Movie Reviews

[Nomad]

What's wrong with "Jarhead"? My kid brother was a Marine, and he played so much pocket pool that if my sister in law hadn't duct taped his hands to his ears, I wouldn't have a niece at Oxford right now.

Hahahahahhahahaa!

[ANGRYCivilian]

Taxi Driver was awesome; I just watched it again over the weekend.

I saw Casino Royale Sunday. I think it is the best of the 'new' Bond flicks. It was aggresive and threw out all the over-the-top gadgets that were so cool in the old Bond flicks.

The torture scene was excruciatingly painfull...

[cams]

It pictured an ex-Ranger drug addict/drunk trying to deal with post traumatic stress disorder and become a police officer at the same time.

Shheeeit! There they go, making more movies about me again....fuckers. Ain't a dime to show for it neither.

[Steadfast]

Talk 'bout Deja Vu

Interesting premise for a story in post Katrina NO.

I enjoyed it.

[Invictus]

Saw Casino Royale with the wife Friday. It was a nice departure from the eye rolling bullshit of recent Bond flicks. He was much darker and had a higher body count.

1 of the chicks at least was hot. I give it an A.

[ANGRYCivilian]

The Fountain:

FUCKING TERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIBLE!

It made no fucking sense at all. It wasn't about finding the Fountain of Youth, it wasn't about finding the Tree of Life, it wasn't about Conquistadores, it wasn't about saving a man's wife, it was total bullshit.

[ANGRYCivilian]

Apocalypto: It's all in subtitles, but still pretty good.

[BruteForce]

We took the kids last weekend to see a pre-screening of The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause.

Great kid-friendly movie.. Mind you, my two boys are ages 8 and 12 (just).

Disney's site for this movie is: here

[Rico]

Apocalypto: It's all in subtitles, but still pretty good.

And grossly inacurate.

[JBB]

l agree lt was inaccurate with the time line and when the Mayan empire died out... l think that Mel mixed up the Mayans with the Aztecs... However l liked the hell out of the movie... and anyone else in Hollywood wouldn’t had the balls or creativity to make this movie... l enjoy a movie that keeps you on the edge of our seat the entire time and lt was one of those movies and more.

Wouldn’t take a wife or lady friend unless you are confident that they can take the blood and vivid images.


to think that people are going to miss this film because of the bad PR that Mel has gotten in the last couple of months is sad... lt's different, it's edgy, it's shocking, but it took balls to make. l would like to discuss the inaccuracies but would make this too much of a spoiler post.

lMHO, Worth checking out... but l can see where some of the far fetched parts of the movie would leave a sour taste in some people's mouths, but it's a movie not a documentary.

No offense Ranger j.rico... l can see where people of Mexican heritage and descendants of Mayan, Aztecs could have a different perspective than l have on the movie.[/i]

[Rico]

l agree lt was inaccurate with the time line and when the Mayan empire died out... l think that Mel mixed up the Mayans with the Aztecs... However l liked the hell out of the movie... and anyone else in Hollywood wouldn’t had the balls or creativity to make this movie... l enjoy a movie that keeps you on the edge of our seat the entire time and lt was one of those movies and more.

Wouldn’t take a wife or lady friend unless you are confident that they can take the blood and vivid images.


to think that people are going to miss this film because of the bad PR that Mel has gotten in the last couple of months is sad... lt's different, it's edgy, it's shocking, but it took balls to make. l would like to discuss the inaccuracies but would make this too much of a spoiler post.

lMHO, Worth checking out... but l can see where some of the far fetched parts of the movie would leave a sour taste in some people's mouths, but it's a movie not a documentary.

No offense Ranger j.rico... l can see where people of Mexican heritage and descendants of Mayan, Aztecs could have a different perspective than l have on the movie.[/i]

No worries, I just think that old Mel takes whatever he wants from history to make good film. Remember "Braveheart"? That film was a travesty of history, if looked upon from an educated standpoint you would think the film a satire.

Examples:

1. The battle of sterling bridge:

In the movie the battle was on a large plain with no bridge in sight, in real fucking life the battle was on a BRIDGE!! Wallace watched as the English came across the narrow crossing and ambushed them from around the hill he stood upon.

2. Robert the Bruce:

He is personified as a coward and traitor in the movie, but in actuality he is considered the liberator of Scotland. He even eventually became king of all England and Scotland.

3. William Wallace and his appearance:

William Wallace was a knight and would not have danced around the battleground in a loincloth and face paint. He wore armor, rode a steed, and was dressed in full knightly garb. However it is said that he carried a large sword.

The reason I am hesitant to see Mel Gibson's films is not his bad PR, but his disrespect to history, . I have a hard time thinking that if he were making Ranger Films and portrayed any past Rangers with the slightest inkling of inaccuracies, every one of my Brothers on this sight would feel disgusted.

[JBB]

your right Ranger, j.rico and make great points, but most films that come out of Hollywood that involve history are loaded with inaccuracies just as well. But l do agree..... Mel had the Kevn Costner persona in him when he played Wallace himself kinda like the "Rocky affect" of making an underdog turn to powerful character... film goers eat it up... sad that’s all that Hollywood worries about, but lt’s a business. But again your right no one has the right of changing how it really happened just to tell the story how the want to portray it.... but if you notice history books differ on many different points... just depends which country you live in.

[Invictus]

l agree lt was inaccurate with the time line and when the Mayan empire died out... l think that Mel mixed up the Mayans with the Aztecs... However l liked the hell out of the movie... and anyone else in Hollywood wouldn’t had the balls or creativity to make this movie... l enjoy a movie that keeps you on the edge of our seat the entire time and lt was one of those movies and more.

Wouldn’t take a wife or lady friend unless you are confident that they can take the blood and vivid images.


to think that people are going to miss this film because of the bad PR that Mel has gotten in the last couple of months is sad... lt's different, it's edgy, it's shocking, but it took balls to make. l would like to discuss the inaccuracies but would make this too much of a spoiler post.

lMHO, Worth checking out... but l can see where some of the far fetched parts of the movie would leave a sour taste in some people's mouths, but it's a movie not a documentary.

No offense Ranger j.rico... l can see where people of Mexican heritage and descendants of Mayan, Aztecs could have a different perspective than l have on the movie.[/i]

No worries, I just think that old Mel takes whatever he wants from history to make good film. Remember "Braveheart"? That film was a travesty of history, if looked upon from an educated standpoint you would think the film a satire.

Examples:

1. The battle of sterling bridge:

In the movie the battle was on a large plain with no bridge in sight, in real fucking life the battle was on a BRIDGE!! Wallace watched as the English came across the narrow crossing and ambushed them from around the hill he stood upon.

2. Robert the Bruce:

He is personified as a coward and traitor in the movie, but in actuality he is considered the liberator of Scotland. He even eventually became king of all England and Scotland.

3. William Wallace and his appearance:

William Wallace was a knight and would not have danced around the battleground in a loincloth and face paint. He wore armor, rode a steed, and was dressed in full knightly garb. However it is said that he carried a large sword.

The reason I am hesitant to see Mel Gibson's films is not his bad PR, but his disrespect to history, . I have a hard time thinking that if he were making Ranger Films and portrayed any past Rangers with the slightest inkling of inaccuracies, every one of my Brothers on this sight would feel disgusted.

Interesting points. I consider myself a student of history, especially military history, but I wasn't aware of the above points.

In his defense, I thought he did an above average job with "We Were Soldiers Once...and Young" based on the book. Admittedly, he didn't get into the actions at LZ Albany, probably due to time, but I thought the rest wasn't a bad tribute.

On his other "historical" films (The Patriot, Braveheart) I agree he took some serious artistic license. I don't count Gallipoli because he didn't direct that one.
I see he's on tap to play William Queen, a former SOG guy in "Under and Alone" a very good book on the biggest Federal undercover op targeting an outlaw biker gang. He's not directing though.

Thoughts?

[ANGRYCivilian]

I see he's on tap to play William Queen, a former SOG guy in "Under and Alone" a very good book on the biggest Federal undercover op targeting an outlaw biker gang. He's not directing though.

Is that the same thing as that movie that starred Charlie Sheene back in the '80s-maybe? I don't remember the name, but he went deep under cover and busted a biker gang. It was supposedly based on a true story.

With regard to movies, I see them as 95% entertainment and 5% promoting research, meaning I see a subject on the big screen and then do research about it if I want.