| AudioREVIEW's Forum Archives - Favorite Films |
|
|   War movies, the new fad... | sumdumgi
Apr 5, 2001 12:59 AM | | Ever take the time to notice the trends in Hollywood? Aside from the obvious: the ubiquitous tasteless comedies that germinated from American Pie and seem to pop up on cue every two weeks or so, are war movies. After the success of Saving Private Ryan, came a confusing Thin Red Line. Thankfully this was followed up by a touching Life is Beautiful, a unique Three Kings, and a masterful U-571. Next came a shifty Rules of Engagement, and then an onslaught of crap including the waste of two hours, Thirteen Days, and the sleep inducing Men of Honor. Enemy at the Gates was, IMO, nothing special--quickly forgotten in time. Even completely irrelevant movies such as X-Men and Legend of Baggervance seem to play off some wartime event. Hopefully this chapter in Hollywood will end gracefully with the promising Pearl Harbor (Hey, it's pretty hard to go wrong with a line up like Ben Affleck, Cuba Gooding Junior, Jon Voight, Jerry Bruckheimer, and Michael Bay--but that hasn't stopped Hollywood before).
You may call it art (and the good films at least have a strong theme), but ultimately it's just commercial exploitation of tragedy, pain, suffering, and loss.
I guess the war movie factor has always existed, movies like Platoon, Crimson Tide, Hunt For Red October, and Das Boot come to mind, but never has it been so fiercly apparent as it is today. |
| re: War movies, the new fad... | GeorgeJ
Apr 5, 2001 3:52 AM | | I agree sumdumgi. I saw Enemy At The Gates and I too thought it was nothing speacial. Although I cant wait to see it, I have my doubts about Pearl Harbor though. My reason being that I have noticed (with maybe a small exception to Thin Red Line) the better war movies have had a minimal amount of female actresses, if any at all. I have nothing agianst female actresses dont get me wrong. I just dont want a "little bit of something for everybody" type of war movie. If I wanted a love movie, I'll go see a love movie. Otherwise give me testosterone laden bombs, planes, tanks and guns! Do any of you other guys agree? |
| SPR did it right, why can't the rest? | wavephorm
Apr 5, 2001 6:03 AM | | The only women that were shown were typing letters, and that was accurate. The men just talk about women, because that's all they can do during a war. Pearl Harbor looks more like it should be called The Titanic Harbor - but regardless I'm going to see it anyway because it looks like it has enough bombs and guns to make up for it. Enemy at the Gates played the love story a little too much, but the guns made up for it in my opinion :) |
| SPR did it right, why can't the rest? | Fore!
Apr 5, 2001 8:01 AM | | By the looks of the previews on tv of "Pearl Harbor" , it might look like they did their homework and learned something from SPR. But it is hard to say for sure. The short little preview they showed looked "up close and personal" like SPR was. |
| This is what I like... | sumdumgi
Apr 5, 2001 3:52 PM | | In-your-face, first-person, no-holds-barred, reality-driven war movies. Movies that really capture the intensity of the battle and let me experience a side of life that I'll most likely never experience otherwise. All this with a touch of sensibility, in that some sense of honor, sacrifice, patriotism, and loss of innocence. That is what I consider a good war movie.
Pearl Harbor seems to have that. I hope I'm not disappointed and this movie, being the only Pearl Harbor-based movie in memory, will dishonor the greatest battle in America of the last century. On a side note, Jerry Bruckheimer is known to put love stories in his movies and have at least one central theme revolving around it, so I'm already expecting it. Luckily the action-guru Michael Bay is there to balance it out. |
| Right on George. I agree with you. | Itchy
Apr 5, 2001 12:06 PM | | The truth is as George says above. |
| re: War movies, the new fad... | Daigoro
Apr 5, 2001 10:11 AM | | >>>>>>>>Hopefully this chapter in Hollywood will end gracefully with the promising Pearl Harbor (Hey, it's pretty hard to go wrong with a line up like Ben Affleck, Cuba Gooding Junior, Jon Voight, Jerry Bruckheimer, and Michael Bay--but that hasn't stopped Hollywood before).<<<<<<<<<<<<
I predict Pearl Harbor will suck like all of Bruckheimer/Michael Bay creations. Armageddon, Gone in 60 Seconds, The Rock, Con-Air...ugghh! Give me the thumb screws instead! They typify what's wrong with Hollywood.
Ben Affleck (semi-actor) and Cuba Gooding Jr. (over-actor) do not sweeten the deal for me either. |
| Wait A Second | Adam
Apr 5, 2001 10:31 AM | | The Rock was outstanding. Con Air was ok but I thought Armageddon was an average movie but the sound and visuals were spectacular. Cuba Gooding Jr. I find to be usually pretty right on in terms of the roles and I do agree with you regarding Affleck. Overall though you have to admit that there are 2 ways to approach movies: The Plot or the Effects. Very rare is it that a movie has both. I think Bruckheimer and Bay do a great job of offering great sound unmatched special effects and usually an entertaining story line, not a great one. |
| re: War movies, the new fad... | Max
Apr 5, 2001 11:43 AM | | How can you not like The Rock or even Armageddon. These movies help define the action genere. I can understand not liking "Bored in 60 seconds", or even Con-air (although I would watch that movie just for Steve Buchemie). What are some action movies that you like?
I can tolerate the put down of Bruckheimer/Bay, but I am most offended that you put down Cuba Gooding Jr., whom in my opinion is one of the most underrated actors out there. I have yet to see him in a role that I did not like. He was great in Jerry Maguire, Boys in the Hood, Gladiators, What Dreams May Come, Instinct, and Men of Honor. |
| re: War movies, the new fad... | Daigoro
Apr 5, 2001 12:07 PM | | I like action movies just fine just as long as it has a good story and some passable acting. I can even give up one of those if the action's really good (The Matrix, Ronin, Mission Impossible 2). Aliens and SPR are probably my favorite action movies of all time.
Michael Bay usually has nothing but action with just gut-wrenchingly bad stories (pretty much a series of one-liners) and acting. And really, his action isn't very well done. It's mostly just about hyper-fast editing and over-amplified sound and FX.
I'm sorry, but that's just the way I feel about Cuba Gooding Jr.. He's not a bad actor, he just needs to learn to reel it in sometimes. |
| re: War movies, the new fad... | sumdumgi
Apr 5, 2001 4:12 PM | | I must agree that Armaggedon, Con Air, and Gone in 60 Seconds sucked, but the Rock was kick ass--especially considering the time it was made and the other action movies that existed then. You must realise that Michael Bay is a relatively rookie director and most of his movies fit in perfectly with the directing style of his time (early 90's). Armaggedon was a tough project to direct simply because it had WAAAY too many themes and messages to bring across and WAAY too many characters to fully develop, and most of all too short of a time. Also technical details in the movie were completely overlooked! Gone in 60 Seconds was was a remake, so not much flexibility in repairing an already bad script, still that doesn't excuse the bad selection of cars, impossible stunts, and choice of played-out talentless actors. Con Air, all action, no plot, dated jokes, homogenized characters, enough said. However, taken into account the successful new style of action movies seen in SPR and Gladiator, I have faith that Bay and Bruckheimer know what to do to make their movie pass. Cuba knows how to play his role though sometimes he tries too hard and it fails. Ben Affleck had some movies I'm sure he'd like to sweep under the rug, but he has some equally outstanding performances. |
| How | Max
Apr 6, 2001 8:05 AM | | I agree with the Matrix and Ronin, but how can you like MI2 better than The Rock? I would guess you would be in a very small group if there was a poll between those 2 movies.....ohh well we all have our opinions.
I do find it hard to categorize many movies. For instance I consider Aliens as Sci-Fi, and SPR to me was more drama, yet both contain action. A lot of the movies that I see in the Action category follow more along the lines of a non-stop, shoot em up, car chasing, fighting fest(basically the movies that you associate with Micheal Bay - "nothing but action"). Movies such as Die-Hard, Lethal Weapon, Mission Impossible, Con-Air, The Matrix, The Rock, Indiana Jones, Bad Boys, The Mummy...etc define this category. When I walk into a store and go to this section, these are the types of movies that I am looking for. |
| What do you expect...... | Philbert
Apr 8, 2001 7:55 PM | | From a person who used to make television commercials
"Michael Bay usually has nothing but action with just gut
-wrenchingly bad stories (pretty much a series of one-liners)
and acting. And really, his action isn't very well done.
It's mostly just about hyper-fast editing and over-amplified
sound and FX." |
| Can I play? | Troy
Apr 5, 2001 6:16 PM | | Just to back up my man, Diagoro . . .
Cuba Gooding is terribly overrated. Geez, the guy won an oscar! How can you call an oscar winner underrated? He's a terminal overactor anyway. All he seems able to do to convey emotion is furrow his brow, bite his lip and yell a lot. He always plays the same guy. Boring.
Pearl Harbor looks incredibly lame! Yeah, throw out any semblance of historical accuracy (black men serving on a WW2 batlleship? Never happened. The Japanese bombed PH on a Sunday at dawn. What is everybody doing up and about like it's 2:00, mid week? And that's just the preview!) and add a cornball love interest and you have perfect Hollywood cheese for all the TV-zombie-ized kids at the mall.
Bruckheimer and Bay are EXACTLY what's wrong with the movie biz today.
Like Steve Buscemi? Rent "Living in Oblivion" or "Trees Lounge". THAT'S the kind of movie I want to see Steve in, something by and for adults, not some giant Coke and popcorn FX matinee! |
| Can I play? | Philbert
Apr 8, 2001 8:02 PM | | If memmory serves me right. There was a black man who maned a
machine gun during the attack. I think he was a cook. At that
time that was about the only occupation a black man could have
in the navy. Some things have changed alot since that time, for
the better. Now Collin Powel is the secutary of state. |
| Yes But | Adam
Apr 11, 2001 11:01 AM | | Jessie Jackson still has power...go figure.
The black man you are talking about, his name escapes me, was indeed a cook. He was the first black man in any of the armed services to receive a medal of honor. If you go to DC a poster, that was made following his receiving of the medal, can be bought. |
| re: War movies, the new fad... | oscar
Apr 5, 2001 8:04 PM | | Alright,
I would want war movies to accurately reflect the "real thing" as much as the next guy though great special effects would be nice too.... But when we are talking about a 'fictional" action flick, all bets are off. I saw "The Rock" and was quite happy with this movie because the plot called for lots of action and special effects. I thought this was well-done, but than again, I am partial to Sean Connery.
I expect and look for realism in WWII action movies (and the like) but I have to suspend disbelief on "fictional" movies somewhat (e.g. The Rock).
Ever notice how popular James Bond movies are ? |
| re: War movies, the new fad... | Robert Stevens
Apr 7, 2001 9:25 AM | | (spoilers) maybe?
"Pearl Harbor" is going to be more like Titanic than SPR. The actual bombing only lasts 38 minutes, the rest of the movie is a love story ala' Titanic. |
| |
|
|
