It is currently Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:51 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:31 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
davoarid wrote:
This part cracked me up—

Quote:
After the director warmed to the inspirational story and the screenwriter Dorothy Blyskal turned it into a script, Mr. Eastwood began auditioning actors for the leads. Mr. Stone, Mr. Skarlatos and Mr. Sadler suggested in jest that they should be played by Chris Hemsworth, Zac Efron and Michael B. Jordan. “I got a crazy idea maybe these guys should play themselves,” Mr. Eastwood said. “They’re genuinely charismatic. I figured I’d roll the dice, what the hell? What can they do to me at this stage?”

Ah, the Ridley Scott approach!


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:45 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
Actually, neither Iwo Jima nor Letters from our fathers are supposed to appear anywhere in a shot which is supposed to take place in 2002 !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM
davoarid wrote:
I just got back from this and, ooh boy...
I was leaning more toward "woof" or "<hissing intake of breath like I just skinned my knee>" as my post-screening exclamation, but that would also work.

Eastwood's latest is approximately 20% poor-man's-Greengrass true-life drama (mostly effective, actually), 30% bad European travelogue (in retrospect, maybe the movie was just Eastwood's way of treating the guys to the full European vacation they never got to finish), 30% baffling decisions to film seemingly random slice of life scenes that serve no characterization or thematic purpose whatsoever, and 20% God's Not Dead-style proselytizing (a character actor I usually enjoy literally shouts at a public school teacher early on, "My God is bigger than your statistics!", which... let me check... nope, says in this secular public school statistics book that statistics are still statistically larger). This falls squarely into the American Sniper trash can end of his late-career spectrum, never coming close to the imperfect but exponentially superior Sully. I can't think offhand of a worse choice of a major director to work with non-actors, especially with a script so insubstantial that it has no hope of offsetting the weakness of their performances.

I did like the real footage of Hollande's presentation of the Legion of Honor mentioned earlier (I think the actor was for the mid-to-long-range coverage shots, not the speech itself), but I have to admit that I'm baffled that - given the film's presentation of events on the train and my deep read of the Wikipedia article just now -
[Reveal] Spoiler:
these three got almost sole credit for stopping the attack, when a Frenchman initially confronted the gunman and a dual-citizen French-American wrestled the assault rifle away from him and was shot in the neck for his trouble. Certainly our three heroes deserve all the accolades for their actions, but where was the medal ceremony for these guys? This isn't a criticism of the film necessarily, more the post-event coverage and oddly selective spotlighting of participants.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:15 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK
So is this funny bad or just bad?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:32 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana
Finch wrote:
So is this funny bad or just bad?


Eastwood has made very good films and he's made very bad films. But he's never, ever made something this incoherent before in my opinion. Even the hideously untruthful American Sniper was more coherent than this. Coherent in it's bullshit but still all there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:29 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM
I went into it taking it seriously and hoping it would be a solid representation of the psychology behind a real act of heroism in the Sully vein, so it hit me as only occasionally unintentionally funny (God vs. Statistics, some of the terrible dialogue in the tourism scenes). That said, if you went into it with the right (wrong?) attitude, I could see it being somewhat amusing, but only to certain extent given the central incident.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], gerrit77, Google [Bot]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection