28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Qrazy]

This conversation has inspired me to finally get around to watching Black Rain and White Squall.

[Qrazy]

I think Alien is just 'rated.' I watched it a few years ago and it held up really well. Such interesting production design esp. for when it was made. Phenomenal cast too.

Well a lot of people say it's the best horror film of all time or top three sci fi films of all time. I'd say it's closer to top 25 for both categories.

[Izzy Black]

The Duellists and Alien are very good films as well. Gladiator I think is pretty good even if I have some major issues with it. Matchstick Men is quite stylistically interesting but the narrative falls apart in the final act.

I like The Duellists, but I don't agree with the rest. Matchstick Men's white glow is annoying.

Legend I find interesting as well even if it's hugely flawed. As someone arguing the value of effects work on Total Recall I'm surprised you wouldn't stand up for this one on that level at least.

Black Hawk Down is very well done for what it is aesthetically, unfortunately what it is is crap. Kingdom of Heaven had some nice moments but just couldn't come together overall. I've heard the Director's Cut is better.

I like Legend, but Black Hawk Down's aesthetic is poor to me, and Kingdom of Heaven is actually interesting, but overall, these considerations are not enough for me to favor Ridley to Tony.

[Pop Trash]

Well a lot of people say it's the best horror film of all time or top three sci fi films of all time. I'd say it's closer to top 25 for both categories.

True. Plus I think I prefer Aliens a wee bit more.

[Pop Trash]

What's everyone's issue with Black Hawk Down? I remember it being pretty well liked by critics when it came out. It's been years since I've seen it, but I don't remember it being any better/worse than something like The Hurt Locker.

[Qrazy]

What's everyone's issue with Black Hawk Down? I remember it being pretty well liked by critics when it came out. It's been years since I've seen it, but I don't remember it being any better/worse than something like The Hurt Locker.

It's very shallow, borderline racist, full of histrionics, basically pro-combat and fairly pointless.

I don't particularly like The Hurt Locker either but the scope is a bit broader there and it at least attempts a psychological examination of the main character.

[Qrazy]

I like The Duellists, but I don't agree with the rest. Matchstick Men's white glow is annoying.



I like Legend, but Black Hawk Down's aesthetic is poor to me, and Kingdom of Heaven is actually interesting, but overall, these considerations are not enough for me to favor Ridley to Tony.

Which aspect of the aesthetic? The griminess and color scheme? His mise-en-scene is at least much more interesting than many other similar films. He provides a good sense of geography and you get a sense of the scope of the extraction.

By stylistically interesting I mean the treatment of OCD in Matchstick Men.

[Pop Trash]

It's very shallow, borderline racist, full of histrionics, basically pro-combat and fairly pointless.

I don't particularly like The Hurt Locker either but the scope is a bit broader there and it at least attempts a psychological examination of the main character.

Hmm. I did notice it came out a few months after 9-11 which might account for some of the rave reviews.

[Dukefrukem]

It's very shallow, borderline racist, full of histrionics, basically pro-combat and fairly pointless.

Argh! You summed up exactly what I was going to say in response to his post. Hate that movie so much.

[Spinal]

Yes, nicely done, Qrazy.

[Rowland]

Black Hawk Down is mesmerizing to watch just for its masterful assemblage. Mise-en-scene, editing, spatial dynamics, and sure, a superficial layer of gloss, though nowhere near as off-putting as the worst examples of Hollywood military fetishism. The politics are debatable, but again, nowhere near as retch-inducing as the worst offenders of the genre. Or perhaps they are, I admittedly haven't seen it in years.

[D_Davis]

I like BHD for its depiction of combat. I've never been in a combat situation, but I imagine it is similar to what is shown in Scott's film. Scott uses the geography of the city to great effect - the film firmly establishes its setting and its use of place is masterful. It is borderline racist only in that it depicts what I think a soldier must go through in a kill-or-be-killed, no-win situation - they look at the enemy in the bassist of terms, as simply a thing that must be destroyed. I don't think it glorifies the military or combat, but only presents a desperate situation in which the human desire for survival kicks in to the nth degree. In no way would I ever want to be in that situation, and Scott does a fantastic job of demonstrating why.

[Sven]

they look at the enemy in the bassist of terms

[

Show Spoiler

]

Don't be deceived. He will stranglehold your rations.

[Qrazy]

I like BHD for its depiction of combat. I've never been in a combat situation, but I imagine it is similar to what is shown in Scott's film. Scott uses the geography of the city to great effect - the film firmly establishes its setting and its use of place is masterful. It is borderline racist only in that it depicts what I think a soldier must go through in a kill-or-be-killed, no-win situation - they look at the enemy in the bassist of terms, as simply a thing that must be destroyed. I don't think it glorifies the military or combat, but only presents a desperate situation in which the human desire for survival kicks in to the nth degree. In no way would I ever want to be in that situation, and Scott does a fantastic job of demonstrating why.

I only think this approach is justifiable if the film seeks to actively clarify that what we are seeing is filtered through the perception of the soldiers. Here though there are plenty of cut aways to things the soldiers couldn't be seeing (black people grabbing guns and yelling at each other) and really the film at large is adopting that perspective rather than seeking to comment upon it in any real way.

If the film did not feature the musical score it did, some of the emotive cut aways to other characters in places and certain stylistic tics such as slo-mo and such at crucial dramatic times then I would be inclined to agree with your second bolded point but as it stands I can not.

I do endorse others appreciation for Scott's visual and spatial craft in the film though.

[D_Davis]

You definitely raise some good points, Q, and I agree about the score. The film would have been better with no music at all.

[Watashi]

Zimmer's score for Black Hawk Down is amazing.

That's all I remember about the film actually.

[Ezee E]

I find it kind of weird that the only thing one could remember about Black Hawk Down would be the score.

The movie is possibly the best military movie of the 2000's. The layout of the city, military tactics, and execution are all superb. Sound, cinematography, and special effects are all seamless. It's incredibly well done. Thematically, it may have nothing to say at all, but that's not what the movie wants you to worry about anyways.

[Qrazy]

I find it kind of weird that the only thing one could remember about Black Hawk Down would be the score.

The movie is possibly the best military movie of the 2000's. The layout of the city, military tactics, and execution are all superb. Sound, cinematography, and special effects are all seamless. It's incredibly well done. Thematically, it may have nothing to say at all, but that's not what the movie wants you to worry about anyways.

Which is precisely what is wrong with it...

[D_Davis]

Which is precisely what is wrong with it...

Actually, that is precisely why it's so good. It's not saying anything, it is simply about the combat situation.

[Winston*]

That Reverse Shot April Fools joke comes from a place of such self-satisfaction that I find it hard to see the humour.

[Ezee E]

Which is precisely what is wrong with it...

How? The movie is a rescue mission through and through. It never tries to be more then that either.

[Qrazy]

Actually, that is precisely why it's so good. It's not saying anything, it is simply about the combat situation.

It really isn't though. It's not about exploring the nature of combat or the effect it has on men who engage in combat or why we engage in combat in the first place or the kind of men who engage in combat, etc. It has very little of thought to say about combat or conflict or anything at all. It's about portraying a visceral experience of it's own Hollywood creation in a patriotic manner in a propagandistic fashion.

Conflict is a universal experience. This film isn't in the slightest.

[Qrazy]

How? The movie is a rescue mission through and through. It never tries to be more then that either.

I expect a good film to say something of interest or value. You are arguing that this film doesn't even attempt that. That does not earn it any points in it's favor in my book.

It should try to be more than that.

Anyway, it is more than that. There's a fair amount of political commentary in the film, it's just not very insightful.

[D_Davis]

It's not about exploring the nature of combat or the effect it has on men who engage in combat or why we engage in combat in the first place or the kind of men who engage in combat, etc.

Exactly. It's not that kind of movie.

It's like a game. There are games like D&D that explore the characters, dramatic choices, and narrative impact. Then there are games like Advance Squad Leader which is a game of tactics and strategy completely removed from character.

BHD is the ASL of movies. It barely has characters at all. They aren't important. Their names and emotions are not important.

Obviously it's approach is not universally appreciated, and that's OK.

[D_Davis]

It should try to be more than that.

That's a terrible attitude. No film should do anything except for what it sets out to do. A film should be judged for what it is, not for what someone thinks it should be.