|
Plot aside, how does the movie actually look?
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:I think even the old fudds calling the shots for the AAs realize that they would lose every last ounce of legitimacy if this movie wins Best Picture. There's literally no way to justify it on its merits as a film, and I can't see a voting majority being in line with the agenda it promotes either. Yeah, I don't think it actually wins Best Picture, but I would say there's a very good chance that Bradley Cooper wins Best Actor.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Wow, the Baghdad theater audience response to this was not what I was expecting at all. Did you guys see this? Most of the complaints of the film relate to it as an adaptation, rather than the content of the movie on its own. This will probably continue until dickwaving about Chris Kyle (in either direction) dies down.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Okay, a 'good' anti-war movie. Focusing on psychological damage on the side that doesn't have killing field amounts of body dumps is a bit less "Anti-war" and more "War is serious/harms our soldiers" So not All Quiet on the Western Front?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:You know what else is an anti-war movie? The Birth of a Nation. I would've said Gone with the Wind but yeah same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
Crain posted:So...this: https://www.thehill.com/video/in-the-news/232357-eastwoods-surprising-response-to-american-sniper-criticism It sounds like the studio had an idea for a film and needed a body to put it together.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Only if you think "the truth" is propaganda. People would still hate it, sure, and they'd probably cry about it being anti-troop, but there would be no cogent argument behind it. It's like how Oklahoma is trying to ban AP History "because it teaches about the bad things that America did." Is there a way to depict your viewpoint and have it be propaganda? If so, how does it differ from what you define as the truth?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Do you think your average civilian moviegoer is going to be able to relate to an elite member of a volunteer military more than they would relate to the plight of civilians in wartime? Most US civilians haven't been anywhere near a warzone, so yes?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
meristem posted:Well, it might. Discussing climate change, the Iraq War, vaccines etc. in a way that is "honest, equitable and balanced" should shut out the denialists completely. Otherwise it wouldn't be honest. It's honest that a significant number of people hold denialist views, and as a result they should get representation on the matter.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Sentient Data posted:
If my history classes (and my dad's before me) are any indication then you won't get within 30 years of the present day in any of your high school history classes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:It cuts directly from 9/11 to him being in Iraq. If you don't think that implies a connection, you may have misunderstood how editing works. He/The US is in Iraq due to 9/11.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:They'd all just get deferments like they did for Vietnam. The odds of a politician's kid being unable to get a student deferment is basically zero. Cheney got four of them, and then another after he became a new father. Unless you completely restructure the draft system, it would be the same old story. And even if you didn't about 80% of the military never sees the front lines anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:
"Responsibility" doesn't imply "legal responsibility", the critics here are saying Hollywood has a moral responsibility to do that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2015 18:05
|
|