![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.220.101.49
'); } // End --> |
After reading for years that this was Sam Fuller's 'masterpiece',I finally watched this last night-or, I'll admit, I watched half of it. I just could not continue with the waste of time. So, perhaps the last half was really, really good. I'm afraid I'll never know.Within the first few opening minutes I knew suspension of disbelief was going to be a problem. How was Lee Marvin ambushed by a horse that's been a-snortin' and a-whinnyin' and a-runnin' all around the cemetary? Why was Lee happy to kill a German who approached with his hands up in the universal sign of surrender, but then be saddened to learn that he'd killed him after the Armistice had been signed? Shouldn't his CO, when he asked him where his rifle was, only to be told that the cranky-ass horse smashed it, asked him why he didn't just pick one up off one of the dead guys he's walking over? And why does Lee Marvin's character look exactly the same in WW2 as he does in WW1?
This was in the first five minutes. In the next five, we get the cast of stock all-American-cross-section characters, the horrid voiceover, the wooden dialogue without the acting chops to overcome it, the absurd beach landing in N. Africa, the total lack of pacing-qualities that will follow us throughout Africa and Europe as we trudge through the war.
Okay, I've vented enough. Maybe my expectations were too high due to the 'masterpiece', five-star label that this movie constantly receives. Frankly, it seemed like a B-movie with a larger-than-usual budget.
On the positive side, I watched Frankenheimer's 'The Train' on TCM a couple of weeks ago (a film made in the '60's) Now that's a war movie, and film in general, that shows a director who knows what he's doing. I liked it enough that I'll rent the dvd for another look.
![]()
Follow Ups:
I love old war movies, but only because almost all of the planes, armor, and ships used in them are long gone. Most of the movies are pretty bad otherwise, but a few actors stand out. Richard Widmark in "Halls of Montezuma" and Steve McQueen in several roles give fine efforts. Of course they're both great actors anyway....
![]()
not as much as watching wheat fields and Richard Gere for 100 minutes. When finally Richard was shot, I cheered "Too little, too late!"
![]()
I can assure you that war IS boring, for all its victims, usually far more boring than training for it can be. Even in anti-insurgency wars.Mostly you wait and wait and wait, and then suddenly, ... nothing happens! Even moving through country on operations is MOSTLY boring unless your sub-unit's on point, or your a pure grunt out on the edge.
You can get a staff job, and plan abit and mostly drink, and drink, and pocket piss, and drink and pocket piss, etc!
Very very occasionally it gets very noisy and scary, and crazy, for a few minutes, maybe an hour or so max, and then you wait, and wait, and wait!
there's even a song about it.
"why are we waiting,
waiting, waiting, waiting,
Oh why-y are we waiting
waiting, #$@&*@G, waiting'etc.
The other thing about war is - it is the quickest way yet found of mass destruction of wealth and human capacity!
War isn't fun or exciting, it's just a tragedy.
WarmestTimbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio ScroungerAnd gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
s
![]()
Haven't you heard of The Boer War?
What is more boring than crouching in mud and being blown to bits?
It's not something I would recommend to anyone for a day out.
![]()
high woo-woo factor, etc.) but I think most movie buffs can appreciate at least some of the scenes. Plus, aspects of war that are rarely-if-ever brought to the fore in a conventional war flick are given some attention (John Travolta's toadying suck-up, Nick Nolte's desperation to rise up the ranks on the backs of his men) At any rate, as a whole it was made with a professionalism that is head and shoulders above "Big Red". Personally, I'd watch "Thin Red" ten times before I watched another five minutes of "Big Red", if only because "Big Red" is so amateurish.I'll agree that Malick is not for everyone, but then that's one thing I appreciate about him: like it or not, he's got his own vision, and he sticks to it.
![]()
and Guadalcanal specifically, as a context for his views on man vs. nature.This is nothing new. War and battle have often been used to mine the 'true nature of man's soul'. Was Kubrick's 'Paths of Glory' a "war" movie? Not really. But it used one incident in WW1, and the characterizations of the men involved, to show the dimensions of man. Romantic. Realist. Coward. Politico. Criminal Murderer. And more. All revolving around Kirk Douglas's character's desperation to do the right thing in a world where morality is the only human condition that's not allowed.
![]()
In my opinion, it's about the effect that being in a war has on people.
The war itself is a background thing.
If you like shoot 'em ups go see... oh I don't know... a Rambo flick...
![]()
While I agree with you on "The Thin Red Line" I still feel that "Days of Heaven" is one of the most beautiful films ever shot
(and I live on the ocean).
![]()
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: