its just too subjective.

My personal feeling, the Thin Red Line was not a movie I enjoyed. I did find SPR compelling. I thought "The English Patient" was a great movie.
I loved Apocolypse Now.

To each his own, you are only right regarding how you feel about a movie, not if it is good or bad.

Dago

Kratzer · « **Reply #26 on:** February 18, 2002, 11:05:10 PM »

I love the Thin Red Line - a really, really great movie.

Getting back on track somewhat... does anyone know what is up with Windtalkers? I swear I first saw a preview last spring that said it would be out in July of 2001, then in the fall of 2001, it said it would be out Nov. 9th, now it is supposed to be out in June. From the articles I've read, it is supposed to be a good movie, so I'm baffled as to why they keep pushing it back.

Samm · « **Reply #27 on:** February 20, 2002, 03:04:39 PM »

Things I look for in a war movie are atention to detail and authenticity. Allthough I think apocolypse now was a good movie, I'm not sure that I would call it a war movie . Some movies that fit my idea of a good war movie are: Big Red One, Platoon, A Bridge too Far, and most recent BlackHawk Down .

The trailor for Hart's War make it look like it will be more of a trial movie than a war movie, although it still looks like it will be good .
The trailor I saw for We were soldiers looked very jingoistic and almost Gumpy, looked like they may have compromised it by making it too emotional ? Oh well, can't be as badly compromised as Pearl Harbor was. Knock on wood .

Curval · « **Reply #28 on:** February 20, 2002, 03:18:46 PM »

Damn Animal...owwww!

Vanilla Sky dude?

I grant you that it had a neat concept, and that the acting was pretty good...but I would sum it up by saying that it was a 2.5 hour movie that could have been done in 45 minutes. Basically I found it to be a really long drawn out "Twilight Zone" episode.

Toad · « **Reply #29 on:** February 20, 2002, 05:46:53 PM »

If you read The Thin Red Line by James Jones it would probably be easier to "get the movie.

I liked the book, was pretty unimpressed with the movie.