Movie Recommendations
- Thread starter havoc
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Been watching movies lately. Akira Kurosawa films. They're great. Really brings you to that samurai era. I'd personally recommend Seven Samurai and Hidden Fortress instead of the more famous Yojimbo or Ran. Those two have the best adventures. I also watched Harakiri, but I wouldn't really recommend that one as it's mostly talking. The story is good tho.
Also, RRR is great. It has Bahubali's level of hype and heroism, but some of the fights get a bit too trippy. In Bahubali every fight is meaningful and doesn't drag on for too long.
Also, RRR is great. It has Bahubali's level of hype and heroism, but some of the fights get a bit too trippy. In Bahubali every fight is meaningful and doesn't drag on for too long.
In what world are Yojimbo and Seven Samurai not on the same level of recognition? Hidden Fortress even has the Star Wars connection. If you know who Kurosawa is you know those movies first and foremost. Try some of the deeper cuts, like High & Low, Sanjuro, Kagemusha.
Indonesia
Whatever world I'm in, I guess. I heard way more about Yojimbo and Ran than Seven Samurai and Hidden Fortress. Sanjuro dragged "the youths are incompetent and Sanjuro solves everything" too much, and Kagemusha is only great at the latter half because we barely got any time to care about the original Shingen.
The new All Quiet on the Western Front is a bit artsy, but entirely soulless and ultimately pointless movie. If you want to do an anti war movie, this is not how to do it. Endless stream of explosive gore that has little to offer but the shock value and so much establishing shots of a snowy countryside you would think it was yet another reenactment-group-short about the Ardennes offensive. Instead of a deeply personal story, there is a big void because one cannot form any opinion about or relation towards Paul as everything pre-war and the mid-war trip home are entirely omitted in favour of showing anonymous fat people with moustaches and croissants being evil and a sequence from Lord of War. Paul´s entire character arc, I kid you not, happens in the first 15 minutes of the movie. The rest is then an exploitation movie taking him from one bad situation to another, and a slasher flick, but you don´t care because if there was a mid-movie switch from Paul to Johann Doestein, another German soldier in the trenches, noone would have noticed. On top of that, the ending is so unbelievably stupid, ridiculous and insulting, it can even stand up to certain French New Wave films. Yes, I said it, endings of La Peau douce and Jules et Jim **** all over the Western Front´s ones.
Completely missed opportunity.
Completely missed opportunity.
I always feel like that kind of thing wraps around to being pro war, and artistic violence-obsessed people like Mussolini would have loved it. I got the exact same vibes watching 1917 and Dunkirk, which critics hyped up as masterpieces of anti war art but they just come across like video games where the violence is part of the entertainment. There is this tendency for modern filmmakers to think pornographic violence and epic set pieces are somehow compelling anti war motifs.
Hm, it never occured to me that 1917 or Dunkirk are anti war movies. Although, to be honest, 1917 at the very least has that nice twist about it all being pointless because they will just attack the next week or whatever. Dunkirk is a technology demo. It is possible to build an anti war film on heavy violence, but you either have to make it a literal Hell as in Come and See or Threads, make contrasts with non-violence or have it be surprising. This movie fails to do any of these, on top of turning Paul into a killing machine racking up more than 10 kills throughout the movie.
Maybe they weren't consciously intended that way, I dunno, but for months before and after 1917 came out, the British press was unanimously like "FINALLY, a film that shows the HORRORS of WAR" and gushing over its realism. Dunkirk was similarly advertised as "it feels like you're actually there, with the men, experiencing the war". Maybe that is more like a VR disneyland experience than anti war, but the amount of comparisons to other anti war films suggests to me that media journos interpreted it as the latter.
1917: why 'pacifist war movies' are on the march
Like Dunkirk and Jarhead before it, Sam Mendes’s epic eschews bloodshed and sabre-rattling by focusing on soldiers who don’t want to kill
www.theguardian.com
Film Review: 1917 delivers a profound and timely anti-war message
Sam Mendes' lean, suspenseful World War I drama "1917" pulsates with urgency and purpose
www.metroweekly.com
‘1917’: Sam Mendes’ Anti-War Movie Is More Than a One-Shot Technical Feat
Screenwriter Krysty Wilson-Cairns and actor George MacKay were integral parts of Sam Mendes' uniquely collaborative cinematic adventure.
www.indiewire.com
I was going to mention Come and See, because that film does the No Country For Old Men thing of not actually showing that much violence, just hinting at it. Even at the end when they shoot all the collaborators you never see it happening, it doesn't have a gratuitous scene of them being mowed down or blood spurts coming out of them or whatever. I think 1917 might actually have more onscreen deaths than Come and See.
Pretty sure Sam Mendes' stated intention for 1917 was just to show "a day in the life of a soldier" writ large combined with the messenger story. I don't think there's anything explicitly anti-war there save for the inevitable themes that will crop up when making a movie about such a disaster.
As for All Quiet on the Western Front, I have yet to see it but I'm looking forward to the scene with croissants being evil.
As for All Quiet on the Western Front, I have yet to see it but I'm looking forward to the scene with croissants being evil.
I like how both All Quiet on the Western Front - one of the most classic anti-war stories - and Top Gun: Maverick - an exceedingly war-positive movie - are both nominated for an Oscar for best picture 
I think that's it. Anything that isn't openly glorifying war and shows some shade of the "war is hell" trope or a sliver of critique towards military incompetence is immediately considered anti-war.
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny was a let-down.
It's technically and visually really well made. The first 20 mins. are enjoyable - a good start and introduction to events, with silly, over-the-top action. (The de-aging CGI technology still needs a bit of work, though). Other scenes are also visually top notch.
But I absolutely hate the premise and the ending. However, the story and characters is what bothers me the most.
The Helena character seems to be the driving factor and the initiator of most of the events, with Indiana Jones tagging along and helping with his knowledge. It's to such a degree that Indiana Jones seems to be playing second fiddle in his own movie.
Helena is practically the protagonist, without being particularly interesting (only interested in money, until - surprising no one - she isn't. What a trope).
Indiana Jones seems a bit feeble and naïve, without any of the resourcefulness and wit of the other movies.
Mason (CIA agent) is introduced as an influential character (I thought), but ultimately does nothing of interest.
The Nazi Voller is a nice character (and looks great) with historical references (Nazi scientist turned NASA asset), but could have used a bit more background.
Teddy serves as a Short Round replacement but doesn't quite have the same charm.
All in all there's a good film lying somewhere in the rubble of the script. Sadly it gave me PTSD flashbacks to the "Crystal Skull".
The 3 first (1980s) Indiana Jones movies are highly recommended.
It's technically and visually really well made. The first 20 mins. are enjoyable - a good start and introduction to events, with silly, over-the-top action. (The de-aging CGI technology still needs a bit of work, though). Other scenes are also visually top notch.
But I absolutely hate the premise and the ending. However, the story and characters is what bothers me the most.
The Helena character seems to be the driving factor and the initiator of most of the events, with Indiana Jones tagging along and helping with his knowledge. It's to such a degree that Indiana Jones seems to be playing second fiddle in his own movie.
Helena is practically the protagonist, without being particularly interesting (only interested in money, until - surprising no one - she isn't. What a trope).
Indiana Jones seems a bit feeble and naïve, without any of the resourcefulness and wit of the other movies.
Mason (CIA agent) is introduced as an influential character (I thought), but ultimately does nothing of interest.
The Nazi Voller is a nice character (and looks great) with historical references (Nazi scientist turned NASA asset), but could have used a bit more background.
Teddy serves as a Short Round replacement but doesn't quite have the same charm.
All in all there's a good film lying somewhere in the rubble of the script. Sadly it gave me PTSD flashbacks to the "Crystal Skull".
The 3 first (1980s) Indiana Jones movies are highly recommended.
To add to that, Ridley Scott's insane contemptuous comments about historical accuracy just baffle me. Nobody is forcing him (I assume) to make this film, but he seems to hate the fact that he had to make it. There was a bit of that in Kingdom of Heaven for example, but in his defense the sources for that are fairly sparse and he got the tone of the period more or less accurately. What's his problem now lol
Totally Agree, Napoleon is an insult to this great man, and his life. The movie should have been called "Josephine and him, the woke agenda"
If you want to see a good Napoleon movie, watch "Waterloo" with Rod Steiger, is FAR better.
If you want to see a good Napoleon movie, watch "Waterloo" with Rod Steiger, is FAR better.
Last edited:
Similar threads
