![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.160.130.12
immediately after it is engaged in combat. Worse, the tank commander appears to be having a breakdown while the rest of the crew either is incompetent or passive. Soon, they find themselves at the mercy of Lebanese Phalangists--- who, they have been told by central command, will lead them to safety--- but who appear to have motives of their own.
Claustrophobic, terrifying, and riveting portrayal of what combat inside a tank is like. Not the tour-de-force of a "Das Boot," but what is? This is very much worth your time.
Follow Ups:
.
Lebanon was technically very well done (acting, cinematography, sound design) but when it comes to "the point" I agree with you 100%. There wasn't one. And given the inability of Israeli filmmakers to take a 30,000 ft view, that's a good thing. Israeli movies are getting better but still are not great. Avoid Amos Gitai movies at all costs. What a waste of talent.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
He is critical of his country, Israel, as are many good Israelis. Gitai's father was a victim of Hitler's intellectual purges and was forced to flee.
Kadosh? Kippur? Don't you think it's weird that the only enemy you ever see in Gitai films are other Israelis? Even Lebanon showed that not to be the case.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
d
.
Edits: 02/27/18
original point.
As far as bureaucracy, you obviously didn't see "Lebanon." The tank crew repeatedly were told not to leave the area; they were told to trust in the Phalangists. The film also exposed the myth of the "superior officer."
The Israeli films, of course, had exactly the same "theme" as "Paths of Glory:" war is cruel, brutal, and senseless and the most devastating decisions are made by men who view the lives of their soldiers as pieces on a chessboard.
That "character development" thing has been overplayed by 10^16 times. People do not have to "develop" to be interesting. It is all just some dumb notion from the Appreciation of Movies 101. If normal people are too boring to you then you need to examine yourself.
![]()
.
You are wrong, of course. I can think of quite a few Norris' movies where his "character" "develops". In fact, "character development" is one of the regular cliche's in bad films.
I would much rather take viewer's development. Something that comes through brain activity, and not primitive writing.
![]()
.
![]()
That was a real weakness in the reality of the situation for me. The Debble is in the details.
![]()
dsfa
I personally liked it. Worthwhile viewing. Here's a trailer:
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: