Escape to the Movies: Lone Survivor

MonkeyPunch

New member
Feb 20, 2008
589
0
0
I actually managed to see this movie already (yay sneak preview) and totally agree with how Bob portrayed it.
Funny thing is I thought of the Homer sequence too, when I saw them bounce down the mountain.
This move isn't good. But it's not terrible either. It's watchable and I can see some people taking away some positive from it.
The fact that it's based on a real story does sort of help and makes you think about the whole thing. Especially about the brave Afghans who took in the lone survivor putting their entire village and relatives at risk in the process, just to help some random guy.
 

stueymon

New member
Aug 29, 2009
60
0
0
JarinArenos said:
Such topical
Much schedule
Many credit
Wow

... c'mon, I can't be the only one thinking it.

OT: Timing for this one is weird. Deep (or attempts at same) war drama tend to aim before the award season. I guess this really is just a directoral art piece.
DAMMIT!

I was gonna do that.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
Falseprophet said:
So an American version of Bravo Two Zero [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120617/] as directed by Mel Gibson?
Damn it, i was thinking Bravo Two Zero as well. lol.
 

daxterx2005

New member
Dec 19, 2009
1,615
0
0
Man I'm so glad you brought up the shiba!
Its in all the news outlets, I was worried you'd miss it.
 

person427

New member
May 28, 2009
538
0
0
Mangue Surfer said:
Sidney Buit said:
When I saw this review I thought the same thing as when I saw the trailer.

Why was the option: release or kill? What happened to the third, and IMO obviously superior "keep em tied up till the operation was complete or extraction accomplished" option?

I mean, I get that the survivor told his story with the moral debate, so that's what happened, but... I dunno, it still came to my mind that they missed out on a much better option.
What would have happened if Zod had Kryptoformed Mars instead?
You're comparing a fictional character overlooking a decision that would have made a boring movie to real people overlooking a real possible solution to a conflict. Or did you miss the point where this is based on a true story?
 

Kargathia

New member
Jul 16, 2009
1,657
0
0
Enosh_ said:
moviebob not liking a war movie that isn't anti American? I'm shocked!
/sarcasm
... have you taken a look at the downright staggering amounts of hero-worship Americans accord their army with? Not to mention that nice little habit that everything that doesn't treat the army as righteous angels sent from god is automatically called "anti-American", or -even funnier- "unpatriotic".

Making a war movie that treats its main characters not as actual characters, but as embodiment of the author's sweeping generalisation of a group (in this case the American army) is very likely to just be a shitty movie.

Feel free to watch and enjoy, but don't get offended when a movie critic puts movie quality first, and mindless hero-worship last.

person427 said:
You're comparing a fictional character overlooking a decision that would have made a boring movie to real people overlooking a real possible solution to a conflict. Or did you miss the point where this is based on a true story?
There's a saying in my family when it comes to books/movies/music/whatever which loosely translates to "true story is a false excuse". For a movie's quality it doesn't matter whether it happened or not.
 

person427

New member
May 28, 2009
538
0
0
Kargathia said:
Enosh_ said:
moviebob not liking a war movie that isn't anti American? I'm shocked!
/sarcasm
... have you taken a look at the downright staggering amounts of hero-worship Americans accord their army with? Not to mention that nice little habit that everything that doesn't treat the army as righteous angels sent from god is automatically called "anti-American", or -even funnier- "unpatriotic".

Making a war movie that treats its main characters not as actual characters, but as embodiment of the author's sweeping generalisation of a group (in this case the American army) is very likely to just be a shitty movie.

Feel free to watch and enjoy, but don't get offended when a movie critic puts movie quality first, and mindless hero-worship last.

person427 said:
You're comparing a fictional character overlooking a decision that would have made a boring movie to real people overlooking a real possible solution to a conflict. Or did you miss the point where this is based on a true story?
There's a saying in my family when it comes to books/movies/music/whatever which loosely translates to "true story is a false excuse". For a movie's quality it doesn't matter whether it happened or not.
And you're completely missing the point of this discussion. The movie did do what happened in the true story, the original question brought up was why didn't the real people consider this other option?

But, following from your argument: no. That's wrong. I don't know if you've seen any of the promotions for this movie, but the entire point of it is that the lone survivor the title refers to wants to keep the memory of the soldiers alive. Keeping his goal in mind, why would he ever change something so major as the decision that set the events in motion?
 

jecht35

New member
Jul 2, 2011
92
0
0
Hm to bad I kind of wanted to see it, but after I saw that Shiba Inu I now have a strong urge to watch that hachiko movie again. Before anyone says anything yes I know hachiko was an akita.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
Oh geez, that speech at the beginning alone is enough to tell me it's awful.
 

leviadragon99

New member
Jun 17, 2010
1,055
0
0
Oh boy, more chest-beating, alpha-male, military-worshipping tripe, just what the western world's media needs...
 

vviki

Lord of Midnless DPS
Mar 17, 2009
207
0
0
Bob, my man, you are either losing your edge or 2013 left you way more optimistic. Now without watching your full review, just by the description you gave to the movie, I can tell you it is going to suck ass, lets break it down:
1) The director of The Kingdom, that movie sucked hard on all levels, it was too soon and handled horribly.
2) Mark Wahlberg can't act. He has vone und precisely vone expression of utter DURR and he can't muster anything other than that. His best role was in the Departed, where he played a one note character.
3) It's about ter sm in the 'Murican way, features talibans so you know it won't be handled properly. It's too soon, think about how much time had to pass from the Vietnam War and Full Metal Jacket. The war went on for almost 19 years and the movie was released 32 years later. And Ter sm is a much more hot topic then sum fornrs dyin sum place foreign.

So based on all those three, bad direction, bad acting, bad subject with bad timing I can tell you this movie is going to suck as hard as it possibly could and will be targeted only towards people who speak like I wrote in the description. It's not going to be for normal people, let alone for foreigners. Disclaimer: this is all coming from a person, who didn't like the Hurt locker either, but liked Jarhead and is a foreigner, so this is all very biased.
 

Markunator

New member
Nov 10, 2011
89
0
0
jaded zombie said:
american soldiers NOT commiting war crimes?
why is the story marked as non-fiction then?
They're not soldiers, they're sailors. Only a small fraction of US servicemen have ever committed a war crime.

Kargathia said:
... have you taken a look at the downright staggering amounts of hero-worship Americans accord their army with? Not to mention that nice little habit that everything that doesn't treat the army as righteous angels sent from god is automatically called "anti-American", or -even funnier- "unpatriotic".

Making a war movie that treats its main characters not as actual characters, but as embodiment of the author's sweeping generalisation of a group (in this case the American army) is very likely to just be a shitty movie.
Once again: they're in the Navy, not the Army. They have absolutely nothing to do with the Army.

Nurb said:
Oh geez, that speech at the beginning alone is enough to tell me it's awful.
Why?

vviki said:
Bob, my man, you are either losing your edge or 2013 left you way more optimistic. Now without watching your full review, just by the description you gave to the movie, I can tell you it is going to suck ass, lets break it down:
1) The director of The Kingdom, that movie sucked hard on all levels, it was too soon and handled horribly.
2) Mark Wahlberg can't act. He has vone und precisely vone expression of utter DURR and he can't muster anything other than that. His best role was in the Departed, where he played a one note character.
3) It's about ter sm in the 'Murican way, features talibans so you know it won't be handled properly. It's too soon, think about how much time had to pass from the Vietnam War and Full Metal Jacket. The war went on for almost 19 years and the movie was released 32 years later. And Ter sm is a much more hot topic then sum fornrs dyin sum place foreign.

So based on all those three, bad direction, bad acting, bad subject with bad timing I can tell you this movie is going to suck as hard as it possibly could and will be targeted only towards people who speak like I wrote in the description. It's not going to be for normal people, let alone for foreigners. Disclaimer: this is all coming from a person, who didn't like the Hurt locker either, but liked Jarhead and is a foreigner, so this is all very biased.
1) The Kingdom came out in 2007 - six years after 9/11! How the fuck is that "too soon"?!
2) Yes, Mark Wahlberg can most definitely act. I won't go as far as to call him a great actor, but he can act.
3) It's not "too soon" to make a film about a war while the war is still ongoing. Sorry, it's just not. Just look at Casablanca: a World War II film made in the middle of World War II.
 

Mangue Surfer

New member
May 29, 2010
364
0
0
honestly, this comparison of Man of Steel with Tropical Thunder 2.0 was purely sarcastic. Think, stupid decisions in real life has to be more respected than stupid decisions in fiction?
 

Markunator

New member
Nov 10, 2011
89
0
0
jaded zombie said:
Markunator said:
jaded zombie said:
american soldiers NOT commiting war crimes?
why is the story marked as non-fiction then?
They're not soldiers, they're sailors. Only a small fraction of US servicemen have ever been condemned of a war crime.
fixed for you.
What, are you saying that the majority of US servicemen have committed war crimes? You're going to have to explain that one, I'm afraid.
 

Colt47

New member
Oct 31, 2012
1,065
0
0
I was kind of holding hope this might be a balanced War movie more than a wounds and bludgeons one. I think this Holiday Seasons movie selection could be the most boring selection ever conceived with the exception of the Hobbit Part 2 and Frozen (assuming someone is into watching an animated film). I had the misfortune of seeing American Hustle with the family and I felt like I had just sat in a hospital waiting room for two hours when I got out of it. =(
 

Kargathia

New member
Jul 16, 2009
1,657
0
0
Markunator said:
jaded zombie said:
american soldiers NOT commiting war crimes?
why is the story marked as non-fiction then?
They're not soldiers, they're sailors. Only a small fraction of US servicemen have ever committed a war crime.

Kargathia said:
... have you taken a look at the downright staggering amounts of hero-worship Americans accord their army with? Not to mention that nice little habit that everything that doesn't treat the army as righteous angels sent from god is automatically called "anti-American", or -even funnier- "unpatriotic".

Making a war movie that treats its main characters not as actual characters, but as embodiment of the author's sweeping generalisation of a group (in this case the American army) is very likely to just be a shitty movie.
Once again: they're in the Navy, not the Army. They have absolutely nothing to do with the Army.
Congratulations. You pointed out the one glaring flaw that completely negates my entire argument. Well done. Have a cookie. No fucks though: I'm all out.

Agreed though on that it's only a small fraction of soldiers(/sailors) committing war crimes. Displaying it the other way around would be the exact same thing my last post was about.