tron-12
jul 1999 se unió
Te damos la bienvenida a nuevo perfil
Nuestras actualizaciones aún están en desarrollo. Si bien la versión anterior de el perfil ya no está disponible, estamos trabajando activamente en mejoras, ¡y algunas de las funciones que faltan regresarán pronto! Mantente al tanto para su regreso. Mientras tanto, el análisis de calificaciones sigue disponible en nuestras aplicaciones para iOS y Android, en la página de perfil. Para ver la distribución de tus calificaciones por año y género, consulta nuestra nueva Guía de ayuda.
Distintivos2
Para saber cómo ganar distintivos, ve a página de ayuda de distintivos.
Reseñas10
Clasificación de tron-12
I was asking for pain tonight. I knew this would be a horrible movie, but my wife was out of town and I grabbed a few war movies at the video store.
I had no idea it was this bad. John Woo has made a truly trite, shallow, Z-grade, 1940's war movie. Please kill the writer! It's beyond description how leaden and cliche'd the dialogue is. Witness the crying child, reaching out as his father gets on the bus (of course he's the last one to get on as the door closes and he looks back... GAG!) See the well-worn exchange between the "nurse" and the "grizzled vet." Watch as the Norwegian guy from Fargo & Big Lebowski plays a Marine officer with a very strange accent. It just keeps going down the comode.
I can't help but wonder if the Chinese influence is at work here. Woo's early films, and others in that genre (HK gangster action) rely on the conventions and cliches of American film noir and action cinema. They try very hard to be Western movie stars in a vaguely eastern context. Is that what is happening here?
It's the voice in Windtalkers that gives it away for me. It's so clear that Woo wanted to make a film like "Sands of Iwo Jima" or "Battleground". But he simply copied the surface and not the spirit of those classics. He takes the easy way out.
I have to bitch about the introduction of Cage's character because it will make me feel good to get this out. After watching Thin Red Line, Terrence Malick's flawless film of the Pacific War, I can't help but make comparisons. As Cage is hiking through the jungle, his men are chopped to pieces by bullets, bayonets, and swords. Cage and 3 other forgettables are gathered around a tree trunk to make their last stand. After 2 characters have yelled, "we're out of ammo!", the men continue to pour lead from their eager weapons into the swarming Japanese. As they were on patrol and moving moments ago, Cage now informs the 3 survivors that , "We're MARINES, and we've been ordered to hold the position!" Everyone is handily killed except for Cage (who's name is JOE, perfect for this era of chest-thumping film). After this trauma he works hard to be cold-blooded killer of "Japs". (Actual line of speech from the movie.)
Well it sucked hard. Avoid, avoid, avoid!
I had no idea it was this bad. John Woo has made a truly trite, shallow, Z-grade, 1940's war movie. Please kill the writer! It's beyond description how leaden and cliche'd the dialogue is. Witness the crying child, reaching out as his father gets on the bus (of course he's the last one to get on as the door closes and he looks back... GAG!) See the well-worn exchange between the "nurse" and the "grizzled vet." Watch as the Norwegian guy from Fargo & Big Lebowski plays a Marine officer with a very strange accent. It just keeps going down the comode.
I can't help but wonder if the Chinese influence is at work here. Woo's early films, and others in that genre (HK gangster action) rely on the conventions and cliches of American film noir and action cinema. They try very hard to be Western movie stars in a vaguely eastern context. Is that what is happening here?
It's the voice in Windtalkers that gives it away for me. It's so clear that Woo wanted to make a film like "Sands of Iwo Jima" or "Battleground". But he simply copied the surface and not the spirit of those classics. He takes the easy way out.
I have to bitch about the introduction of Cage's character because it will make me feel good to get this out. After watching Thin Red Line, Terrence Malick's flawless film of the Pacific War, I can't help but make comparisons. As Cage is hiking through the jungle, his men are chopped to pieces by bullets, bayonets, and swords. Cage and 3 other forgettables are gathered around a tree trunk to make their last stand. After 2 characters have yelled, "we're out of ammo!", the men continue to pour lead from their eager weapons into the swarming Japanese. As they were on patrol and moving moments ago, Cage now informs the 3 survivors that , "We're MARINES, and we've been ordered to hold the position!" Everyone is handily killed except for Cage (who's name is JOE, perfect for this era of chest-thumping film). After this trauma he works hard to be cold-blooded killer of "Japs". (Actual line of speech from the movie.)
Well it sucked hard. Avoid, avoid, avoid!
If you've been catching the reviews of G&G this week, many people seem to think that only Civil War re-enactors and masochists would enjoy this film. Hardly. I teach Texas History, consider myself deeply interested in the American Civil War, and have read several of Mr. Shaara's books. But I also love movies and understand their language, and that's where I'm coming from. That said, I'd like to congratulate Misters Shaara, Maxwell, and Turner for a job well done. Gods & Generals is great moviemaking and good history. Watch it for entertainment and an introduction to the major players, but then go to the library and grab an armful of books and dig in!
This is one of the great American stories, and it has finally been respectfully put to film. These 3 men (and every actor and technician that worked on the picture) deserve our thanks for keeping this very special tale alive for another generation. Their dedication to accuracy and awareness of storytelling pitfalls gives this film a voice that will speak for decades to come.
Gods & Generals is special in that it really reaches for the truth in everything it does. The dialogue may seem leaden to our 21st century ears, the reasons for rebellion may contradict our understanding of the war, and the characters fight for their lives without an enemy that is truly evil. This is because the director has avoided the usual storytelling devices that are so commonplace. This story is told not through the lens of our sensibilities, but in an honest, fair, and unpartisan style. While many films seek to hold a mirror up to modern society, this picture is realy about the war; not now, but in 1861. There is no hunky white leading man (a la Pitt, Gibson, or Crowe) to growl, "Let's lock and load!". There is no black co-star to interject witty lines like "You got to do somethin' 'bout that beard... I mean, Damn!" And of course, the total absence of a heavy villain with a British accent (Jeremy Irons, David Warner, Alan Rickman) to say "Destroy them all!" is going to be a real problem for many movie goers. Sorry, most of the "babes" you will see are under 5 years old. Mira Sorvino has a bit part as a dutiful wife, but she has all her clothes on. Angelina Jolie and Kate Hudson will be in theaters next door.
Ron Maxwell and the Shaara family have spent more years preparing and telling these tales than it took to fight the entire war. They are a special breed of historian, in that they are committed to finding the truth about these great people that made our country. Their biases lean only towards Americans, not north or south.
Leave your notions at the door. The dialogue is real, not some prescribed feel-good schlock that powers most historical films (see Patriot, Pearl Harbor, or The Alamo). The costumes are impeccable. The commitment to accurate geography alone sets this movie in a world above other films. This story is worth telling, and more importantly, worth learning and remembering. We should seek the truth in our past like these filmmakers have done, and tread with caution when we try to impose our morality onto the past. Although it is good criticism to reflect on the weaknesses and mistakes of the past, it just isn't good history to do so. When you go to see this picture, leave yourself out of it. Let the characters speak for themselves, and they will enlighten us.
The tendency to evoke God in prayer was a real aspect of these men. Jackson was a deeply devout Christian, and the film reveals this to us very well. But his fury can be shocking; as when an officer asks mournfully "What shall we do?", and Jackson fires back "KILL them ALL!" Keep in mind, he is not a surrogate for us to live through the film, like most Hollywood histories. There is no character that walks through the movie with a 21st century mind and morality. It may be difficult for viewers to "identify" with anyone. It makes for good history, but it doesn't translate to most moviegoers.
The battle scenes are spectacular and harrowing. Don't expect "Black Hawk Down" or "We Were Soldiers" type of gore, but good, sturdy stand-up combat.
Several of the user comments that have been posted so far, seem to believe that Mr. Maxwell has purposefully left out the topic of slavery as a motivating factor for the combat that follows. This was no omission. By all means, the issue of the "peculiar institution" was a root cause of the differences across state lines. But as the year turned from 1860 to 1861, the sectional split between the states was motivated by feelings far more concrete than their frustration over slavery. The supreme irony is that, the South truly saw themselves as becoming "slaves" to Federal government and the populous North. They saw the election of Lincoln as an attack on their economy and way of life (It wasn't, but no one was listening by that point). The high tariffs on manufactured goods from Europe (to pay for road and bridge improvements) were seen as an unfair imposition by the industrial North. And above all, the right of states to determine their own laws and destinies was in question. They simply wanted out of the club; out of the Union. When those 7 Southern states left (and by their own admission, the perceived refusal to respect their property (slaves) was a reason for secession), and Lincoln called for troops to invade American soil, that was the last straw.
As Jackson calls the federal troops in the film "invaders", he and his contemporaries were clearly seen to be defending their homes and property. We have to remember that wrong as slavery was, it was LEGAL. An Alabama soldier was captured during the war in, of all places, Alabama. When asked by his federal captor his reasons for fighting them, he replied, "Because you're HERE." They weren't concerned with rights for African Americans, but they were dedicated to defending their homes. It's hard for us to separate the two, now that we know the outcome. Gods & Generals attempts to remind us of this fact.
I suppose some reviewers would have Jackson lead his men into battle shouting, "Let's keep others in bondage! Strike a blow for rich people to be able to own slaves! Hurrah!"
Let's hope that the controversy around God & Generals gets more people talking and debating the causes of the war. I hope everybody will dig in and find some great books about the people and events of that 2nd American Revolution. Turn off the TV and have a look at the real drama and action that made our country. In my opinion, Gods & Generals has done it justice.
This is one of the great American stories, and it has finally been respectfully put to film. These 3 men (and every actor and technician that worked on the picture) deserve our thanks for keeping this very special tale alive for another generation. Their dedication to accuracy and awareness of storytelling pitfalls gives this film a voice that will speak for decades to come.
Gods & Generals is special in that it really reaches for the truth in everything it does. The dialogue may seem leaden to our 21st century ears, the reasons for rebellion may contradict our understanding of the war, and the characters fight for their lives without an enemy that is truly evil. This is because the director has avoided the usual storytelling devices that are so commonplace. This story is told not through the lens of our sensibilities, but in an honest, fair, and unpartisan style. While many films seek to hold a mirror up to modern society, this picture is realy about the war; not now, but in 1861. There is no hunky white leading man (a la Pitt, Gibson, or Crowe) to growl, "Let's lock and load!". There is no black co-star to interject witty lines like "You got to do somethin' 'bout that beard... I mean, Damn!" And of course, the total absence of a heavy villain with a British accent (Jeremy Irons, David Warner, Alan Rickman) to say "Destroy them all!" is going to be a real problem for many movie goers. Sorry, most of the "babes" you will see are under 5 years old. Mira Sorvino has a bit part as a dutiful wife, but she has all her clothes on. Angelina Jolie and Kate Hudson will be in theaters next door.
Ron Maxwell and the Shaara family have spent more years preparing and telling these tales than it took to fight the entire war. They are a special breed of historian, in that they are committed to finding the truth about these great people that made our country. Their biases lean only towards Americans, not north or south.
Leave your notions at the door. The dialogue is real, not some prescribed feel-good schlock that powers most historical films (see Patriot, Pearl Harbor, or The Alamo). The costumes are impeccable. The commitment to accurate geography alone sets this movie in a world above other films. This story is worth telling, and more importantly, worth learning and remembering. We should seek the truth in our past like these filmmakers have done, and tread with caution when we try to impose our morality onto the past. Although it is good criticism to reflect on the weaknesses and mistakes of the past, it just isn't good history to do so. When you go to see this picture, leave yourself out of it. Let the characters speak for themselves, and they will enlighten us.
The tendency to evoke God in prayer was a real aspect of these men. Jackson was a deeply devout Christian, and the film reveals this to us very well. But his fury can be shocking; as when an officer asks mournfully "What shall we do?", and Jackson fires back "KILL them ALL!" Keep in mind, he is not a surrogate for us to live through the film, like most Hollywood histories. There is no character that walks through the movie with a 21st century mind and morality. It may be difficult for viewers to "identify" with anyone. It makes for good history, but it doesn't translate to most moviegoers.
The battle scenes are spectacular and harrowing. Don't expect "Black Hawk Down" or "We Were Soldiers" type of gore, but good, sturdy stand-up combat.
Several of the user comments that have been posted so far, seem to believe that Mr. Maxwell has purposefully left out the topic of slavery as a motivating factor for the combat that follows. This was no omission. By all means, the issue of the "peculiar institution" was a root cause of the differences across state lines. But as the year turned from 1860 to 1861, the sectional split between the states was motivated by feelings far more concrete than their frustration over slavery. The supreme irony is that, the South truly saw themselves as becoming "slaves" to Federal government and the populous North. They saw the election of Lincoln as an attack on their economy and way of life (It wasn't, but no one was listening by that point). The high tariffs on manufactured goods from Europe (to pay for road and bridge improvements) were seen as an unfair imposition by the industrial North. And above all, the right of states to determine their own laws and destinies was in question. They simply wanted out of the club; out of the Union. When those 7 Southern states left (and by their own admission, the perceived refusal to respect their property (slaves) was a reason for secession), and Lincoln called for troops to invade American soil, that was the last straw.
As Jackson calls the federal troops in the film "invaders", he and his contemporaries were clearly seen to be defending their homes and property. We have to remember that wrong as slavery was, it was LEGAL. An Alabama soldier was captured during the war in, of all places, Alabama. When asked by his federal captor his reasons for fighting them, he replied, "Because you're HERE." They weren't concerned with rights for African Americans, but they were dedicated to defending their homes. It's hard for us to separate the two, now that we know the outcome. Gods & Generals attempts to remind us of this fact.
I suppose some reviewers would have Jackson lead his men into battle shouting, "Let's keep others in bondage! Strike a blow for rich people to be able to own slaves! Hurrah!"
Let's hope that the controversy around God & Generals gets more people talking and debating the causes of the war. I hope everybody will dig in and find some great books about the people and events of that 2nd American Revolution. Turn off the TV and have a look at the real drama and action that made our country. In my opinion, Gods & Generals has done it justice.