Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 13, 2017, 12:00:25 AM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Other/Miscellaneous
| |-+  Off-Topic Discussion (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  Rate The Last Movie You Saw
0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 653 654 [655] 656 657 ... 1169 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Rate The Last Movie You Saw  (Read 1833881 times)
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9810 on: December 12, 2011, 08:04:03 PM »

Scrooge (1951) - 8/10 - I'm sure I've seen it before. Fairly straightforward but very well-made take on Dickens' classic: I've always been partial to the George C. Scott Christmas Carol but this is a very close second. Alistair Sim is definitely the definitive Scrooge. See if you can spot Michael Hordern, Patrick Macnee and Peter Bull in supporting roles.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8445

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9811 on: December 13, 2011, 11:50:39 AM »

just saw MUNICH for the first time. What a piece of trash. Avner -- the Mossad guy who is willing to go on this special mission leaving his wife and kid to go on a risky mission after the coordinators of a heinous terrorist atttack  -- now is wondering if this was the proper thing to do. Are you kidding me?? When this movie first was released, I heard about that crap, and that is a big reason why i never saw it. now i finally decided to watch it, with an open mind -- especially after watching Spielberg's intro where he explains that the film is not criticizing what the Israelis did, just explaning the conflict that any country facing terrorism must deal with. which in THEORY may be fine; not everything is black and white, and in the right situations, a conflicted assassin may be perfectly believable. but just as in certain places it is dumb to depict everything in Black and White, in certain cases it is ridiculous to force the shades of gray. and in this instance it made no sense. These terrorists were pure evil plan and simple, and nothing tha happens in the movie justifies your beief that Avner should be conflicted. his frequent flashbacks to the attack on the athletes should only further his resolve to kill the bastards who were responsible. not every time you life a gun must there be an inner conflict, no matter what the PC crowd believes

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2987



View Profile
« Reply #9812 on: December 13, 2011, 12:04:30 PM »

just saw MUNICH for the first time. What a piece of trash. Avner -- the Mossad guy who is willing to go on this special mission leaving his wife and kid to go on a risky mission after the coordinators of a heinous terrorist atttack  -- now is wondering if this was the proper thing to do. Are you kidding me?? When this movie first was released, I heard about that crap, and that is a big reason why i never saw it. now i finally decided to watch it, with an open mind -- especially after watching Spielberg's intro where he explains that the film is not criticizing what the Israelis did, just explaning the conflict that any country facing terrorism must deal with. which in THEORY may be fine; not everything is black and white, and in the right situations, a conflicted assassin may be perfectly believable. but just as in certain places it is dumb to depict everything in Black and White, in certain cases it is ridiculous to force the shades of gray. and in this instance it made no sense. These terrorists were pure evil plan and simple, and nothing tha happens in the movie justifies your beief that Avner should be conflicted. his frequent flashbacks to the attack on the athletes should only further his resolve to kill the bastards who were responsible. not every time you life a gun must there be an inner conflict, no matter what the PC crowd believes

Really?
How do you know they were "pure evil plan and simple"? I'm sure most of the Palestinians will have a different view of this.

Logged

drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8445

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9813 on: December 13, 2011, 01:11:15 PM »

It doesn't matter what yoour view is of the Israeli-Arab conflict. It doesn't even matter what your view is of the murder of the athletes. All that matters is that it is not believable that Avner would be conflicted like that. IMO this movie is more about the PC-crowd's view of the war on terror than it is about the specific episode it purports to depict




Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8445

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9814 on: December 13, 2011, 01:20:29 PM »

the only thing that happens that might present the "inner conflict" is that one little speech about "wanting a homeland" that the Arab they share the safe house with gives, which is certainly not the first time he would have heard that, and in the context of this movie, in no way justifies the inner conlict this movie invents... I'm not making a normative argument about the Israeli-Arab conflict. No matter your opinion of that, Avner's inner conflict is totally invented to represent Hollywood's feelings of the fight against terrorism.... and btw, that last flashback Avner has, of the murder of the athletes, interspersed with him having sex, is just completely ridiculous and inappropriate.

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13703

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #9815 on: December 13, 2011, 01:34:26 PM »

D&D, you should check out "The Debt" (if you haven't already). It is the right way to do an Israeli-with-an-inner-conflict movie.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for being such an annoying Melville fanboy.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8445

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9816 on: December 13, 2011, 01:39:43 PM »

thanks, dj. I saw you posted about The Debt a wile ago. I put it in my Netflix queue; I'll be sure to see it as soon as it's available on dvd :-)

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2987



View Profile
« Reply #9817 on: December 13, 2011, 02:20:52 PM »

It doesn't matter what yoour view is of the Israeli-Arab conflict. It doesn't even matter what your view is of the murder of the athletes. All that matters is that it is not believable that Avner would be conflicted like that. IMO this movie is more about the PC-crowd's view of the war on terror than it is about the specific episode it purports to depict
the only thing that happens that might present the "inner conflict" is that one little speech about "wanting a homeland" that the Arab they share the safe house with gives, which is certainly not the first time he would have heard that, and in the context of this movie, in no way justifies the inner conlict this movie invents... I'm not making a normative argument about the Israeli-Arab conflict. No matter your opinion of that, Avner's inner conflict is totally invented to represent Hollywood's feelings of the fight against terrorism.... and btw, that last flashback Avner has, of the murder of the athletes, interspersed with him having sex, is just completely ridiculous and inappropriate.

Can't agree with you.
I think it is believable (and I'm always surprised about all the many things you think are not believable in films), and I don't think that Munich represents the Hollywood view of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Quite the contrary.

I remember Munich as a remarkable film in nearly every respect. Story and style, both works very well. One of Spielberg's best (and I'm not a fan of his)

Logged

Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9818 on: December 13, 2011, 03:29:52 PM »

Hitting the pipe again drink? Cheesy

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8445

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9819 on: December 13, 2011, 04:02:01 PM »

Can't agree with you.
I think it is believable (and I'm always surprised about all the many things you think are not believable in films), and I don't think that Munich represents the Hollywood view of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Quite the contrary.

I remember Munich as a remarkable film in nearly every respect. Story and style, both works very well. One of Spielberg's best (and I'm not a fan of his)

I did not say that Munich represents the Hollywood view only of the Israeli-Arab conflict. I said that it represents the Hollywood view of democratic countries' fight against terrorism in general. But don't take my word for it; watch the 4-minute introduction to the movie that Spielberg gives on the dvd, in which he discusses the purpose of the movie.

(To paraphrase) he says that the movie is not intended to criticize Israel's response to Munich; rather, it is intended to show "empathy" for the issues they faced, which all countries fighting terrorism today face as well. Spielberg is certainly entitled to his opinion of the war on terror. But I don't like when a historical incident is depicted nonsensically, based on how the filmmaker would have felt if he were in their shoes. He created inner conflicts that don't exist.

I don't know if the real guys who carried out this operation have been speaking, but if they have, I'd love to hear whether or not they felt conflicted, or whether all they cared about was blowing the heads off the bastards who were responsible for the massacre of the athletes.

« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 04:07:17 PM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8445

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9820 on: December 13, 2011, 04:03:18 PM »

Hitting the pipe again drink? Cheesy

every time you have a different opinion of a movie than I do, that means I am hitting the pipe, right? Maybe Richard--W was right...  Tongue

« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 04:07:41 PM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9821 on: December 13, 2011, 04:28:32 PM »

The problem isn't that you disagree, it's that your arguments invariably warp a kernel of validity into something bizarrely hyperbolic.

For a start, as with Stalag 17 and Kwai you're basing on an inaccurate reading of the film. Avner's distaste for the mission escalates through more and more killings; he sees innocent people killed as a result of his actions and grows disgusted with them. The murder of the lady spy is the key scene of the movie, a crass, cruel act of vengeance that achieves nothing. He also sees that the assassinations he's carrying out are doing nothing to deter the PLO from more attacks. The conversation with the PLO Arab is there for the viewer's sake rather than Avner's; there are plenty of other events to mark his character development. I wouldn't say they're subtle but somehow you seem to have missed them.

Is this accurate? I'm not familiar enough with the real events to comment. In the context of the film though it's perfectly fine and logically developed, albeit with a hefty Spielbergian dose of pathos and sentimentality.

On the other hand the movie is certainly didactic with scenes that seem more appropriate to a Stanley Kramer film. For one, Ciaran Hinds' character is kvetching whiner from the word go; why the hell would you bring a guy like that along? The bits with the Mossad guys debating the morality of their actions make David Niven's speeches in The Guns of Navarone play like neo-realism. But this doesn't seem to be your criticism.

The Debt isn't a bad comparison but that movie has plenty of problems with plot structure and basic plausibility so I wouldn't throw that out there so liberally.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13703

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #9822 on: December 13, 2011, 04:51:54 PM »

The Debt isn't a bad comparison but that movie has plenty of problems with plot structure and basic plausibility so I wouldn't throw that out there so liberally.
It does have a soul-searching conflict that a Mossad agent might plausibly have, though.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for being such an annoying Melville fanboy.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8445

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9823 on: December 13, 2011, 04:56:23 PM »

The problem isn't that you disagree, it's that your arguments invariably warp a kernel of validity into something bizarrely hyperbolic.

For a start, as with Stalag 17 and Kwai you're basing on an inaccurate reading of the film. Avner's distaste for the mission escalates through more and more killings; he sees innocent people killed as a result of his actions and grows disgusted with them. The murder of the lady spy is the key scene of the movie, a crass, cruel act of vengeance that achieves nothing. He also sees that the assassinations he's carrying out are doing nothing to deter the PLO from more attacks. The conversation with the PLO Arab is there for the viewer's sake rather than Avner's; there are plenty of other events to mark his character development. I wouldn't say they're subtle but somehow you seem to have missed them.

Is this accurate? I'm not familiar enough with the real events to comment. In the context of the film though it's perfectly fine and logically developed, albeit with a hefty Spielbergian dose of pathos and sentimentality.

On the other hand the movie is certainly didactic with scenes that seem more appropriate to a Stanley Kramer film. For one, Ciaran Hinds' character is kvetching whiner from the word go; why the hell would you bring a guy like that along? The bits with the Mossad guys debating the morality of their actions make David Niven's speeches in The Guns of Navarone play like neo-realism. But this doesn't seem to be your criticism.

The Debt isn't a bad comparison but that movie has plenty of problems with plot structure and basic plausibility so I wouldn't throw that out there so liberally.


(of course I wasn't there as the events were happening, so i am not arguing about what precisely was going on in the individuals' minds. Just an argument about believability in the movies as I see it). Anyway...

Stalag 17 clearly used a lot of comedic elements in discussing a very serious and tragic period. There is nothing "inaccurate" about that assertion. Of course, we can disagree over whether that is appropriate or believable, but there is nothing "inaccurate" about that.

 Kwai: I found Guiness's Stockholm Syndrome (so to speak) ridiculous. You may have found it perfectly believable, and it's ok to have a difference of opinion. But there is nothing "inaccurate" about the reading.

Where in Munich do innocent people die as a result of Avner's actions? The only ones I can recall that were affected were the couple in the hotel room next door to the one where the bomb went off; they were hurt (and possibly blinded, though it's unclear what happens to them ultimately). The group was very careful not to harm the innocent -- eg. they aborted the phone bomb when they realized the little girl was in the apartment) -- (in contrast to the PLO whose MO is to kill civilians, btw). The killing of the spy who killed the member of the group was in no way  cruel or wrong. She fucking killed their colleague! Are you kidding me? That's the world of spying -- if you kill and you are caught, you die. Maybe you can argue that the one member of the group should have allowed the Daniel Craig character to cover up the dead woman's body, and he indeed has some regret over that. Fine. Sometimes in the heat of the moment you'd do something like that and then regret not treating teh body with a bit more dignity. But killing her sure ain't crass or cruel. It's what the business of spying is all about, and if she could have killed them, she would have.


It's definitely true that killing one terrorist or 10 terrorists (or even a thousand terrorists) won't bring an end to terror in the world. But that doesn't mean it's wrong to do your best to get rid of as many terrorists as you can. Even though it's true that killing them won't end terrorism -- and that therefore it makes sense for one to wonder if what you're doing is worthwhile, that doesn't in any way mean you should regret it, as if there was something wrong. Feeling as if your acts aren't accomplishing what you really want to accomplish is far different than feeling they are wrong. If these were 5 random guys pulled off the street, maybe I'd find it somewhat more believable. But these guys were working for the Mossad. they knew wtf they were getting themselves into. Heck,. that was their business. Their lives. And yes, the bombmaker's character was totally ridiculous. [I also have a hard time believing that the old man "the worrier" who worries about every little thing, would let his guard down to bang the chick in the hotel lobby and be killed -- especially after worrying over every little thing throughout the movie (and being warned by Avner about the local honey trap). But that's a relatively minor point.]. Any spy or covert operator who is worth a shekel will kill another spy who killed their colleague. Whether it's for revenge, or because she knows about them and endangers their own well-being, whatever the reason, she deserved to die. If someone killed my buddy, I'd sure as hell do all I could do kill them (assuming I couldn't have them arrested, whoch obviously couldn't happen here).

I remember in the discussion of Man of the West, someone here commented that it sounded totally contrived when Cooper said to Cobb at the end, "I'm bringing you in." Men like those knew it was inevitable they;d have to shoot it out, and saying "I'm bringing you in" sounded like a bad joke. No one for a  moment -- not Cooper, Cobb, or the viewer would believe that.

That's what I thought of when at the end, Avner is telling his superior 'we should have had them arrested." ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Reall?  Good luck getting them extradited. Unless you are willing to go through what they went through with Eichmann 11 times, kidnapping a guy and bringing him to trial -- which obviously was not an option -- killing them was the only option. Whether you wanna focus on law or morality -- these guys are not subject to any laws of war or criminality, and it is infeasible to arrest them either in this case, considering the situation. After dedicating all those months to this, suddenly now he wants proof that they were involved, and to have them arrested? Maybe they should have been also been given a  hummus and pita bread feast too? Puleez. This is terrorism and spying. It's kill or be killed. Those bastards deserved to die, and they got what they deserved. The only regrets you'd have would be that you couldn't torture them first.

« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 05:00:47 PM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13703

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #9824 on: December 13, 2011, 05:43:30 PM »

Another film worth putting up for comparison is The Little Drummer Girl, although it uses the specious moral equivalence approach.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for being such an annoying Melville fanboy.
Pages: 1 ... 653 654 [655] 656 657 ... 1169 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.452 seconds with 19 queries.