|
Yep, the Germans offer terms of surrender and then the Russian officers do their "not one step back" speech and machine-gun their own retreating men. There's also a scene in the very beginning where an officer shoots one of his men for jumping off of the troop transport ship after a Stuka attack. It's a flawed movie, but it at least acknowledges that war isn't black and white - and that's coming from a conflict with a hell of a lot more justification behind it than Iraq.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
Yeah, the opening has the landing craft with the political commisar shooting the guy for jumping off the ship, which, funny enough, was recreated in Call Of Duty 1 (I can't remember if it's in the original game or the expansion pack).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yeah, the opening has the landing craft with the political commisar shooting the guy for jumping off the ship, which, funny enough, was recreated in Call Of Duty 1 (I can't remember if it's in the original game or the expansion pack). Pretty sure it was in the original. It's funny, as an 18 year old I remember the original CoD having a vague anti-war sentiment. Admittedly I was extremely conservative at that age so I was probably very sensitive to it. I'm pretty sure the PC version had anti-war quotes on the loading screens although it's been a long, long time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
 Real babies cost too much money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Seaniqua posted:Pretty sure it was in the original. It's funny, as an 18 year old I remember the original CoD having a vague anti-war sentiment. Admittedly I was extremely conservative at that age so I was probably very sensitive to it. I'm pretty sure the PC version had anti-war quotes on the loading screens although it's been a long, long time. That was the good ol days of FPS games massively aping the contemporary war movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
The propaganda Minister or whatever(Bob Hoskins) is a really important difference between Enemy at the Gates and American Sniper. The movie makes a very unsubtle point about wartime propaganda and hero worship of soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Ralepozozaxe posted:
That's some SNL skit, right? Right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Ralepozozaxe posted:
My favorite part is when he tries to use his thumb all sneaky like to make it seem like the baby is real.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Seaniqua posted:Pretty sure it was in the original. It's funny, as an 18 year old I remember the original CoD having a vague anti-war sentiment. Admittedly I was extremely conservative at that age so I was probably very sensitive to it. I'm pretty sure the PC version had anti-war quotes on the loading screens although it's been a long, long time. I'm certain they still have anti-war quotes when you die in the story mode in COD games, but I haven't played one of those in a hot minute.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Nope. My favorite part is how he moves the toy baby arm with his thumb. edit: beaten One of the CoD games has a whole section where you wake up in Stalingrad under a pile of bodies and go on to have a sniper duel, and the entire level design is basically just shots from Enemy at the Gates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Just a complete aside about Enemy at the Gates: It has Ron Perlman. So right there you know there's something to like in the movie, it can't possibly be all bad. I didn't even know who Perlman was when I first saw Enemy at the Gates, but something in the back of my mind was telling me "remember this man." Great death scene too. Its already been said but the cast of Enemy at the Gates blows American Sniper's out of the water. Ed Harris, Jude Law, Bob Hoskins, Ron Perlman, Joseph Fiennes(he's good when he's the fifth best actor in the cast), Rachel Weiz. Not many films can compete with that. Of course what makes this funny is Enemy at the Gates is still a mediocre, flawed, largely forgettable movie. It certainly was not considered for any Oscars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:
That would be World at War. I like the game just fine, it has a very dark tone, but on the other hand, it is sort of one-sided in the portrayal of war atrocities (Swedish PCG basically summed it up as "in war, there are no good guys, except the Americans ofc!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Crain posted:This is my favorite completely useless statement, followed by "I don't really care that much" and "it's just a movie". I'm actually reading the book the movie is based on now due to the wealth of information presented in this thread so I can better understand the hate. My opinion has been shaken so you know, so basically gently caress off with your equally useless statement is what I'm saying 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
teagone posted:I'm actually reading the book the movie is based on now due to the wealth of information presented in this thread so I can better understand the hate. My opinion has been shaken so you know, so basically gently caress off with your equally useless statement is what I'm saying You posted a jerky one sentence response, it added exactly nothing to the discussion, and now you're popping in to say gently caress off to the person who pointed that out? Just making sure I have this right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:You posted a jerky one sentence response, it added exactly nothing to the discussion, and now you're popping in to say gently caress off to the person who pointed that out? Just making sure I have this right. Why are you playing the white knight? How was my response jerky? I was just pointing something out, and have been pretty civil I think. I also mentioned that thanks to this thread I'm in the process of reading the book to get some better insight now, seeing as Mugrim and a few others have presented some stuff that made me think a bit more about the ramifications of revisionist history being told and exploiting others through the eyes of an apparent sociopath. Feel free to ignore that part though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
teagone posted:Why are you playing the white knight? How was my response jerky? I was just pointing something out. I also mentioned that thanks to this thread I'm in the process of reading the book to get some better insight now, seeing as Mugrim and a few others have presented some stuff that made me think a bit more about the ramifications of revisionist history being told and exploiting others through the eyes of an apparent sociopath. Feel free to ignore that part though. The post was very jerky, that is self evident; pretending it was intended as anything other than a dig is just being dishonest. I mean it ended with "lol", I don't know what else to say about it. Good for you for being open minded enough to change your opinions, but you still felt the need to throw a gently caress off in there just to make yourself feel better. Just say you realize you may have been wrong and leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
To be fair, you did chime in by saying "you guys sure hate this movie, lol" which contributes about as much as saying "you guys sure like this movie, lol" to some other thread where peoples' reaction to the movie in question is actually positive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The post was very jerky, that is self evident; pretending it was intended as anything other than a dig is just being dishonest. I mean it ended with "lol", I don't know what else to say about it. That apparent jerky response came in light of a couple posters taking quick jabs at the film in the span of like 10 minutes. Check the context. Also, I added a to make it a lighthearted "gently caress off".Stare-Out posted:To be fair, you did chime in by saying "you guys sure hate this movie, lol" which contributes about as much as saying "you guys sure like this movie, lol" to some other thread where peoples' reaction to the movie in question is actually positive. Like I said, I typed that up in response to Grizzled Patriarch and HUNDU specifically making GBS threads all over the movie in rapid succession.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
lol coming in all "Who? What? Me?" Come on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Where I come from gently caress off pretty much means gently caress off regardless of any smiley faces.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Where I come from gently caress off pretty much means gently caress off regardless of any smiley faces. It still totally meant for him to gently caress off, by the way. I was just trying to be nice about it. LesterGroans posted:lol coming in all "Who? What? Me?" Who? What? Me? [edit] What did I do? Yall need to loving chill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
teagone posted:[edit] What did I do? Yall need to loving chill. You posted a lovely, useless comment and now are getting your panties in a bunch when people tell you that instead of just stopping.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
The funny thing is that initial comment I made was partaking in a discussion I was having with two other posters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
teagone posted:[edit] What did I do? Yall need to loving chill. Says the person who made a whole page about themselves because someone thought their post sucked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I'm certain they still have anti-war quotes when you die in the story mode in COD games, but I haven't played one of those in a hot minute. They just say "You died because of a grenade" now or whatever, it's all about PMCs now anyways
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:Says the person who made a whole page about themselves because someone thought their post sucked. I didn't do that on purpose. Everyone feels the need to poo poo on me for whatever reason because I told some goon to gently caress off, despite my saying I've since opened up to a better view of how this film is an irresponsible act on Clint's part. Amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
teagone and his Sniper dad
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
teagone posted:I didn't do that on purpose. Everyone feels the need to poo poo on me for whatever reason because I told some goon to gently caress off, despite my saying I've since opened up to a better view of how this film is an irresponsible act on Clint's part. Amazing. Because you opened it with "what? This content didn't deserve that! I'll have you know blah blah blah" Like, chill. It's great you're reading the book. Fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
ShoogaSlim posted:teagone and his Sniper dad I actually thought the movie was pretty mediocre on several fronts. [edit] LesterGroans posted:Because you opened it with "what? This content didn't deserve that! I'll have you know blah blah blah" Ok, sorry for insulting that random goon who made fun of my post then? Haha, unbelievable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
teagone posted:Amazing. teagone posted:unbelievable. Okay
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
teagone posted:
I'm extremely offended at how you called me the notorious slur "white knight", it will take some time to get over that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I'm extremely offended at how you called me the notorious slur "white knight", it will take some time to get over that. If it's any modicum of solace on your end, know that I won't sleep a wink tonight knowing how bad I've insulted you. I'm torn. LesterGroans posted:Okay Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
So to continue on the "People talking about this poo poo in the news" kick, it seems that Noam Chomsky talked about American Sniper in a recent event in Cambridge. Linkquote:Noam Chomsky discussed the film “American Sniper” at an event held by the Baffler, last week in Cambridge, Mass. The noted linguist, philosopher and political commentator discussed the film, and drew comparisons with the mentality of Chris Kyle (the American sniper whose memoirs are the basis of the film), that of drone operators, and the American public for ignoring the drone war. It's interesting that he's taking the stance that snipers and drone operators share a similar perspective in the war zone. It makes sense since they are, at least traditionally, separated from the people they kill. Although Drone operators to a much greater degree. An idea comes to mind though: What if the choice of Chris Kyle as the "face" of the Iraq War is a deliberate choice (propaganda wise) to keep the war itself at arms length when examining it in the context of what's happening on the ground? If you're going to look at the Iraq War from a detached point of view it makes it easier to excuse things. Now with drones you get the "collateral damage" excuse. "These bad guys are hiding in schools and homes and we can't hit them any other way" is what you hear when asked why civilians are being killed. So the thought process moves along to ground troops who can differentiate between "good" and "bad" guys. But the problem with looking at the war there is that you get too close. Now you have civilians who, well, "can't handle" the reality of the situation looking at all this up close violence and still seeing the wrong people getting killed because gun fights are hectic sometimes you really do just kill the wrong person (I mean look at how many cops shoots completely unarmed people in this country every month under exactly none of the same stresses). So take another step back and you just look at the War through a snipers POV. You get the precision you had hoped to showcase with ground troops and the protection you want to show off with drone strikes. You just have that many more options to frame the narrative of the war. Now instead of, let's say, people asking "Why did Pat Tillman get shot in the back of the head by his own men!?" you have people asking "Why did Chris Kyle have to suffer from PTSD then die on home soil!?". It's an easier question to deal with. I think it's deliberate propaganda. This just feeds more into my previous effort post btw. This whole movie is propaganda even if Eastwood says it's "anti-war".
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Crain posted:Congrats on still not supplying anything of value to the thread. Thanks!  
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Two misunderstood movies, two Rorschach tests (not too many spoilers here) http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/01/two-misunderstood-movies-not-too-many-spoilers-here.html#sthash.rP5u0FPz.dpuf quote:American Sniper is one of the best anti-war movies I have seen, ever. But it shows the sniper-assassin, and his killing, to be sexy, and to be regarded as sexy by women, while the rest of war is dull and stupid. (Even the two enemy snipers are quite attractive and fantastic figures, and there is a deliberate parallel between the family life of the Syrian sniper and the American protagonist. The klutziness of the non-assassin soldiers limited how many African-Americans and Hispanics they were willing to cast in those roles, as it is easiest to make white guys look crass in this way without causing offense.) By making the attractions of war palpable, this film disturbs and confuses people and also occasions some of the worst critical reviews I have read. It also, by understanding and then dissecting the attractions of blood lust, becomes a quite convincing anti-war movie, if you doubt this spend a few months studying The Iliad. (By the way, Clint Eastwood, the director and producer, describes the movie as anti-war.) The murder scenes create an almost unbearable tension, the sandstorm is a metaphor for our collective fog, and they had the stones to opt for the emotional overkill of four rather than just three tours of duty. Iraq is presented as a hopeless wasteland with nothing of value or relevance to the United States, and at the end of the story America proves its own worst enemy. It is not clear who ever gets over having killed and fought in a war (can anything else be so gripping?…neither family life nor sex…), even when appearances suggest a kind of normality has returned. The generational cycle is in any case replenished. I say A or A+, both as a movie and as a Rorschach test.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
teagone posted:Thanks! I'm actually going to remove that since the whole derail is just detracting from a movie I really want to discuss in depth along with it's source material.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Crain posted:I'm actually going to remove that since the whole derail is just detracting from a movie I really want to discuss in depth along with it's source material. Crain posted:This whole movie is propaganda even if Eastwood says it's "anti-war". Nice ninja edit. Also Clint is a republican, conservative, and full of poo poo apparently. Why would anyone believe a guy who talks to chairs?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
thehomemaster posted:Two misunderstood movies, two Rorschach tests (not too many spoilers here) quote:AB January 27, 2015 at 1:48 pm Hahaha.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
teagone posted:Nice ninja edit. Also Clint is a republican, conservative, and full of poo poo apparently. Why would anyone believe a guy who talks to chairs? (The previous post wasn't ninja edited, I was literally saying that I'm removing the "thanks for still not contributing" line from the previous post. So can we please stop this now?) thehomemaster posted:Two misunderstood movies, two Rorschach tests (not too many spoilers here) What a terrible review: quote:It also, by understanding and then dissecting the attractions of blood lust, becomes a quite convincing anti-war movie, if you doubt this spend a few months studying The Iliad. (By the way, Clint Eastwood, the director and producer, describes the movie as anti-war.) The murder scenes create an almost unbearable tension, the sandstorm is a metaphor for our collective fog, and they had the stones to opt for the emotional overkill of four rather than just three tours of duty. The reviewer clearly wants to take a literary view of the movie but doesn't even do any cursory research into what is and isn't an actual fact from life. Kyle actually served 4 tours, that's not a literary choice. Choosing to shorten his service to 2-3 tours would be a literary choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
Crain posted:It's interesting that he's taking the stance that snipers and drone operators share a similar perspective in the war zone. It makes sense since they are, at least traditionally, separated from the people they kill. Although Drone operators to a much greater degree. An idea comes to mind though: What if the choice of Chris Kyle as the "face" of the Iraq War is a deliberate choice (propaganda wise) to keep the war itself at arms length when examining it in the context of what's happening on the ground? It seems crazy that there's like a handful of movies explicitly about drone warfare and one of them is loving Robocop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:23
|
|