So anyone seen some good movie recently?

[McDuffies]

I say Lovely Bones. Very difficult to watch but fascinating nonetheless, there might yet be something of that young filmmaker Peter Jackson. It gave me nightmares that night, though.

[Netpoet]

I re-watched "Up" over the weekend. I lurve that movie.

[Tenma]

I say Lovely Bones. Very difficult to watch but fascinating nonetheless, there might yet be something of that young filmmaker Peter Jackson. It gave me nightmares that night, though.

You don't want to know about his earlier work, then.

[Spaceprincess]

I say Lovely Bones. Very difficult to watch but fascinating nonetheless, there might yet be something of that young filmmaker Peter Jackson. It gave me nightmares that night, though.

You don't want to know about his earlier work, then.

AH! 'Dead Alive' quite possibly the most over the top gore fest ever made and also the most hilarious.

500 days of summer
Brothers Bloom
The Informers
Hurt Locker

[Toxic]

I saw a very cute French Canadian film called 1981 a couple weeks ago and really liked it. As or something more accessible I really liked Drag Me to Hell which is on DVD now.

[MixedMyth]

I loooved Alice in Wonderland. I went in with misgivings. I mean, it had a lot to live up to. But I really think they nailed it on the head.

Also, I discovered a wonderful ghostly indy film called Ink, much to my delight. I wasn't expecting much but it really turned out to be something. The best part? It's on Hulu!

[McDuffies]

I say Lovely Bones. Very difficult to watch but fascinating nonetheless, there might yet be something of that young filmmaker Peter Jackson. It gave me nightmares that night, though.

You don't want to know about his earlier work, then.

I do know them, I kinda regret watching any of them, but gore could never give me nightmares.

[Ekolter]

Saw 'Alice in Wonderland' in 3D. I enjoyed it. Liked that it was a darker movie.

Also just finished watching 'Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs' tonight. Very cute.

Need to get around to watching 'V for Vendetta' from NetFlix que. Had it sitting & waiting for weeks now. Finally read the book and want to see what I missed from the first time viewing it.

[[AlmightyPyro]]

I just watched Alice in Wonderland and I thoroughly enjoyed the hell out of it. I was also watching it at a Studio Movie grill with a girl I really like, so that plus the beer might have swayed my opinion.

[Laemkral]

Saw Sherlock Holmes last week. Saw Hurt Locker, 500 Days of Summer, and quite a few other things off iTunes that can't have been that good if I don't remember them. Saw Valentine's Day a couple of weeks ago.

Gonna see Alice in Wonderland tomorrow before I get to cleaning my apartment and assembling some furniture.

Holmes was great, really enjoyed it and had a blast.
Hurt Locker I believe I've already expressed my extreme dislike for, as has a significant majority of the American military. The Academy be damned, that was in no way a tribute to my comrades in arms. It was tripe, cliche, and had absolutely no backing from the DoD.
500 Days of Summer I loved because I love Zooey Deschanel and also it was a very emotionally touching film.
Valentine's Day was also really good, even if a bit cliche (but I don't think you can make a romance movie these days that isn't cliche, even if it attempts to not be cliche). It had some really heart warming moments that make you go "awww" inside. Also, I love Anne Hathaway.

[Spaceprincess]

Hurt Locker I believe I've already expressed my extreme dislike for, as has a significant majority of the American military. The Academy be damned, that was in no way a tribute to my comrades in arms. It was tripe, cliche, and had absolutely no backing from the DoD.

really? I thought it was one of the best war movies in recent years. As a piece of cinema I thought it was well done from cinematography, editing, sound, lighting, acting and directing. I thought it was an honest objective look at the war. but since your in the service you probably have more perspective. What exactly didn't you like, what was wrong or misportrayed. As for the DoD I don't think they would want any honest portrayal of the war.

[McDuffies]

I saw "How to get ahead in advertising", really morbid but also great. It sums up how I feel about modern marketing-based business, I too think of it as a disguisting boil that's taken over the entire body.

[Laemkral]

What exactly didn't you like, what was wrong or misportrayed. As for the DoD I don't think they would want any honest portrayal of the war.

SO GLAD you asked!! For starters, lets address: " As for the DoD I don't think they would want any honest portrayal of the war."

The Department of Defense played a huge role in Black Hawk Down and We Were Soldiers. Both movies show an absolutely horrific side to war, both received complete backing from the DoD ranging from vehicles, advisors, actual Airmen and Soldiers playing the roles of extras, training for the actors, technical and historical experts, etc. Both movies were phenomenal and accurate. We Were Soldiers has been considered by numerous veterans of Vietnam to be one of the best portrayals of the Vietnam War both in terms of the individuals and the conflict itself. I enjoyed, and own, both movies. Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan, also excellent examples of how war is just a horrible, destructive thing. Both received help from the DoD and veterans.

The Hurt Locker is shit. It portrays professionals who are highly trained experts in their field as complete cavaliers and renegades. The main character, the Sergeant First Class (who was identified as a Staff Sergeant), would have been relieved from duty after his first mission for his destructive and unprofessional behavior. At the very least, he would have been yanked from the line by his commander for recklessly endangering his Soldiers's lives. The little technical errors, such as the wear of patches and lack of attention to military conduct such as the proper wear of the uniform only further confirm for me that the filmmakers hadn't the slightest clue what the hell they were doing. The ONLY US military advisor was a retired EOD Command Sergeant Major.

Constantly, as I was watching the film, I kept saying "What the hell?" because they travelled with no escorts, they are sent to missions without any proper briefing (the British mercenaries), they start working on explosives before the area is completely cordoned off (the UN compound), they are themselves clearing buildings (explosives cache), and somehow they got their hands on alcohol and have a big fight in their room. Oh yeah, and the psychiatrist Lieutenant Colonel goes outside the wire without any form of escort and is pulling security like a Joe. Excuse me while I call bullshit. When a senior ranking officer or senior NCO goes outside the wire to accompany a mission, they get their own whole damn vehicle complete with crew, and they certainly do NOT pull security because that is NOT their JOB. Their job is to stay the hell out of the way and observe how things are going.

You had your little heartstrings pulled, you had nearly every cliche and stereotype pulled out and flung in your face, and you had a fucking sniper battle. It's so nice that the Sergeant and SFC had a big bonding moment as sniper and spotter, skills neither is actually trained in. I'm sure there's a good chance they may have some measure of those skills from hobbies as amateur marksmen or whatnot But a Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle is a mother-loving beast used as an anti-materrial weapon with a range of several miles. It has far different bullet flight path patterns than the 5.56mm of the M16/M4 family or the .308 used in most hunting rifles. The shockwave alone is enough to cause tissue damage in human beings, let alone the bullet itself. I'm also surprised no one went looking for them when they stop sending in reports for hours on end (cause they got pinned down so long) after going out on mission. Either that or someone needs to learn to call in some bloody air support on their radio.

Oh, and the main character sneaking off post to wander around Baghdad on his own, then walk back up to a base in civilian clothes and not get his ass completely court-martialed before being relieved of rank and pay, thrown in jail, and subsequently kicked out of the Army? Bullshit is an understatement. His commander, his commander's commander, all the way up to at the very least a Divisional general would have roasted him for doing something like that. Same thing for when he leads his team away from the bomb crater to chase after the trigger man.

The one thing the movie got right is that many Soldiers develop adrenaline addictions because of war. Particularly this war where the threat of an IED is ever present and keeps you locked into intense, adrenaline fueled, hyper vigilant states while on mission. As a result, yes you do see people volunteering to redeploy while waiving or minimizing dwell time. In fact, many of the people in my own unit said at some point, shortly after returning from theater (and we went in '09 when it was a lot calmer), "Man, I wish I was back in Iraq". Myself included.

But I know that if that NCO had been one of mine, the instant I heard about reckless behavior like that (and believe me, I would because I've had Soldiers come to me about NCOs for FAR less serious or significant issues) he would have been off the job and in counseling.

EDIT: Oh, one final technical comment thats really a reflection upon the lead character's character. The SFC wears a combat patch, famously known as "the Scroll", from the 75th Ranger Regiment. It is one of the most prestigious units in the Army and falls under Special Operations Command. The SFC does NOT wear a Ranger TAB, which signifies that an individual has completed the prestigious Ranger School. Membership in the 75th requires that you be sent to Ranger School. Failure to earn the tab within a set time (and enlisted Soldiers are allowed multiple tries at the school) means you get kicked out. Just about everyone in the Army knows this, and the people I know generally consider someone to be a complete dirtbag to wear a 75th Ranger Regimental combat patch and not have the Ranger tab to go with it. Why? Cause you couldn't hack it and they didn't want you, but wearing the patch is like going "Hey, look at who I served with!"

If you want to see a movie that shows you the truth behind war, and particularly the war in Iraq, go watch "Gunner Palace". It was phenomenal, accurate, and truthful because it was filmed by Soldiers. That's right, an actual documentary filmed by a field artillery unit over the course of their deployment in Iraq as they kicked down doors, served as gun truck escorts, and were on the "front lines".

[Spaceprincess]

if your going to really nit pick why don't you point out that jeremy Renner calls it a torch instead of a flashlight. no american would call it that.

would have been relieved from duty after his first mission for his destructive and unprofessional behavior. At the very least, he would have been yanked from the line by his commander for recklessly endangering his Soldiers's lives.

thats the kind of action they hand out medals for, the real medals not the girl scout patches for neat typing or a well polished belt buckle. I've read a dozen or so accounts of MOH recipients and all of them did some really reckless cowboy shit. I'm sure he got chewed out but there is the scene with David Morris. if the col. thinks your hot shit your going to get a lot of leeway.

most veterans have at least one 'how i snuck off base/stole a jeep' story.

film maker must be allowed some creative license. they can't possibly show everything in a 2 hr movie. one has to hit the important point and I felt the film did that.
the most telling scene is in the cereal aisle. heres a guy who is used to his decisions meaning life or death and now he's overwhelmed with a decision that is meaningless.

[Laemkral]

if your going to really nit pick why don't you point out that jeremy Renner calls it a torch instead of a flashlight. no american would call it that.

Because I felt I'd already made my point. I can do a scene by scene analysis of everything that was wrong, but that would be kinda overblown.

would have been relieved from duty after his first mission for his destructive and unprofessional behavior. At the very least, he would have been yanked from the line by his commander for recklessly endangering his Soldiers's lives.

thats the kind of action they hand out medals for, the real medals not the girl scout patches for neat typing or a well polished belt buckle. I've read a dozen or so accounts of MOH recipients and all of them did some really reckless cowboy shit. I'm sure he got chewed out but there is the scene with David Morris. if the col. thinks your hot shit your going to get a lot of leeway.

No. No. Go back and reread those narratives. Go back and read the citation for the Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Silver Star, even the Bronze Star. Each and every one of those is about PERSONAL sacrifice, PERSONAL risk, and PERSONAL action. You do NOT get medals for recklessly endangering OTHERS. Each and every Medal of Honor recipient did something mindnumbingly dangerous and placed themselves in a situation that by all rights should have killed them (or did), something that no person in their sane mind would even have asked them to do. They did it anyways because they knew that their actions saved American lives in combat. Doing something dangerous and ENDANGERING lives is the very antithesis of what those medals represent and stand for. Yes, if a Colonel thinks you're hot shit, you get some leeway. But when you get someone hurt because of a reckless act, the Army will come down on you like a hammer because there's always someone higher who will be more than happy to make an example out of you.

most veterans have at least one 'how i snuck off base/stole a jeep' story.

Funny, never heard a single one from any of the people I served with downrange. Oh, you'll get stories of shenanigans, but I hardly think any are stupid enough to even think of crossing the wire without full battle rattle and a bunch of buddies dressed the same. That's enemy territory once you roll out the gate, and there's nothing out there you can't get on base or at least on your next patrol.

film maker must be allowed some creative license. they can't possibly show everything in a 2 hr movie. one has to hit the important point and I felt the film did that.
the most telling scene is in the cereal aisle. heres a guy who is used to his decisions meaning life or death and now he's overwhelmed with a decision that is meaningless.

As I said, that's the only thing the film got right, the only thing it really did well. It showed that some people develop an addiction to the battlefield. Everything else was a waste of my time and a bit of an insult to my profession and the people I work with.

[Killbert-Robby]

I say Lovely Bones. Very difficult to watch but fascinating nonetheless, there might yet be something of that young filmmaker Peter Jackson. It gave me nightmares that night, though.

You don't want to know about his earlier work, then.

AH! 'Dead Alive' quite possibly the most over the top gore fest ever made and also the most hilarious.

I actually thought Dead Alive was kinda terrible. Not even funny in a "haha this is so bad its funny" kinda way. Just like, you know "Oh, THIS is on *next channel*". I'd rather watch Fido or Shaun Of The Dead if I want funny zombies.

Let me also hop into this little The Hurt Locker fray.
I kinda have to stick with Laem on this. Yes film makers need artistic license. But if you're marketing something as a realistic drama type of movie, it, you know, needs to be realistic. If it was INTENDED to be about some cowboy who screws the rules (I have money), then you know, fine, but to quote the writer "The idea is that it's the first movie about the Iraq War that purports to show the experience of the soldiers. We wanted to show the kinds of things that soldiers go through that you can't see on CNN."
And if the movie is supposed to show the experience of soldiers in Iraq, and the veteran in here is saying it does not show the experience of soldiers in Iraq, then I'd imagine the movie has failed horribly, or is there a hole in my logic I don't follow here?
And if you don't trust Laem, how about the other veterans who have the same problems with the movie?

I don't even know why you're arguing this with him, it would be like arguing with a meteorologist about how The Day After Tomorrow is totally accurate. The person actually in the know said the happenings of the movie are implausible, so if you're going to argue in favor of the movie, don't do it on that front, because its a battle that no matter how stubborn and persistent you are, you can't win.

[Phact0rri]

24 hour-party people. people who like music history, should check it out.

[Spaceprincess]

Dead alive is awful and I won't defend it. but It did have some great gore. when he strapped the lawn mower to his chest and plowed through the horde of undead.
plus it had the second great line in movie history "I kick ass for the lord" priceless. oh the first is from robocop when Kirkwood smith says " bitches leave.


As for Hurt Locker. I won't argue with you anymore but I will say this. A lot of vets hated 'Bridge over A river kwai' when a lot of people consider it a masterpiece.
It's all a matter of opinion. some opinions are more valid than others but that doesn't make them fact. often the peoples opinion that would seem the most valid are the least accurate. When people look in a mirror they won't always like what they see. they'll tell you it ain't so even though its right there. the perspective from within isn't always as objective as the one from without.
If you'er really interested see the movie and Judge for yourself.

[McDuffies]

24 hour-party people. people who like music history, should check it out.

Winterbottom, right? It's on my back burner.

[Killbert-Robby]

Dead alive is awful and I won't defend it. but It did have some great gore. when he strapped the lawn mower to his chest and plowed through the horde of undead.
plus it had the second great line in movie history "I kick ass for the lord" priceless. oh the first is from robocop when Kirkwood smith says " bitches leave.


As for Hurt Locker. I won't argue with you anymore but I will say this. A lot of vets hated 'Bridge over A river kwai' when a lot of people consider it a masterpiece.
It's all a matter of opinion. some opinions are more valid than others but that doesn't make them fact. often the peoples opinion that would seem the most valid are the least accurate. When people look in a mirror they won't always like what they see. they'll tell you it ain't so even though its right there. the perspective from within isn't always as objective as the one from without.
If you'er really interested see the movie and Judge for yourself.

The Bridge Over The River Kwai is a character driven drama, and was mean to be that, not an accurate depiction of the war. Its a masterpiece because of great storytelling and characters. That's the major difference between the movies. There's one thing nitpicking a movie just cause, there's another nitpicking a movie because its failing to do exactly what it set out to do.

As for the movie, I'm not one to talk about something I don't have any inkling about, I've already seen it, I've already judged it, and quite frankly I thought it was meh, inaccuracies aside.

Here lies my problem with the movie

Bridge.O.T.R.K. had amazing characters, and an amazing story, was never meant to be accurate, and as such, the historical inaccuracy can be allowed to slide. Criticizing the history would be like criticizing the science in 2001.
The Hurt Locker had meh characters, meh story, and was supposed to be a completely accurate, totally plausible story of exactly what its like to be an EOD in Iraq, which it didn't do, at all. That is why its a bad movie. Not simply because it was inaccurate, but because it was TRYING to be accurate, it was MEANT to be accurate, the whole point of the movie was supposed to be its ACCURACY, and it didn't accomplish that. Do you think Laem nitpicks Predator to hell when he sees it, because its militarily inaccurate?

Besides, I don't see how the looking at yourself in the mirror thing applies here. We're not talking about a movie that's all "American soldiers are murderers invading a land they have no right to be in" and suddenly armed forces people are all "no no no no no", the criticism is on the front of rules and regulations. That has nothing to do with looking at yourself objectively, rules and regulations ARE objective. Its a very simple X is implausible because of Y. Its all *very* objective.