Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 17, 2017, 10:54:58 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 4 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 654 655 [656] 657 658 ... 1170 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Rate The Last Movie You Saw  (Read 1841918 times)
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9825 on: December 13, 2011, 05:44:19 PM »

Actually I'd argue a spy is not supposed to take things personally, which is clearly the case with regards to the woman they kill. That action on their part is stupid on any number of levels, not the least because it a) leaves another body for pursuers to find, b) leaves them open for more retaliation. Personal vengeance is not something pro spies are supposed to do. You could argue that they might do it regardless of logic or profession, but if I were you I'd be wary of advancing that point.

All of your other points are either variants on the same theme or ones I've already conceded.

It's pretty strange that you make the argument about avoiding civilian deaths since the real Mossad generally doesn't. That's probably a tangental point though.

« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 05:49:06 PM by Groggy » Logged


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

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9826 on: December 13, 2011, 05:45:06 PM »

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

We can always bring The Day of the Jackal into the conversation too.

Logged


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

Posts: 8448

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9827 on: December 13, 2011, 06:31:19 PM »

Actually I'd argue a spy is not supposed to take things personally, which is clearly the case with regards to the woman they kill. That action on their part is stupid on any number of levels, not the least because it a) leaves another body for pursuers to find, b) leaves them open for more retaliation. Personal vengeance is not something pro spies are supposed to do. You could argue that they might do it regardless of logic or profession, but if I were you I'd be wary of advancing that point.

All of your other points are either variants on the same theme or ones I've already conceded.

It's pretty strange that you make the argument about avoiding civilian deaths since the real Mossad generally doesn't. That's probably a tangental point though.

The Mossad doesn't target civilians. I am not saying no civilian was ever harmed in an attack; of course, collateral damage happens everywhere, and is unavoidable. I mean, I haven't tagged along with them on any of their operations -- and "civilian" is a very sliding scale (ie. family, enablers, bodyguards, messengers, etc....), but their job is to kill enemies, not harmless civilians. But yeah, this is a tangential point. I am doing all I can to avoid getting into any political discussions ( cuz I don't think that is useful here, and btw one of the reasons I think this board is a great and friendly place is cuz we avoid normative political discussions Afro)


I am not sure what you mean by "variants on the same theme" or "conceded." i mean, I can accept that you disagreed with what I didn't like in Kwai and Stalag 17 , but my interpretation of those movies was not inaccurate, and in those discussions, you never said it was. I don't think anyone will argue with the fact that S17 uses comedic elements, and Guiness gets Stockholm Syndrome (so to speak). You may think that works well for the movie and you have every right to your opinion, but I don't see how that is an inaccurate way to describe the movie.


I don't agree that the killing of the woman dosn't work well. Yes, it is another body, and yes, spies shouldn't be involved in vengeance. But she obviously knew about them. Having her alive may be as dangerous as having her dead.  And spies are human as well, so even if it was clearly dangerous for them to kill her, I still think it makes sense for them to do it under the circumstances. Even spies are not robots. They do dumb things. That's why I said that though I don't find it very believable that the "worrier" would let down his guard by banging the chick, I said i didn't have a HUGE problem with that. Everyone is human can at times screw up -- sometimes fatally.

btw, I should add one thing: the casting and the acting were very, very solid all around. (Even though I thought the bomb-making character was ridiculous, and Craig does not look  Jewish at all; but he is awesome so we don't care   Wink) . Some of the faces were just perfect. Terrific job by Spielberg and the casting director and actors.

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 #9828 on: December 13, 2011, 07:51:20 PM »

The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones: Daredevils of the Desert - 7/10 - Indy lands on the Palestine Front of WWI, brushing shoulders with the likes of T.E. Lawrence, Richard Meinerzhagen and Harry Chauvel, getting chummy with the Australian Light Horse and teaming with an Arab femme fatale for Allenby's attack on Beersheba. An amiable Boys' Own Adventure without too many surprises; the twists are telegraphed early and the plot structure is a bit awkward, but it's all in fun. The battle scenes are exciting though they're largely cribbed from The Lighthorsemen; not a coincidence as Simon Wincer is the director. Amusing to see Catherine Zeta-Jones and Daniel Craig in before-they-were famous bits, but the bloke playing Lawrence can't act to save his life.

P.S.: This is technically from a TV series but it's feature-length so I hope I'll be allowed some leeway. Afro

Logged


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

Posts: 13707

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


View Profile
« Reply #9829 on: December 13, 2011, 11:09:25 PM »

We can always bring The Day of the Jackal into the conversation too.
Yeah, but I was trying to stick with films about Mossad operations.

Logged


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

Posts: 2988



View Profile
« Reply #9830 on: December 14, 2011, 02:29:38 AM »

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.

Please think about this. This is a very inhuman opinion

Imo nobody deserves to die (maybe there are are some very few exceptions). And nobody has the right to torture another one, or generally to harm other people for whatever reasons.
Don't you think that those terrorists had their reasons for doing what they did? Do you really think they did these killings because they are simply evil ?
And do you really think a democratic country should kill other people in a lawless way? (Even if those people may have deserved death in their opinion)
And thereby giving a shit about basic democratic beliefs.

« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 02:42:17 AM by stanton » Logged

stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2988



View Profile
« Reply #9831 on: December 14, 2011, 02:36:46 AM »

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.

I surely have to watch it again. But I remember Munich as the first "serious" Spielberg film (to my own surprise) without pathos and sentimentality (which ruins other Spielberg films like Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan in parts). I also don't remember it to become preachy, and I think unlike a Stanley Kramer film it was was differentiated instead of simplistic.

Logged

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

Posts: 8448

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9832 on: December 14, 2011, 03:03:37 AM »

Please think about this. This is a very inhuman opinion

Imo nobody deserves to die (maybe there are are some very few exceptions). And nobody has the right to torture another one, or generally to harm other people for whatever reasons.
Don't you think that those terrorists had their reasons for doing what they did? Do you really think they did these killings because they are simply evil ?
And do you really think a democratic country should kill other people in a lawless way? (Even if those people may have deserved death in their opinion)
And thereby giving a shit about basic democratic beliefs.

Yes, there are people in the world who are thoroughly evil and murder others and therefore deserve to die. No, the mujadeen were not justified in any way, shape, or form. I don't care what your view is of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Those athletes were just there to compete in athletic events. Even if theoretically Israel was 100% wrong in the conflict, that doesn't mean it is right to kill every Israeli. There are laws of war, (eg. not targeting civilians, fighting in uniform, treatment of prisoners of war, etc. etc., as laid out in  the Geneva Convention and other applicable laws and treaties). The terrorists do not follow any of these conventions, and therefore are entitled to none of its protections, whether you want to argue the legal or moral issues.

These are the same bastards that walk into marketplaces, buses, and down crowded streets, indiscriminately killing innocent people. Yes, there is evil in the world. Pure evil. And the world is a better place without it. I don't seek to find any common ground with evil, to understand it, to sympathize with it, or any of the other PC crap that infects too much of our suicidal world today.

btw, if Israel could have arrested and tried those mujadeen properly, they would have. It was impossible under the circumstances, and their only choice was to kill 'em there. There was nothing "lawless" about it .They did, and the bastards deserved every bit of it. For whatever it is worth, every single country engages in actions that some may call "lawless." They certainly aren't always justified. But this one surely was. As was the kidnapping and trial of Eichmann. As was the raid on Entebbe. As was the USA's assassination of Osama bin Laden. I'd have been honored to kill any one of those terrorists with my bare hands.

I won't go on and on. Bottom line is that there is evil in the world and you have to do what is necessary to eliminate it. But what I think ain't important. What matters is the movie -- and I didn't find it in any way convincing that Avner would be conflicted like that.

« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 03:07:57 AM 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 #9833 on: December 14, 2011, 07:32:05 AM »

Quote
Even spies are not robots. They do dumb things.

Including feel remorse over their actions? Cheesy

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2988



View Profile
« Reply #9834 on: December 14, 2011, 10:10:39 AM »

Yes, there are people in the world who are thoroughly evil and murder others and therefore deserve to die. No, the mujadeen were not justified in any way, shape, or form. I don't care what your view is of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Those athletes were just there to compete in athletic events. Even if theoretically Israel was 100% wrong in the conflict, that doesn't mean it is right to kill every Israeli. There are laws of war, (eg. not targeting civilians, fighting in uniform, treatment of prisoners of war, etc. etc., as laid out in  the Geneva Convention and other applicable laws and treaties). The terrorists do not follow any of these conventions, and therefore are entitled to none of its protections, whether you want to argue the legal or moral issues.

These are the same bastards that walk into marketplaces, buses, and down crowded streets, indiscriminately killing innocent people. Yes, there is evil in the world. Pure evil. And the world is a better place without it. I don't seek to find any common ground with evil, to understand it, to sympathize with it, or any of the other PC crap that infects too much of our suicidal world today.

btw, if Israel could have arrested and tried those mujadeen properly, they would have. It was impossible under the circumstances, and their only choice was to kill 'em there. There was nothing "lawless" about it .They did, and the bastards deserved every bit of it. For whatever it is worth, every single country engages in actions that some may call "lawless." They certainly aren't always justified. But this one surely was. As was the kidnapping and trial of Eichmann. As was the raid on Entebbe. As was the USA's assassination of Osama bin Laden. I'd have been honored to kill any one of those terrorists with my bare hands.



I don't justify the killings done by terrorists, but mostly I understand the reasons behind the killings. and there are always reasons. The unjustified killings of innocents are done in the end by both sides.

And where's the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists? The USA sold weapons to the Taliban in the 80s, and now the Taliban kill probably with the same weapons Nato soldiers. First they were the good guys, now they are the bad guys. Do you think they become in between infected by the "pure evil" virus?
Condemning people by calling them "purely evil" is a simplification which does veil the reasons behind terrorism.

Terrorism is mostly the war of those who have not the resources and the people to defend themselves in a war. And what some countries do, and unfortunately sometimes also democratic ones, is state terrorism.

Logged

Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9835 on: December 14, 2011, 10:15:38 AM »

Quote
The USA sold weapons to the Taliban in the 80s, and now the Taliban kill probably with the same weapons Nato soldiers.

This is untrue. The mujahedeen leaders we most closely associated with during that time later became the Northern Alliance. The Taliban did not come into existence until the early '90s and that was Pakistan's doing.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
cigar joe
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12784


easy come easy go


View Profile
« Reply #9836 on: December 14, 2011, 06:44:30 PM »

Black Widow (1954) Director Nunnally Johnson, Stars: Ginger Rogers, Van Heflin, George Raft, Peggy Ann Garner, Reginald Gardiner and Gene Tierney. Murder mystery set in Manhattan, supposedly a Fox Film Noir, pretty good story but another non noir noir. 7/10 Heflin is good as murder suspect.

Logged

"When you feel that rope tighten on your neck you can feel the devil bite your ass"!
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8448

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #9837 on: December 14, 2011, 07:34:47 PM »

I really liked the final, very poignant shot, in Munich, of the Twin Towers. Spielberg was obviously trying to draw some sort of comparison between the acts of terrorism, though it's hard to say precisely what was meant:

 If he was making a broad point, that all of us -- whether in Israel, America, or so many other democratic countries -- suffer from Islamist fanatics; and that several decades after this film took place, we in America came face to face with the threats that have faced Israel throughout its existence, then he was correct.

But if his goal was to try to draw a direct connection between Arab-Israeli conflict with 9/11, that is emphatically wrong. There are many people who try to claim that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the root cause of all terrorism against the West; this claim is absolutely ridiculous. Even if the PLO and Hamas had their way, and Israel was God-forbid blown off the map, radical Islam would not cease to be a major threat around the world.

Ultimately, especially considering Spielberg's comments in his introduction, comparing the inner conflict that he believes all countries face when confronting terrorism, I believe the shot of the Twin Towers at the end was to draw a general comparison between what Israel faced in the movie, and what America (and many other countries) face now. Though, as I've said, I disagree with him that there was any inner conflict involved in avenging the murder of the athletes, I really like that last shot, foreshadowing the threat that America would soon face...

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: 13707

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


View Profile
« Reply #9838 on: December 14, 2011, 08:01:20 PM »

The Nickle Ride (1974) - 6/10. Robert Mulligan tries his hand at a neo noir. Jason Miller (who?) is a mid-level LA mobster who fixes fights and finds warehouse space for hot merchandise. One day he's told by his boss (John Hillerman)to take on the syndicate's new rising star (Bo Hopkins) and show him the ropes--and suddenly Miller gets the funny notion that he's about to be terminated with extreme prejudice and replaced. The film builds nicely as Miller develops a justified paranoia--and then fizzles. There's a good reason why this movie isn't better known. The Dave Grusin score isn't bad, though.

Logged


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

Posts: 2988



View Profile
« Reply #9839 on: December 15, 2011, 02:33:37 AM »

This is untrue. The mujahedeen leaders we most closely associated with during that time later became the Northern Alliance. The Taliban did not come into existence until the early '90s and that was Pakistan's doing.

Maybe, I'll check this later.

Logged

Pages: 1 ... 654 655 [656] 657 658 ... 1170 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 0.085 seconds with 20 queries.