A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
Marlow wrote:So . . . lots of conflicting thoughts here (no spoilers):
1. The torture scenes are nothing that didn’t go on, and the info gleaned does NOT lead to ObL, but does give our heroine (Jessica Chastain, VERY good, representing some mid-level CIA analyst who just happened to guess right on how to get to ObL) the seeds of her obsession to find him and does show us the nature of her resolve.
2. The movie is ‘important’ and fascinating, but the first 1.75 hours are problematic. Much of what we see is tedious, which represents how tedious the hunt was (TEN years), but does not make for much entertainment or even necessary exposition. In this regard it mirrors Lincoln.
3. The last 45 minutes (yeah, at 2.5 hours, it is too long) is $MONEY$, but it’s vaguely dissatisfying, since we know virtually nothing about the ST6 members who are the real heroes (and ironically, anti-heroes) of the movie.
4. Of all the millions of ways this story could have been told, this treatment seems rather mediocre, given all the hoopla. Bigelow should get kudos for the effort (just like SS in Lincoln, but the story could have been much better.
5. It (like Lincoln) is a must-see movie, just because the subject matter is so important, but I left the theater underwhelmed. This is the odds-on "Best' of the O-noms?
Absolutely not surprised by your comments or your perspective, and couldn't disagree more. You seem perplexed by movies that don't go bang or have masked super heroes in them. I know that's a bit testy but I can easily say it's the best movie from 2012 that I've seen, along with "Argo" and "Lincoln." All based on historical events, so much more interesting than fantasy.
jeremyp wrote:You seem perplexed by movies that don't go bang or have masked super heroes in them. I know that's a bit testy but I can easily say it's the best movie from 2012 that I've seen, along with "Argo" and "Lincoln." All based on historical events, so much more interesting than fantasy.
Testy? Not at all. Misperceived, ignorant, dismissive, condescending, pompous . . . yes, all that. You simply haven't been paying attention. Yes, I typically like many 'fantasy' concepts, but most I don't. And I love non-fiction (sic) movies that are INTERESTINGLY made. 0D30 had its moments, but it also had long stretches of unnecessary 'exposition'. Argo was fun, because Affleck made it so. Lincoln was deadly in the first hour and then Tommy Lee Jones started eating up all the scenery in sight, which was fun, and SS/DD-L got down to bidniss, and that was fascinating. Bigelow was MUCH more effective in The Hurt Locker. This time she chose a canvas too large for what she wanted to paint.
jeremyp wrote:You seem perplexed by movies that don't go bang or have masked super heroes in them. I know that's a bit testy but I can easily say it's the best movie from 2012 that I've seen, along with "Argo" and "Lincoln." All based on historical events, so much more interesting than fantasy.
Testy? Not at all. Misperceived, ignorant, dismissive, condescending, pompous . . . yes, all that.
I'll accept the 1st, 3d,4th,5th adjectives, but not the 2d.
Marlow wrote:Testy? Not at all. Misperceived, ignorant, dismissive, condescending, pompous . . . yes, all that.
I'll accept the 1st, 3d,4th,5th adjectives, but not the 2d.
I don't mean ignorant in a general sense (far from it, actually); ignorant of what I do and don't like. As to the others, I'm sure you can understand why I might take exception to your remarks. There's absolutely no need for that kind of sentiment here.
Marlow wrote:Going to see OD30 today, but the producers are in a world of hurt now. They advertise it as a 'true story' as in "see the REAL back story", but then they knowingly make s**t up to suit their 'historical fiction' dramatic purposes. You can't have it both ways!!! People seeing this movie, having not read the accusations against it, have a reasonable expectation to think this is how it all went down, when that's simply not true.
Steve Coll, who probably knows as much about this subject as anyone, gives a big thumbs down.
Marlow wrote:Going to see OD30 today, but the producers are in a world of hurt now. They advertise it as a 'true story' as in "see the REAL back story", but then they knowingly make s**t up to suit their 'historical fiction' dramatic purposes. You can't have it both ways!!! People seeing this movie, having not read the accusations against it, have a reasonable expectation to think this is how it all went down, when that's simply not true.
Steve Coll, who probably knows as much about this subject as anyone, gives a big thumbs down.
Marlow wrote:Going to see OD30 today, but the producers are in a world of hurt now. They advertise it as a 'true story' as in "see the REAL back story", but then they knowingly make s**t up to suit their 'historical fiction' dramatic purposes. You can't have it both ways!!! People seeing this movie, having not read the accusations against it, have a reasonable expectation to think this is how it all went down, when that's simply not true.
Steve Coll, who probably knows as much about this subject as anyone, gives a big thumbs down.
Marlow wrote:Going to see OD30 today, but the producers are in a world of hurt now. They advertise it as a 'true story' as in "see the REAL back story", but then they knowingly make s**t up to suit their 'historical fiction' dramatic purposes. You can't have it both ways!!! People seeing this movie, having not read the accusations against it, have a reasonable expectation to think this is how it all went down, when that's simply not true.
Steve Coll, who probably knows as much about this subject as anyone, gives a big thumbs down.
Oh, dear...In that case I recommend his excellent, and best selling, book.
Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001
Winner of the 2005 Pulitzer Prize
The explosive first-hand account of America's secret history in Afghanistan
With the publication of Ghost Wars, Steve Coll became not only a Pulitzer Prize winner, but also the expert on the rise of the Taliban, the emergence of Bin Laden, and the secret efforts by CIA officers and their agents to capture or kill Bin Laden in Afghanistan after 1998.
Conor Dary wrote:Oh, dear...In that case I recommend his excellent, and best selling, book.
Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001
Winner of the 2005 Pulitzer Prize
The explosive first-hand account of America's secret history in Afghanistan
With the publication of Ghost Wars, Steve Coll became not only a Pulitzer Prize winner, but also the expert on the rise of the Taliban, the emergence of Bin Laden, and the secret efforts by CIA officers and their agents to capture or kill Bin Laden in Afghanistan after 1998.
Read it, excellent book, but he is still trying to make the pointless point that "0Dark30" is not good journalism. Neither was "Argo" nor "Lincoln" or any "based on a true story" is in the hands of a movie maker. Movie critics on the other hand, notable ones not the amateur hacks we all are-even you Marlow-saw it quite differently.
jeremyp wrote: Read it, excellent book, but he is still trying to make the pointless point that "0Dark30" is not good journalism. Neither was "Argo" nor "Lincoln" or any "based on a true story" is in the hands of a movie maker. Movie critics on the other hand, notable ones not the amateur hacks we all are-even you Marlow-saw it quite differently.
I think there is quite a difference when someone like Bigelow claims to try to get it right in a very recent and important story and 2 other movie makers who are just trying to make an entertaining film.
jeremyp wrote: Read it, excellent book, but he is still trying to make the pointless point that "0Dark30" is not good journalism. Neither was "Argo" nor "Lincoln" or any "based on a true story" is in the hands of a movie maker. Movie critics on the other hand, notable ones not the amateur hacks we all are-even you Marlow-saw it quite differently.
I think there is quite a difference when someone like Bigelow claims to try to get it right in a very recent and important story and 2 other movie makers who are just trying to make an entertaining film.
I don't. Both the other films were presented as "history." Also I don't think Bigelow claims to get it right. After all much of what happened in the pursuit of UBL is still shrouded in CIA secrecy. The big fuss is over the torture issue, and she is getting heat mostly from the left not the right on this. This is not surprising. In fact most historians/journalists who have written about the subject would agree that it is not possible to know whether the intel that came from torture did or did not lead to UBL, simply because a clear time line is shrouded in secrecy.
jeremyp wrote:I don't think Bigelow claims to get it right.
Her MO, as established first by Hurt Locker and now this, is to take something from the national consciousness (in both these cases the 'war on terrorism'), give it a socio-political spin, 'play' with the facts of the matter, get the protagonist 'conflicted' (yet single-minded) about a 'problem', and then try to engage the audience thru the threat of violence (suspense). I really enjoyed Hurt Locker and the last hour of 0D30; the first hour of this one? Too much Bigelow manipulation of a premise that she took from a real situation.
jeremyp wrote:I don't think Bigelow claims to get it right.
Her MO, as established first by Hurt Locker and now this, is to take something from the national consciousness (in both these cases the 'war on terrorism'), give it a socio-political spin, 'play' with the facts of the matter, get the protagonist 'conflicted' (yet single-minded) about a 'problem', and then try to engage the audience thru the threat of violence (suspense). I really enjoyed Hurt Locker and the last hour of 0D30; the first hour of this one? Too much Bigelow manipulation of a premise that she took from a real situation.
I didn't think it was possible to dislike a film more than Les Mis this Oscar season but I've just come back from 'Django Unchained'.
Good grief!!!
Quite apart from it being objectional on too many levels details it so f*cking boring it's unbelievable. You often feel that a film might night 20 mins trimming but this could do with a whole hour taken out of the middle. It's never ending.
There is a nice little caper/heist movie in their somewhere but so self indulgent is Tarantino that he drags it out forever and has absolutely no new ideas to keep the momentum going. If in doubt shoot loads of people seems to be his answer to absolutely everything. By the 17th time blood and guts are splattered everywhere it just becomes unwatchable.
Flumpy wrote:I didn't think it was possible to dislike a film more than Les Mis this Oscar season but I've just come back from 'Django Unchained'.
Good grief!!!
Quite apart from it being objectional on too many levels details it so f*cking boring it's unbelievable. You often feel that a film might night 20 mins trimming but this could do with a whole hour taken out of the middle. It's never ending.
There is a nice little caper/heist movie in their somewhere but so self indulgent is Tarantino that he drags it out forever and has absolutely no new ideas to keep the momentum going. If in doubt shoot loads of people seems to be his answer to absolutely everything. By the 17th time blood and guts are splattered everywhere it just becomes unwatchable.
Absolutely loathesome.
I agree with you on Django, not on Les Miz. I think Q.T. has decided that his base is adolescents.
Flumpy wrote:'Django Unchained'. it so f*cking boring it's unbelievable. so self indulgent is Tarantino that he drags it out forever and has absolutely no new ideas to keep the momentum going. If in doubt shoot loads of people seems to be his answer to absolutely everything. By the 17th time blood and guts are splattered everywhere it just becomes unwatchable. Absolutely loathsome.
I know you are a twin, but apparently I am the triplet that was separated at birth. Truer words wuz never spoke!!!!
At least LesMiz meant well and AH's song performance was memorable.
I will not see Django Unchained for many reasons, and one of them is the "garbage in, garbage out" idea. I simply don't like the idea of hearing the "n" word over and over and over. That affects people, whether they know it or not, and I'm a people. I like being mindlessly entertained, but that movie is not one that will be doing the trick for me.
I couldn't bring myself to see a Tarantino film, he's so objectionable it's almost unreal
'Why did you want to make a movie with slavery as a theme ?'
'I've always wanted to explore slavery in a film before but i guess the reason that made me put pen to paper was to give black american males a western hero .... that could be empowering and pay back blood for blood'
'I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT SLAVERY, IN AMERICA IN A WAY THEY HAVE NOT FOR 30 YEARS'
Please forgive my ignorance, I don't get that reference. TAFNY?
It's a good thing. In the first coupla years of this board's existence I instituted the TAFNYs: year-end awards for great posts, threads, etc.. It was discontinued when it turned out I was the only one who truly appreciated them . . . . But occasionally I (or others) will reward a post with one.
Does anyone have a list of TAFNYs? As I remember, they were awarded annually and categorized. I think I got one years ago but forget what it was for. I guess I should have framed it and hung it alongside my CMH.
lonewolf wrote:Does anyone have a list of TAFNYs? As I remember, they were awarded annually and categorized. I think I got one years ago but forget what it was for. I guess I should have framed it and hung it alongside my CMH.
Here's 2006. Look at the work that tafnut guy put into them!!!!
"Argo" was no surprise, since Hollywood and the media decided that "0dark30" was too dark, and "Lincoln" too "Historical." Good body of work by Affleck now and Hollywood screwed up by not nominating he and Bigelow for best director. Spielberg got screwed again! I have yet to see "Silver Linings Playbook" as I usually hate what Hollywood does to Mental Illness ("we're crazy, but happy.") but I liked her in "Winter's Bone." I'll still wait to see the Foreign movies on Netflix before deciding about the 2012 season.
Flumpy complains that Django is drawn out. Remember that this is an ode to spaghetti westerns which are by their very nature drawn out. By the way I hate spaghetti westerns and didn't see or plan to see Django and agree with about all the negative stuff that's been posted about Tarantino.
"MORGAN: You’ve seen “Argo,” I take it? How accurate is it from your memory? CARTER: Well, let me say, first of all, it’s a great drama. And I hope it gets the Academy Award for best film because I think it deserves it. The other thing that I would say was that ninety per cent of the contributions to the ideas and the consummation of the plan was Canadian. And the movie gives almost full credit to the American C.I.A. And, with that exception, the movie is very good."
"MORGAN: You’ve seen “Argo,” I take it? How accurate is it from your memory? CARTER: Well, let me say, first of all, it’s a great drama. And I hope it gets the Academy Award for best film because I think it deserves it. The other thing that I would say was that ninety per cent of the contributions to the ideas and the consummation of the plan was Canadian. And the movie gives almost full credit to the American C.I.A. And, with that exception, the movie is very good."
My local critic's summation of the awards (not the show)
<<...Before we say goodbye to Sunday night's ceremony, it really should be said that this was a sad day for the academy. Instead of giving best picture to "Lincoln," a masterpiece, or to the innovative "Zero Dark Thirty," or the audacious and inspired "Django Unchained," the academy went back to its old ways and honored something good but unremarkable, Ben Affleck's third-best film, "Argo."
Instead of awarding best actress to Emmanuelle Riva for her searing work in "Amour" or Jessica Chastain for her nuanced, pressure-cooker performance in "Zero Dark Thirty," it gave the prize to pretty, charming Jennifer Lawrence - for being pretty and charming in "Silver Linings Playbook."
And instead of giving best supporting actress to Sally Field or Helen Hunt, who gave performances in complicated roles, in which they had to interact with other actors, the academy honored Anne Hathaway, for singing a song into a camera.
These are more than you-say-potato-I-say potahto expressions of preference. As much as one can tell the day after, these are mistakes people will look at for years to come, embarrassments to history. Together they made Sunday night's Oscars one of the more interesting in recent years, but a little painful to witness.....>>
. But occasionally I (or others) will reward a post with one.
