Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Isn't that movie based around a guy who was a complete psychopath?
The Ultimate Movie Thread of Ultimate Destiny
- Thread starter Serge 13
- Start date
This ghoul has seen it all
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Psychopath? Not likely.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
Unless your definition of psychopath is "one who undergoes extreme emotional stress and struggles heavily with the fallout of emotional and mental strain it imposes as a result", in which case, yes, it is about a "psychopath"! ^_<
Anywho... saw The Devil Wears Prada a few times again while it was replaying on the TV these last few nights. Always a delightful movie, if not really meaty enough to enjoy seeing it more than once in quick succession (no pun intended). Great acting, good story, and watching Anne Hathaway strutting around in really stylish, sexy clothes one after another is really nice. The models too, sure, but they got nothing on Anne Hathaway! =D Always surprises me to take a look at when a movie came out, because I never really remember the "when" at the time I first watched a film, so at times it surprises me. "2006? Huh." "Wait, Dead Poets Society was 1989? Huh." Etc etc. But movies like these are really nice in that, as a person with zero fashion sense, I get to see realized examples of beautiful fashion to study, were I to still be working on character design (something I try to get back into every year). Unlike KRPGs and the very mainstream "rule of cool", I like characters to both look good AND be practically outfitted, which is a really hard line to walk. Anyway, I digress...
Good movie, if a touch on the simple side.
Anywho... saw The Devil Wears Prada a few times again while it was replaying on the TV these last few nights. Always a delightful movie, if not really meaty enough to enjoy seeing it more than once in quick succession (no pun intended). Great acting, good story, and watching Anne Hathaway strutting around in really stylish, sexy clothes one after another is really nice. The models too, sure, but they got nothing on Anne Hathaway! =D Always surprises me to take a look at when a movie came out, because I never really remember the "when" at the time I first watched a film, so at times it surprises me. "2006? Huh." "Wait, Dead Poets Society was 1989? Huh." Etc etc. But movies like these are really nice in that, as a person with zero fashion sense, I get to see realized examples of beautiful fashion to study, were I to still be working on character design (something I try to get back into every year). Unlike KRPGs and the very mainstream "rule of cool", I like characters to both look good AND be practically outfitted, which is a really hard line to walk. Anyway, I digress...
Good movie, if a touch on the simple side.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
I heard it was about a dude that went crazy after the Irak war, guess I was told wrong, wasn't sure so that's why I asked.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
If by crazy you mean PTSD then yes.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
I do know that he took his PTSD suffering friend to a shooting range, which sounds like a pretty elaborate suicide set up...
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
You probably heard it was the guy who KILLED HIM who was someone who "went crazy" after the Iraq War. This guy was considered the deadliest sniper in U.S. history, raised to a legendary status by everyone around him (his nickname IS "Legend"), came home alive, and returned to service SEVERAL times. And he dies by getting shot in the back by another veteran, here at home in the states, who he was trying to help cope with HIS PTSD.
So that's who you probably heard about, I'm guessing.
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
I think American Sniper is pretty honest about Chris Kyle's belief system and his motivations, and it allows the viewer to make up his own mind about it. Beyond that, it's an exceptional piece of storytelling by Eastwood. I'm thinking about seeing it again, because I've been turning it over in my mind every day since I saw it.
I heard so much drama about this, but I've grown to trust Eastwoods directing. Sometimes people criticize a movie for all the wrong reasons. If it is meant to be brutally honest, and show cynical behavior because of a wish to portray reality, then I'm all for that. Like when they criticized the use of the word "savage", if this guy - and his peers, used this word all the time, then use it. During "Band of Brothers" you almost never hear the word "German" it's usually "Kraut" or something else.
One of my favorite Norwegian movies is called "Burned negro", and naturally recieved quite a bit of criticism - that did not go beyond the title
(in Norwegian, the word "burned" here means the way you burn food, not a person, so it's not alluding to burnings of people, but is a tongue-in-cheek reference to one of the protagonists (a black guy) humorously surviving an explosion, completely unscaved. The title doesn't mean anything, I even suspect they just didn't come up with any other title. The movie is strange, and difficult to define. One could say it's a very bizarre love story)
Last edited:
T
TorontoReign
Guest
I heard so much drama about this, but I've grown to trust Eastwoods directing. Sometimes people criticize a movie for all the wrong reasons. If it is meant to be brutally honest, and show cynical behavior because of a wish to portray reality, then I'm all for that. Like when they criticized the use of the word "savage", if this guy - and his peers, used this word all the time, then use it. During "Band of Brothers" you almost never hear the word "German" it's usually "Kraut" or something else.
One of my favorite Norwegian movies is called "Burned negro", and naturally recieved quite a bit of criticism - that did not go beyond the title
(in Norwegian, the word "burned" here means the way you burn food, not a person, so it's not alluding to burnings of people, but is a tongue-in-cheek reference to one of the protagonists (a black guy) humorously surviving an explosion, completely unscaved. The title doesn't mean anything, I even suspect they just didn't come up with any other title. The movie is strange, and difficult to define. One could say it's a very bizarre love story)
The use of words like "savages" actually occurs more often than you think in war times. I've heard some harsh words said about Iraqi's while overseas. I can't see why people would be upset by a realism, but this is the internet age where people complain about shit they don't understand more often than not. I applaud Eastwood's efforts to make a more accurate depiction of war time violence and the ones involved. I don't think people truly understand how demanding 4+ tours overseas can be on your body and mind. When people try to badmouth someone like Chris Kyle it really irritates me, but I try to remember that most people have no clue.
I heard so much drama about this, but I've grown to trust Eastwoods directing. Sometimes people criticize a movie for all the wrong reasons. If it is meant to be brutally honest, and show cynical behavior because of a wish to portray reality, then I'm all for that. Like when they criticized the use of the word "savage", if this guy - and his peers, used this word all the time, then use it. During "Band of Brothers" you almost never hear the word "German" it's usually "Kraut" or something else.
One of my favorite Norwegian movies is called "Burned negro", and naturally recieved quite a bit of criticism - that did not go beyond the title
(in Norwegian, the word "burned" here means the way you burn food, not a person, so it's not alluding to burnings of people, but is a tongue-in-cheek reference to one of the protagonists (a black guy) humorously surviving an explosion, completely unscaved. The title doesn't mean anything, I even suspect they just didn't come up with any other title. The movie is strange, and difficult to define. One could say it's a very bizarre love story)
The use of words like "savages" actually occurs more often than you think in war times. I've heard some harsh words said about Iraqi's while overseas. I can't see why people would be upset by a realism, but this is the internet age where people complain about shit they don't understand more often than not. I applaud Eastwood's efforts to make a more accurate depiction of war time violence and the ones involved. I don't think people truly understand how demanding 4+ tours overseas can be on your body and mind. When people try to badmouth someone like Chris Kyle it really irritates me, but I try to remember that most people have no clue.
that was what I meant. I fully realize that in actual war, nobody's got time to be sensitive or polite. How fucked would that be - bombing people but with sensitivity regarding their emotions :S
Now, I totally get the whole Chris Kyle borderline-mental thing going, because war is hell, one would be hard pressed to find any veterans who are not affected, in some degree, for life. Some are completely traumatized.
But yeah, that was what I was refering to, that if the movie uses these slurs and this language, merely to portray a realistic image, then I have no issues with that. It's just words. The dude probably kills people in the same movie too, so what does it matter what he says while killing?
But many seemed to react as if this was Clint Eastwoods idea, or something
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
That was my fear too. I've no trouble seeing how going off to war would put a strain on anybody, but if the movie had gone ''America FUCK YEAH'' I might just have had to puke halfway through it. From what I heard, Eastwood kinda tried to show the ugly truth of what being a soldier was, and it's certainly no sunshine and rainbows. Gonna have to see it soon.
What I'm slightly baffled about is that apparently the film has a rather large following in the US where people praise not only the film but Kyle's character as well. Which seems all kinds of messed up to me, but then again I'm a half communist kool-aid drinking Canadian who thinks shooting people is generally wrong, so what do I know.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Our citizens generally want to believe in what our soldiers are fighting for. It just so happens Chris Kyle really did believe in what he fought for, at least according to the info I've read. When you have a soldier who has charisma and talent like Kyle did, then you have potential for a symbol people look up to, whether he deserves the recognition or not. Other movies may try to glorify war, but Eastwood nailed the tone for this movie.
valcik
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Yes, that's true. Such a mocking nicknames have been given to every group of enemies in every armed conflict in the world, not only by American soldiers in Iraq. It's some form of depersonalization IMO, which makes killing and remores supression much easier when one can convince himself that he's shooting at brute animals or some lower lifeform instead of common people with human feelings.
As for American Sniper, it's really good war drama and one of the best Eastwood's movies, no doubt about it. The sad thing is that it provides very little informations about what happened before 9/11, which is understandable - this is biographical movie about Chris Kyle, not a documentary intended to depict Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt, imprisonment of Sayid Qutb in the fifties, CIA torture methods, or Al-Quaeda founding.
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
See, this is where my views differ from those folks, I assume. I don't consider people like Chris Kyle heroes. When I think of heroes, I think of people who directly put their life on the line to save others. I think of those who hid/smuggled Jews from the Nazis. I think of that one German guy who saved untold number of Chinese during the Rape of Nanking. I think of people like Roméo Dallaire and his Blue Helmets, who disobeyed orders to save people during the Rwandan genocide.
Chris Kyle was a soldier, a damn good one judging from what I've read. Maybe he even was a good person himself behind the racist drivel; I don't know, I never met him. I also refuse to judge him as a villain because I've never faced the sick shit he's faced. But I don't think shooting enough people in the head makes you a hero.
On a lighter note, I saw The Imitation Game, and I was quite pleased with it. The movie does have more than its faire share of inaccuracies big and small, but overall it is very enjoyable. Always help that Benedict Cumberbatch is a terrific actor.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
I agree completely with that sentiment. That's why I'm wary of the slightest possibility of soldier worship. It makes me sick. Unlike the parodied polarized "If you don't like 'Merica you can... 'git out!" and their opposites, I don't innately HATE soldiers. I simply hate their worship. The culture of deification of armed service. The propaganda of defending the foolish decision to become a tool of oppression and violence. Regardless of what individual choices and circumstances made up those decisions, however noble or depraved or innocent or corrupt any single person may have been when they enlisted, the fact of the matter at the end of the day was they became a soldier. And a soldier is no hero.
Chris Kyle was quoted to have said that it didn't matter how long or how short anyone was in the armed services, it meant that they served their country and that they were protecting Americans. He truly believed that. Many people see it that way, and in doing so they see those soldiers are heroic. But... WHY were they "protecting Americans" in the first place? Because those Americans had invaded another country? That's just flipping the coin to make noble an act out of saving a life that was endangered out of an act of oppression to begin with. It's empty-headed brainwashing, pure and simple. That's what I hate about it.
Firemen are heroes, to me. Those teachers who died to try and subdue those madmen murderers to protect the students they would have killed otherwise were heroes, to me. People who stick up for what's right are heroes. Not killers. Like I said, I don't judge a soldier for who they are or what they've been through just because they're a soldier. I just don't elevate them up onto a pedestal for it. Business makes the world go round, not politics, not war. So I prefer to idolize entrepreneurs and visionaries who created for the sake life. Even if you think their inventions are over indulgent, those are services of living, not killing. I think that's worth valuing.
. . . . . . . . . .
Back to movies... I FINALLY got around to seeing X-Men: Days of Future Past recently. Damn, what an AWESOME movie! =o To be honest, when First Class was receiving endless praise, I didn't get it. The movie wasn't shit, but I didn't like it all that much, and I hated the inconsistencies that I spotted. So when I heard this film had the same cast and the same writer and they brought back the original director, that really didn't do anything for me. I LIKED the X-Men movies, but not enough to make me feel like this was going to be a defining experience that I HAD to go watch. So, I never saw Days of Future Past in theaters, and I just waited for it to be freely available for my viewing, and I finally got around to seeing it a couple days ago.
Wow! What else can I really say but "wow"? That movie blew me away! I LOVED the Terminator-esque Sentinels. I LOVED the servicing of how Bishop was the character sent back in time from the original story by having him be the principle recipient of the act in the film. I LOVED how the film both acknowledged and yet did away with all the continuity inconsistencies simultaneously, which if NOTHING else is very appropriate of any X-Men story! People bitched about how convoluted and absurd the "method" of time travel was in this film, or that it was Wolverine who made the exodus this time was simply milking the Wolverine train, but they made it work- both of them. The film essentially addressed and destroyed all of the qualms I ever had with any of the previous X-Men movies, and that's remarkable! This ONE movie took a franchise I liked but didn't really care all that much about at this point and elevated it up to the level of the Marvel Studios' works, and that's saying a lot!
Chris Kyle was quoted to have said that it didn't matter how long or how short anyone was in the armed services, it meant that they served their country and that they were protecting Americans. He truly believed that. Many people see it that way, and in doing so they see those soldiers are heroic. But... WHY were they "protecting Americans" in the first place? Because those Americans had invaded another country? That's just flipping the coin to make noble an act out of saving a life that was endangered out of an act of oppression to begin with. It's empty-headed brainwashing, pure and simple. That's what I hate about it.
Firemen are heroes, to me. Those teachers who died to try and subdue those madmen murderers to protect the students they would have killed otherwise were heroes, to me. People who stick up for what's right are heroes. Not killers. Like I said, I don't judge a soldier for who they are or what they've been through just because they're a soldier. I just don't elevate them up onto a pedestal for it. Business makes the world go round, not politics, not war. So I prefer to idolize entrepreneurs and visionaries who created for the sake life. Even if you think their inventions are over indulgent, those are services of living, not killing. I think that's worth valuing.
. . . . . . . . . .
Back to movies... I FINALLY got around to seeing X-Men: Days of Future Past recently. Damn, what an AWESOME movie! =o To be honest, when First Class was receiving endless praise, I didn't get it. The movie wasn't shit, but I didn't like it all that much, and I hated the inconsistencies that I spotted. So when I heard this film had the same cast and the same writer and they brought back the original director, that really didn't do anything for me. I LIKED the X-Men movies, but not enough to make me feel like this was going to be a defining experience that I HAD to go watch. So, I never saw Days of Future Past in theaters, and I just waited for it to be freely available for my viewing, and I finally got around to seeing it a couple days ago.
Wow! What else can I really say but "wow"? That movie blew me away! I LOVED the Terminator-esque Sentinels. I LOVED the servicing of how Bishop was the character sent back in time from the original story by having him be the principle recipient of the act in the film. I LOVED how the film both acknowledged and yet did away with all the continuity inconsistencies simultaneously, which if NOTHING else is very appropriate of any X-Men story! People bitched about how convoluted and absurd the "method" of time travel was in this film, or that it was Wolverine who made the exodus this time was simply milking the Wolverine train, but they made it work- both of them. The film essentially addressed and destroyed all of the qualms I ever had with any of the previous X-Men movies, and that's remarkable! This ONE movie took a franchise I liked but didn't really care all that much about at this point and elevated it up to the level of the Marvel Studios' works, and that's saying a lot!
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
Completely agree with the bolded. I could see the whole ''protecting my country'' excuse semi-working in a WW2 situation or whatever, where your nation is indeed invaded and you throw out the invaders one bullet at a time. There is a very clear danger that requires such force to meet and all that.
But in Irak? Really? You are invading them. Politicians and media can sugar-coat it all day that it's really a Battle For Freedom And Democracy and all the assorted bullshit, the fact remains the Americans were the invaders here. The Irakis were defending themselves. I have no lost love for Saddam and his regime at all, but it's rather ironic that so many people advocate the right to pick up a gun to Defend Your Country, but when the other side does it, well here's a fine bunch of assholes shooting at our brave soldiers, amirte? Now killing them is fine and makes you a hero, eh? This complete lack of perspective is what I hate about patriotism.
Anyway, this is turning into Derailment Express. I do agree that Days of Future Past was a pretty good movie. I am in no way a comic book fan so I can't speak for how accurate it is or whatever, but I enjoyed it even if the ending was a bit too saccharine. I did find it kinda ironic that some people said that the time travel method they used wasn't believable or somesuch. As I said, I'm no expert on comic books, but aren't they well known for pulling these sorts of plot-defying sillyness routinely? Wolverine being damn near unkillable, fine, this spefific form of time travel, however, is so unrealistic. Bad movie!
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
It's like saying certain mutations make no sense... which is to say it's not really wrong to say that. Developing a mutation where your regeneration rate is much higher? Sounds plausible. But developing a mutation that involves contacting another dimension though your eyes? ..........No, that doesn't sound right. XD
The criticisms for how Wolverine "went back in time" in the film make sense, but like I said, the movie made it work. Time travels at the same time in the "present" and the "past" while you're under? Okay. Can't get too emotionally distraught? Okay. When it's all over, you'll "wake up" and They explained it enough so that it established the premise and that premise established the framework for the movie and why Wolverine had to show some haste or why they couldn't just "keep trying over and over" and so on. Even if, as a mutant power, being able to send a consciousness backwards in time makes absolutely no sense, it just worked convincingly in the film, and that's what matters.
The best movie adaptations are movies that take from the source material without relying on it. So you don't NEED to know what the comics version of the movie was about. It doesn't really matter that Bishop went back in time, or that he used a time machine. The film stands on its own, and do it well. So the fact that it's a good adaptation of a beloved comic arc? Just icing on an already delicious cake! ^^
But I personally don't consider side conversations too derailing, if at the end of the day all parties involved recognize that they need to redirect themselves to that proper topic, which we both have. =)
The criticisms for how Wolverine "went back in time" in the film make sense, but like I said, the movie made it work. Time travels at the same time in the "present" and the "past" while you're under? Okay. Can't get too emotionally distraught? Okay. When it's all over, you'll "wake up" and They explained it enough so that it established the premise and that premise established the framework for the movie and why Wolverine had to show some haste or why they couldn't just "keep trying over and over" and so on. Even if, as a mutant power, being able to send a consciousness backwards in time makes absolutely no sense, it just worked convincingly in the film, and that's what matters.
The best movie adaptations are movies that take from the source material without relying on it. So you don't NEED to know what the comics version of the movie was about. It doesn't really matter that Bishop went back in time, or that he used a time machine. The film stands on its own, and do it well. So the fact that it's a good adaptation of a beloved comic arc? Just icing on an already delicious cake! ^^
But I personally don't consider side conversations too derailing, if at the end of the day all parties involved recognize that they need to redirect themselves to that proper topic, which we both have. =)
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Well cutting the political talk to prevent this one turning into another "censorship thread"....
I recently watched 22 Jump Street, now I haven't seen the first one, but for some reason I found it hilarious, maybe it was the fact that I had been in a plane with none of those "air valves" to soften my clausthrophobia for like 10 hours (Had to make a connection in Spain on the trip back home, damn spanish airlines suck, even the Colombian plane was nicer) and I had just also eaten a sandwich that had eggs despite my violent distate for eggs, but I still laughed like a moron with that thing.
I recently watched 22 Jump Street, now I haven't seen the first one, but for some reason I found it hilarious, maybe it was the fact that I had been in a plane with none of those "air valves" to soften my clausthrophobia for like 10 hours (Had to make a connection in Spain on the trip back home, damn spanish airlines suck, even the Colombian plane was nicer) and I had just also eaten a sandwich that had eggs despite my violent distate for eggs, but I still laughed like a moron with that thing.
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
I saw Michael Koolhaas today, which was a beautiful film. But it's in an old style, very slowly paced and sparse on details. Still, being a sucker for films with such a historical feel, and Mads Mikkelsen of course, I give it top marks.