I finished watching Inglorious Basterds last night. Goooooooood film! It's now my front runner for who I want to win the Academy Award for Best Picture.
Printable View
I finished watching Inglorious Basterds last night. Goooooooood film! It's now my front runner for who I want to win the Academy Award for Best Picture.
Luckily instead of merely accepting someone's claim as fact we can double check those claims with Rotten Tomato. Rotten Tomatoes Major Critic aggregate notes that out of the major critics 14 gave positive reviews and 10 negative reviews for a total percentage of 58% positive. So clearly your statement that EVERY respected critic trashed the film is untrue and your just making that up (or you merely meant the critics you personally care about). More than half of them in fact gave a positive review of the film.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
The larger rating, which includes all critics, had a 70% positive rating. Technology, gotta love it.
Like I said, I thought it was a good film, but not Oscar worthy beyond Sandra Bullock's performance. The film does have a lot of racial stereotypes, but none that are significantly different than the racial stereotypes found in Avatar.
And am I the only who thought the new Coen brothers film A Serious Man was ****ing incredible? In a perfect world that would win it all.
That movie was **** for me, plain and simple. It was condescending to its audience, and it was condescending to its subject. I'm sorry I don't just think this movie doesn't deserve an Oscar nod, I don't even think it is a decent movie. The best reviews this thing received were of the "heart-warming" and "Sandra Bullock sure can act!" variety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I didn't see it unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
Up in the Air isn't getting much love, but I really liked that movie this year.
You're entitled to your own opinion, hence why I never questioned it. The real issue was that you were making a statement of fact that didn't match up with the actual facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
Again, I understand what you're getting at, but I (and many other veterans) had a hard time looking past how rediculous the movie was to appreciate any other part of it.Quote:
3. I would venture to say Inglourious Basterds wasn't the most accurate war film either. Were either films trying to be? No. Might critics have been led to believe this was the case? Possibly. But how can you judge Bigelow using the bias of others? Her work speaks for itself.
And I'm not judging Bigelow solely from the bias of others. During her DGA award acceptance speech, she said how important it was for her to tell the story "as honestly as possible." I assume she meant honesty as far as the emotional toll, but like I said, the unbelievability of the film takes so much away from that.
They do, but they are ALWAYS escorted by a security element, usually at least a platoon-sized element (+-60) of combat arms soldiers (infantry, cavalry, etc.)Quote:
1.EOD does travel in groups of anywhere from 3 to 7
You don't have to go through the military to get military-issue uniforms. Just do a search for "buy military uniforms," and you will find hundreds, if not thousands, of web sites that sell the exact same uniforms we are issued.Quote:
2. Like i said, she would've gladly bought army issue uniforms that might've been more accurate, but the army refused to comply...
You're right, that is an ACTUAL Army uniform. It is called the Army Combat Uniform (ACU), and all soldiers wear it. We have done so since 2005. Unfortunately, The Hurt Locker is set in 2004, when we wore the Desert Camouflage Uniform (DCU) seen in this picture http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/1323/gipm1.jpgQuote:
Here is a picture of an ACTUAL Army EOD uniform, just for the sake of discussion:
http://newsblaze.com/pix/2006/0625/pix/eod-2.jpg
I really do not see the difference... This is exactly what the uniforms in the movie look like
Man, I can't wait to see that one. I usually pick which films to watch based on the director, and I love the Coen brothers (I watched Raising Arizona last night, that's my third favorite after Fargo and The Big Lebowski).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
I also saw The Hurt Locker last night. I liked it, but I didn't love it. Still pulling for Inglorious Bastards.
I know I already gushed about "The Hurt Locker" in here, but Dustin brings up some really good points. I'm not an EOD tech or expert and I don't know their procedures, and there were still some things that stuck out to me.
I don't think it'd be too hard to grab a couple vets (whether EOD or even some other combat arms) and produce something that's relatively technically accurate even without DoD support, especially with the internet and so much of that info readily available.
Call me ignorant, but I really don't know what people found so unrealistic about it. Whilst watching the film, I never doubted it for a second, and according to movie logic, if it looks real, it is real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurricane
Emotionally, I guess it's realistic. I know I found it extremely powerful. But a lot of the tactical and minor details were way off. See Dustin's earlier post for more details, but stuff like them not wearing the right uniforms or SSG James wearing SFC insignia really stuck out.Quote:
Call me ignorant, but I really don't know what people found so unrealistic about it. Whilst watching the film, I never doubted it for a second, and according to movie logic, if it looks real, it is real.
The reason you found it realistic is because (and this isn't a hit on you at all) is that you're not affiliated with the military (at least I don't think you are, correct me if I'm wrong here).
It's like "Top Gun": it was really cool when I was 12, but as I grew up and talked to Naval Aviators about their job and lifestyle, I realized how goofy and inaccurate it is and now when I watch it, it's not the same. And that kind of thing matters to them, because that's their job and it's their life. I've never been on deployment and I'm not EOD, but I imagine "The Hurt Locker" is similar for a lot of those vets.
They had a low budget, they made a good film. I do not see why the uniform thing really matters much, they did what they could with what little money they had. Because it is not technically perfect in every way you cannot enjoy it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dustin
None of it was shot in Iraq. But little details like that could do little to change my ability to enjoy a film, I think back to Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket where the one shot they are supposed to be in Vietnam and you can see the palm trees in the distance which show that it's obviously being shot in Hollywood. That movie is brilliant, even with such things like that.
Ironically, if they'd gone with the DCUs it probably would've been a whole lot cheaper than buying ACUs.Quote:
They had a low budget, they made a good film. I do not see why the uniform thing really matters much, they did what they could with what little money they had. Because it is not technically perfect in every way you cannot enjoy it?
The point isn't the uniforms. Attention to detail is a big thing in the military. For example, I go here:
http://www.usna.edu/homepage.php
When this:
http://chud.com/nextraimages/annapolisposter.jpg
Came out, I was starting to look at the Naval Academy, but I didn't see it until I was a plebe last year. They didn't get anything right (except the uniforms, oddly enough, but I think they had a grad help out), and it stung, since that's what people see of my school and my experience. People think I get yelled at by Tyrese and could get kicked out for not lying about not showering at 0200.
"The Hurt Locker" is a much, much better movie, and one that I like a lot. But not getting some of that stuff rights smacks of sloppiness and a willful ignorance to gather what is in some cases pretty accessible information. I can understand some leaps of faith in order to have a better story, but it detracts from the experience for people who live that life.
I really didn't think any 2009 movies I saw last year were Oscar worthy. Here are my notes on the ones I saw.
*Spoiler Warning*
Inglorious Basterds(2009)- Quinten Tarrantino's masterbatory fantasy about Jews scalping Nazis and killing Hitler at a movie premiere. Aside from the above, I can't say why anyone would want to watch this film. There weren't any really effective camera shots, no great dialogue, or characters. He was going for a suspence thing with really long drawn out interogation scenes but he doesn't really understand what makes suspence. There were too many characters that were unrealized because they didn't have enough screen time or action to develop. Plus, the film stuff was a little heavy handed and reminds me of Scorsese's early work like Who's That Knocking At My Door. What was with that **** about her making a film, and her relationship with the German war hero was a little contrived too. Then the other problem is how self contained the two stories are. The two groups merging to attack the theater never meet each other. And the Nazi Jew Hunter just gave up for no apparent reason. Also, why does he let that chick go at the beginning, and why doesn't he catch her, and where are all the guards that should be attending Hitler for security? The music kind of sucked because Tarantino was obviously stealing from Leone's films and he felt he had to draw attention to what he was doing to make other people make that connection. He gave everyone funny titles like The Bear Jew. Now there is an unrealized character, even though he gets more lines than the others. He says some really cliché **** like “Two hits, me hitting you and you hitting the floor.” Now, his character might really say that, but it's not exactly poetic and realism isn't this movie's selling point anyway. I really expected more from the action sequences after Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and Kill Bill. Maniac Cop 2 had better action, and if it weren't such an obvious B movie I'd place it above IB. You know what's a good movie to compare this to, Blackbook. That film was much better if not necessarily great. Tarantino said he tried to make it like Guns of the Navarone but this wasn't that. It wasn't even Force 10 From Navarone. It was more on the level of Where Eagles Dare than Kelley's Heroes. I went in thinking it was going to be like The Dirty Dozen, but it's not that good either. I've just been thinking that having the female actress survive the gunfight in the basement only to kill her when she gets to the premiere is stupid. She repeats her information twice. That's unnecessary duplication, and it would have been interesting to see what plan the Basterds could have come up with without her. Come to think of it, we don't really see the Basterds show off their skills much at all. We hear tales secondhand. We see bodies, but we don't see their actions which earned their reputation. When we should have been doing that we were occupied with the Jewish cinema owner's storyline.
The Hurt Locker(2009)- Not as good as The Kingdom, Jarhead, or Body of Lies, and none of those were particularly good movies either.
District 9(2009)- Terrible first half. Somewhat interesting action in the second. Lousy lead actor, lousy direction, lousy cinematography.
Avatar(2009)- Piece of **** James Cameron blockbuster. Dances with smurfs/pocahontas remake.
Star Trek(2009)- Terrible. Just terrible. Cliché ridden schlock. Bad acting with worse writing covered up by state of the art special effects. My biggest beef would have to be the time travel thing. These villains come back in time to when they can stop the thing they are mad about and instead they decide to **** with the guy who doesn't help them enough in the future. They show up twenty years too early and then after wrecking the place with a space battle they just go away. They wank it for twenty years. How could they do nothing for twenty years and then when they come back everyone is still pissed off? They want to kick ***, and their plan has not changed. The childhood scenes were they start the movie with are awful to a fault. Adolescent Kirk steals his step dad's car, while listening to the Beastie Boys, which by that time must be like ****ing Mozart. And we get Spock getting picked on and his mother insulted so that later we'd believe that he cared when his mother died? I would have believed he loved his mother anyway! Then Kirk gets stranded on an abandoned ice planet, within walking distance of both Spock and Scotty? The story didn't call for most of the characters to do anything, so they just mug around the scene and make allusions to the old series. Scotty has this ****ing animal/alien sidekick/pet now which I find almost as annoying as the slapstick gag thrown in for comic relief that had Scotty being sucked through a series of man sized Willy Wonka tubes. That **** with Kirk's parents was corny as hell, so Abrams cannot write character, but could he at least make the action novel? They ram space ships twice. And Kirk get's promoted to Captain even though he's under arrest and not officially enlisted and they just bypass the entire chain of command! This film was infuriating.
Watchmen(2009)- Good superhero movie, an improvement on the comicbook. Took out all that annoying bull**** toward the end and the copious tangents. Now if only there'd been better acting, or lengthier scenes with taught dialogue. The action was alright, but I've seen better. This was a lot like Sin City or 300, slavishly faithful to the source material, panel for panel, picture for picture, incredibly well done. But coming to the movie after reading the books I was not surprised by the novelty any longer and was not as swept away as I was at first. This story doesn't have reviewability like Casablanca, Shawshank Redemption, or The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly.
Angels and Demons(2009)- Better than the first one.
The Hangover(2009)- Basically Dude Where's My Car 2.0.
Terminator Salvation(2009)- Typical thriller. Lots of plotholes. Two parallel storylines that don't fully match up. It was less like Terminator, and more like a very weak Screamers.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine(2009)- Popcorn movie. It always bugs me when people ignore physics in a movie where characters already defy most of Newton's laws with superpowers.
Knowing(2009)- Apocalypse movie, cliché ark Adam and Even type ending. Felt like The Number 33.
Paranormal Activity(2009)- Boring as hell. Just like Blaire Witch Project or Cloverfield.
Sherlock Holmes(2009)- Classic deductive detective fiction with kung fu and explosions.
Tyson(2009)- Alright boxing documentary. Started strong but entered a downward spiral like his career.
My eyes caught this on the first glance of your post, and I decided not to read the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I'll keep that in mind when reading your posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf