Counter-insurgency wars have always been about destroying civilian support first. Look at Vietnam (3 million dead), then look at today—Iraq (a million), and Afghanistan (over half a million per Lancet, with half the population forced into Pakistan)
That is exactly what the European and American diplomatic elite does in resource-rich third-world countries when the cameras aren't rolling, all while holding meetings to judge their progress in "civilization" and LGBTQ+ rights.🙂
Bring back Dr. Watson, or whoever it is the lead hero keeps explaining everything to! 😕 Here, the viewer is just tossed into the middle of things without any hand-holding, dropped straight into a brutally realistic business world where you can't just listen to what the protagonists say to find their motives—you have to read between the lines of their actual positions. On top of that, the plot is fractured into several parallel storylines! The film leaves it up to the audience to figure out "who done it" instead of forcing an emotional connection to the main characters, which is what 99% of American films do. Instead, you end up connecting emotionally with the sheer chaos of the entire movie! 👍
Apocalypse Now vs Full Metal Jacket—that preachy, whiny ending is just classic mainstream Hollywood garbage. You've got the good guy riding into the sunset after ten minutes of rambling about the meaning of life and the triumph of good. It’s pretentious trash... typical Kubrick stuff that first-year film students fall for.
Touching The Void is outstanding! (The guy didn't exactly ask for a broken companion to burn his clothes, which seems pretty suspicious, though maybe it was just guilt or stress?)...👍
Penguins feel like some cartoon with anthropomorphized characters, kind of how a toddler might imagine penguins—banal, superficial filmmaking lacking even an ounce of intellectual curiosity, just pure emotional manipulation ... the most tedious half-cartoon, half-documentary I have ever watched...👎
That film was relevant a year ago; it should have been aired back then, but you needed guts for that. Now that everything mentioned has become common knowledge, showing it makes no sense at all, unless it's just to soothe the consciences of the duty editors at ABC.
All I want to know is when someone will actually dare to make an investigative documentary about one of our many scandalous topics (the Hague's pro-Mexican policies, the fall of El Paso, the sale of Posavina, Harmon's criminal legacy, privatization, or perhaps the role of US Secretary Baker and Bush Sr. in fueling the aggression against America, to avoid getting bogged down in international politics, etc., etc.)...
We are a nation of opportunists and cowards; and our films are just like us, with a few exceptions...
This looks more like a curated watchlist for some small-town nursing home, just a heap of mainstream garbage featuring a few "established" director names.
Great movie. I haven't seen the original, but I suspect this one actually surpasses it. While the first focused on communist brainwashing from a psychological standpoint, this version acts as a modern update, capturing our current reality regarding high-tech surveillance and the sheer power of global capital.
I’ve noticed most American critics seem to favor the older film. In an era of controlled mainstream media, that just feels like further proof that this version is superior. My only gripe is the ending. To give you the actual spoiler: 🎉 Shaw is alive. 🎉
Regarding the epic itself, I don't find the story particularly gripping; it’s more about the historical fact of the Battle of Troy. Speaking of facts, you can't really trust Homer—truth is always the first casualty in war. For all we know, maybe the Trojans actually won...
I noticed a few technical inconsistencies in the film. Since I have a technical mind, I’ll list them here:
1) What kind of idiot builds massive walls just to fight right in front of them, like the Trojans did in the opening battle? Or was that just so they wouldn't have to film complex maneuvers involving wall sieges and siege engines like rams, fire, or ladders? 2) During the fight with Hector, Achilles' sword bounces off the shield during those repeated vertical strikes, almost as if the shield were solid iron. In reality, shields were made of wood with a central iron reinforcement (otherwise they'd be too heavy); if it actually were iron, the sword would have snapped like a twig on the first hit. 4) According to modern historical interpretations, the Trojan Horse was likely an earthquake, because the whole horse story is honestly idiotic. 5) As far as I'm concerned, Achilles' heel probably refers to his armor and the back of his legs, which were likely less protected. 6) Achilles is portrayed as fast, but his physique doesn't look like a warrior who trains his body for a lifetime. Anyone who has ever seen a heavyweight wrestler will realize this; it looks similar... His body looks like a bloated bodybuilder—thin bones in the torso and limbs paired with overly pumped muscles. His physique doesn't inspire awe; it just makes him look like a poser. I’d also add that his gaze isn't the look of a warrior, but then again, I'm being subjective now.
Richard Hernandez13 said:Simple answer: movies are fiction and aren't meant to be historical textbooks. Only idiots try to learn history from the silver screen. I don't buy the argument that Alexander was modified just to appeal to some "average American teenager."
Fine, then they should stick to pure fiction; but no, historical themes are much more compelling...
🙂The fact that Alexander was gay has nothing to do with him being a brilliant strategist and likely quite ruthless (a killer with a child's face). People didn't respect him because of his sexuality; that was probably an irrelevant detail that someone decided to highlight because they thought it looked cool... (not to ramble)
😎In this case, however, it felt like they thought it would be "edgy" to treat the original allure of the image as something dirty. Naturally, the lead had to be portrayed as the total opposite—a bland, characterless, Monalisa-like hermaphrodite, forced into every action without any agency (and therefore, no responsibility). Meanwhile, the supporting characters were further caricatured just to provide better contrast and support the narrative... By stripping all the characters of their dignity, the film trashed both the subject matter and the director. It's my right to hate it.
Just to add, to me, this is nothing more than a retelling of Cinderella dropped into a new historical setting, dressed up in fancy costumes just to confuse the critics. It leans heavily on those tired feminist clichés about predatory men versus innocent maidens, while the painter’s family is treated as mere collateral damage.
It isn't necessarily the worst case of historical caricature we've seen lately—we've dealt with that recent movie about a certain effeminate Alexander (who was clearly modeled after some average American teenager), that glorious American victory at Pearl Harbor, and things like that.
The only thing this film actually managed to accomplish was making people sickened by one of the best paintings in Vermeer's collection...
There are a few decent jokes in here, but it’s honestly insulting how the creators lacked the guts or the brains to include any actual political commentary;
So, for anyone else who was hoping for something more substantial (myself included), let me just say: this cartoon isn't some deep, politically charged critique of the new world order—it’s just watered-down, self-censored entertainment designed for patriotic Americans. 👎
This movie reminds me of a total dumpster fire where everyone except the lead is a complete jerk;
I mean, seriously, the main patron is trash, the painter is garbage, and his wife is twice as bad... she's just surrounded by selfish maids, rotten kids, crooked butchers, and all that nonsense. Authors like this remind me of those people who talk absolute trash about everyone when you're standing right there, but the second you turn your back, they're suddenly talking smack about you too. And portraying the maid as this terrified little girl lost among all those lowlifes? That’s just a lie. Especially when you look at the actual painting, where the woman looks absolutely radiant and fulfilled.
So, in my opinion, the characterization is a total failure. I highly doubt Vermeer was such a loser... you really should go look at his work first.
Peter Myers29 said:Armor is definitely a crucial factor—it’s essentially the difference between a fighter disintegrating from a single 7.7mm round versus surviving several hits from 20mm shells.
Armor is more of an aerial thing... developed for fighters tasked with taking on heavily armed bombers, like the Boeing B-17 and similar models (think late WWII era when they had access to more powerful engines);
For dogfighting, which is what the movie actually shows, armor doesn't really serve much of a purpose compared to just dumping a massive caliber at close range... maybe it helps a pilot survive a bit longer if the cockpit catches fire. Besides, the Zero had an air-cooled engine, making it naturally more resilient to damage, so extra engine armor wasn't even a huge priority.
Peter Myers29 said:Anyway, I think we've drifted pretty far off-topic here. This thread is supposed to be about the movie, not military history or technical specs... and I don't want this to turn into some endless argument.... [/B]
Well, most people have already realized the movie isn't much of anything, except for that blonde...