Cool News
Tal sees De Palma's REDACTED in Vancouver and says, "Watch this f#%@ing movie!"
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here... I want to see this movie now now now! I want to see a Brian De Palma movie I can love unconditionally again. I really do. And it sounds like this might be the one.
Went to the Vancouver Film Festival, saw Redacted. It has to be one of best war movies I've ever seen. They're nothing alike, but if I had to choose, I'd put it ahead of Thin Red Line. Watch this fucking movie.
Redacted
De Palma De Palma De Palma.
I'm going to be honest and say I haven't seen many of Brian De Palma's films. Everyone has seen Scarface. Mission Impossible doesn't count. But I finally saw his infamous rock movie-musical, Phantom of the Paradise, a couple of months ago.
I sat through that whole movie grinning ear to ear. I don't know if I even liked it. But there's something truly extraordinary about its strangeness. There's an audition scene featuring the graceless Jessica Harper chicken-waltzing aimlessly across a stage. Surely De Palma realized how shitty her dancing was. But that's what makes it work. It's so unapologetically bizarre. "What? Phoenix dances any way she wants. She's a star. Fuck it." Cut to the diminutive Paul Williams lustfully pursing his tiny little lips and you have a cult film for the ages.
It takes gigantic, talented balls to make creative decisions like those. They hook you in. You have no idea what's going to appear on-screen next.
--
God, De Palma De Palma De Palma. How do I review your new movie without overselling it? How do I talk about it without hyping it up and ruining it for all the unfortunate bastards that haven't seen it?
Redacted is inspired by the actual murder and rape of a 14 year old Iraqi girl, and the slaughtering of her family, by four US infantry men in 2006. The movie imagines the events before and after this incident, and is told entirely through "found" footage: reenactments of footage either censored or leaked through the internet, and "collaged" together to form one, coherent narrative. The footage is displayed in a variety of formats and contexts: a French documentary, Iraqi news broadcasts, a streaming video on a Terrorist website, home video etc. You can't exactly describe it as a mockumentary (as we currently understand it) because some of the scenes are meant to be an accurate, albeit re-contextualized, depictions of actual, documented events. And it's obvious that the film is very methodical, well-rehearsed and scripted. Unfortunately the only other films I can think of that do anything remotely similar are the Blair Witch Project or Gang Tapes, and this movie is so much more sophisticated than either of those films. A montage at the end of the film not only reinforces the horrors of the Iraq war, but the film maker's painstaking efforts to be honest in their depiction.
Redacted marries theme, narrative and style so perfectly that they enrich each other. What I found most compelling is the film's depiction of new media, and how it's pervasiveness affects the way we experience the war here at home, and the experiences of the soldiers and Iraqis that are immersed in it. War is no longer fought on the ground. It's fought through bad press and leaked video and an insurgent execution on Youtube.
Three quarters into a movie, an crazed teenager gives a seething anti-American rant on her website. And it's not the rant itself that is significant, but the horror of the events that precede it, and the catharsis of broadcasting it. When the US military and government mechanically downplays the gravity a heinous crime, it shouldn't be surprising when the public's response is filled with hate and vitriol.
A great deal of the film is told through the digital video camera of one the main characters, Salazar, and you get the sense his mere presence escalates the tension and conflict between characters. There are moments where the actors performances seems melodramatic ... but somehow, like Phantom of the Paradise, it just WORKS. The CHARACTERS are melodramatic. They're being recorded. They're emotional and impulsive; they posture and grandstand. In a way, the characters are more believable when they ham it up for the camera.
Brian De Palma does not pull any punches. He is very deliberate in the violence he depicts, and the violence he does show is cruel, brutal and necessary. I'd be surprised if the film gets released in the US in the form I saw it. In a way, the whole cinematic experience reminds me of Requiem for a Dream. The film's style heightens and reinforces the drama on-screen, as the characters push themselves closer and closer towards their tragic, inescapable, and revelatory conclusion.
People have been ripping De Palma off for ages, and with Redacted, the real De Palma just owns them all. He out-De-Palma's HIMSELF. He does things stylistically that I don't think anyone has done, including himself, and it WORKS. He has essentially re-invented the war movie for the 21 Century, and I urge anyone that appreciates great film to see it.
--
Reviewed by Tal
-
+ Expand All
-
That's all I need to know. 'Thin Red Line' was 3 hours of cinematic torture I'll never get back.
-
War is hell.
This just bashes our military and gives comfort to terrorists.
They RAPED and murdered!
Says who? Some liberal commie douche-bag? A FRENCH documentary?
The facts are clear!
Facts have a well known liberal bias. Why do you hate America?
and so on... -
When compared to any *cough* hypocrites *cough* who preach down to Americans about code and conduct.
-
Damn you Michael Bay
-
and even DePalma's misfires are pieces of beautiful technical perfection. He is one of the few who still takes my breath away with his set pieces, plus Casualties of War rocks.
-
The Untouchables.....Fuckin Wow, Carrie.....Best King Horror Adaption, Carlito's Way.....my two favorite Sean Penn and Pacino performances plus some brilliant setpieces, Raising Cain.....brilliant mess and mindfuck of a movie. That is all.
-
Which has to be good. We can forget the last few years, this film sounds pretty special. A cross of 'good De Palma', Thin Red Line and Requiem for a Dream? Fuck yeah. I'm there.
-
the first is the only true mission impossible. Its convoluted yes, but not badly scripted and Depalmas handling of the action was far superior to even John Woo. His use of Multi-framing and amazing tracking shots created actual suspense. I know that may sound weird to you Bay fans out there.
-
When De Palma's on form he slays, not too enamoured with the subject matter sounds like a pretty grim two hours or so, I'd sooner he return to 'Femme Fatale' territory.
-
Can't wait to see this one. Femme Fatale was a hoot too. It actually went straight to video here in the UK. Oh and America is a great place, too bad it's been run by greedy corporate scumbags for the last 7 years. So, in conclusion, America = good. America's government = bad.
-
Tell me why is 4.5 million americans doesn't have health care??? And why it has the highest no of gun related deaths for like EVER??? And why you have half witted DUM FUCK of president who cant even spell out his fucking name???
-
And seems to have a weird fixation on guys in uniform raping people.
-
At the Q and A in Toronto, De Palma clearly mentions the similarities between this as Causalties of War, and that's why he wanted to make this, the same issues are occuring. One of he most powerful movies I saw this year though, and one of my favorites I've seen. Also, this movie is unfortunately absent in many of De Palma's stylistic visual choices in favor of telling the message through the selected media.
-
Sounds just like Casualties of War only updated to include internet bloggers and the New media types. I am sure there are a lot of internet nerds that will love the idea that they can affect the outcome of a war by screaming into their internet cam and posting it online.
I believe in an interview that De Palma said he was making this movie with the express purposes of turning people against the war in Iraq. I don't know about everyone else but after four years of nonstop media coverage of the war I have pretty much made my mind up and I doubt there are are many people out there still on the fence about whats going on over there.
I don't know if I want to spend two hours getting beat over the head about something thats already been beamed into my living room TV and computer for as long as I can remember.
-
Even during tbe rape scenes? From what I've heard about this movie, its not the type that makes you smile.
-
...than any other name director this side of Uwe Boll! (As far as name directors that still get work.)Let's count backwards...The Black Dahlia...Femme Fatale...Mission to Mars...Snake Eyes...Mission: Impossible...Carlito's Way (Yes, this movie is a pile of crap! This was an AMAZING critical pass because of the cast!)...Raising Cain...The Bonfire of the Vanities...Casualties of War...Wise Guys (Joe Piscopo, people!!!)...Body Double...Dressed to Kill...Home Movies...The Fury...Phantom of the (MOTHER FUCKIN') Paradise!!! ALL crap on a crutch allowed to walk because of director's name only.Sure, he had a few jems along the way...Carrie...Blow Out...The Untouchables...Yep...that's about it. Hell, I'd rather watch TRANSFORMERS instead of nearly ANY Brian DePalma flick. Flame me all you want, but just because a person gave you a few grains of gold to be found among a pile of horse shit doesn't mean you have to like him.I feel this movie is HIS play to feel relevant and needed.America bad. Rest of the world good. I get it.
-
And let's not forget Scarface. I know there's a need to paint directors as black or white, and being either awesome or complete shit...but DePalma has produced enough classic films to garner his reputation as a gifted director.
-
Everyone can have a bad day (even De Palma), but even on his worst days and doing his worst flics (mission to mars, femme fatale), he´s far superior to all those jokes calling themselfes "directors" these days. And everyone calling "Carlito´s Way" bad, is a morron IMO. You don´t like what his new film is all about, that´s fine, but he´s still one of a kind directors with visions and the ability to get to best from his actors.
-
Emo soldiers...
-
cojonuda
-
David Fincher, you out there? It's not too late!
-
Just replace the second half and we're cool. Maybe throw in a twist like Sinise NOT being the scumbag he seems like from frame one.
-
Antonio Banderas's part had John Cusak written all over it. Smartassed, semi-immoral slacker. Which of these qualities sounds like Zorro?
-
out De Palma's himself if they haven't seen that many of his movies? It's just a question. Because I am a fan and would love that to be true but from everything I've read before it doesn't sound like one of his films. At least it doesn't sound like it looks like one, so I'm curious, but not expecting a normal De Palma movie. We'll see.
-
"He out-De-Palma's HIMSELF." Yeah, considering the last time De Palma made a good movie, Reagan was in office, and the last time he made a watchable movie (Carlito's Way or Mission Impossible) it was over a decade ago. I'm going to take the over-under and say that this movie will be a piece of shit like Snake Eyes and Black Dahlia.
-
Pacino's great and Penn is phenominal but every second of Penelope whatsername is shit.
-
could it be said that this movie could represent a merging of reality and fantasy that could well lead to some very misinformed people? Particluarly given the fact that the subject matter will attract an audience with a strong anti Gulf War II viewpoint, it could create a dangerous echo chamber. As it is, I have already run into a disturbing number of young folks who accept JFK at face value.
-
Spandau Belly. James Ellroy saw the directors cut of Dahlia and said it was the best adaptation of a book of his he'd ever seen...then he saw the theatrical cut and asked "What the fuck did you assholes do to my book?"
-
"I sat through the whole movie grinning ear to ear"
That's a rather odd emotion towards a film about rape, murder, and war. -
Oct 03, 2007 8:01:30 AM CDT
So, I hear Spielberg just robbed his Indy IV office...
by stalin vs predator
...to make sure that no sites will now want to touch *any* Indy IV photo, fearing it came from among the purloined ones :o)
-
...was all Al Pacino. He gave that movie the COMPLETE boost and commitment it needed. Hence, in the end, why I firmly believe Carlito got the pass. Yeah, yeah...I'm the minority. Or maybe I just saw too many better movies about criminals before Carlito.But if a few 'classic' movies a director makes...than De Palma is heading to the footnotes of history....Quentin Tarantino...Orson Wells...Alfred Hitchcock...Woody Allen...Guillermo del Toro...Peter Jackson...Steven Spielberg...Francis Ford Coppola...George Lucas (yep, I said it!)...Michael Curtiz...Milos Forman...Bryan Singer...Sergio Leone...Stanley Kubrick...David Fincher...Andy & Larry Wachowski...Martin Scorsese...Luc Besson...John Huston...Ridley Scott...Roman Polanski...David Lean...James Cameron...Charles Chaplin (yes, he was a dirctor)...Akira Kurosawa...Clint Eastwood...Brad Bird...Elia Kazan...David Lynch...John Frankenheimer...George Roy Hill...Billy Wilder...Christopher Nolan...Mel Gibson (did I just write that?)...Frank Capra...Victor Fleming...Joel & Ethan Coen...Stuart Rosenberg...Hayao Miyazaki...M. Night Shyamalan...William Wyler...Terry Jones...Terry Gilliam...John McTiernan...Oliver Stone...Frank Capra...Rob Reiner...Sam Raimi...Richard Attenborough...John Ford...Franklin J. Schaffner...James Whale...Mel Brooks...Tim Burton...William Friedkin...Ron Howard...Richard Donner...John Carpenter...AND SO MANY OTHERS have directed more movies that have made bigger impacts on film making than De Palma has.Dario Argento has had a bigger impact than De Palma has!Think about it...Scareface, Carlito's Way...only two constants and only one of them turns in nearly constant good performances. And that guy isn't De Palma. No matter what your film class or hip friends tell you.
-
Heh.
-
the film starring paul williams. You assholes need to read the article. Anyway. I have no urge to see this depressing piece of crap. Don't we see this on the news? I'll save my $7
-
Looks like a horrible, preachy piece of crap. This review is a plant.
-
Without looking or feeling like anything DePalma has done before!?Confusing!Maybee you mean DePalma re-invents himself because this doesn't sound like a normal DePalma film, more like an MTV Michael Moore Pasteumentary which is fine and It at least sounds interesting and better than Mission to Mars!
-
Screw De Palma.
-
DEPALMA- Yet another anti american hollywood type. He said himself- he made this film to make AMerica look bad. This movie will make exactly zero money at the box office. Enjoy.
-
Oh ..... dear ........ god NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
-
If you're going to release a piece of shit movie like this, can you not at least wait until the fucking war is over?!?! Really, I have absolutely no respect for this director, and indirectly, soldiors are going to die because of this asshat.
-
Oh, that Delpalma.... I had enough after he made Antonio Banderas into a gay bellhop.
-
This movie sucks on almost every level. I saw it in Toronto about a month ago. This reviewer is on crack or something.
This is a war movie on par with something a student in their first year of film school would make. Except, in that case, the horrible acting might be a bit more acceptable.
It honestly baffles me that someone of DePalma's talent has made something so horribly one-note and juvenile.
Hey guys! The war was a bad idea! AND BAD THINGS HAPPEN IN WAR!! Wow..... profound.....
-
I actually read that list, and some of them you are bang on with- but: Bryan Singer, Shyalaman, and the wachowski hybrid? no way.
-
You can hear a 2 hour podcast paying tribute to Brian De Palma with his closest friends and collaborators at:
http://blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?show_id=34402 -
I mean... what? I thought we were discussing Tomie dePaola.
-
At times like this, I am embarrassed to be a member on this site. Love it or leave it, you bastards.
-
Just Checking.
-
Brian DePalma didn't have to watch his wife JUMP from the 89th floor of Tower one to avoid being burned to death on 9/11. I'll bet that when his wife dies, he'll have an actual body to bury. But, OUR soldiers are ALWAYS the problem, right, moron?
-
...when is a Hollywood director going to make an Iraq war movie showing some Iraqi scumbags plotting to kill and actually killing our soldiers. Oh wait, that doesn't happen, right?
-
For not getting Carla Gugino completely naked in "Snake Eyes." For SHAME, Brian!
-
thanks for going way out of the way to prove that you like decent movies or know the names of a lot of directors.
-
How many of the detractors here have ever enlisted?
-
I have to laugh at Negative Man talking out of his rectum. M. Night Shyamalan above DePalm? Fuck off. He done one film based completely on a twist that had been done before then cranked out shit of decreasing quality ever since. DePalma has had a few shit films, but has also made the likes of The Untouchables, Scarface, Carlito's Way, Blow Out and Carrie. M Night Shamalamadingsong can't lace that guy's fucking boots.
-
And Redacted is a film I can't wait to see.
-
To clarify ...
The movie is nothing like Thin Red Line. Both Redacted and Thin Red Line are very good at what they do. But in my personal, internal cache of films I've seen and remember, Redacted deserves bigger props for it's audacity, passion and innovation. To me, it's in that same strata ... I probably won't see Thin Red Line again any time soon, but I'm definitely revisiting Redacted.
I was grinning from ear to ear through "Phanotm of the Paradise". You should check it out, if only to say you saw one of the weirdest movie musicals out there.
Yes, this movie makes America look bad. It also makes the media look bad. It makes the soldiers involved in this specific crime look extremely bad.
In an earlier draft of this review, I slammed Fahrenheit 9/11 as piece of partisan hackery. I remember seething through that piece of shit.
Thankfully, Redacted has so much more to offer than just an anti-war message. It's explores the effects of the media on war, and vice versa. It's explores how war and power corrupts people, or attracts the corrupt. It has great performances and a director that takes some big risks.
It's really hard to describe this movie without misleading people. It's just Brian De Palma on top of his game. -
I'm guessing you'll be grinning from ear to ear.
-
It saves me time and money.
-
who freak out about "Anti-American" films are really doing their own country a disservice. A true patriot is willing to face, and in this case address, the problems within their country. America is a great place, with many wonderful people, but its leaders are scum, and some of their people commit awful acts, it is not Anti-American to highlight these facts.
-
needs to get his facts straight...they are working to clear the men who were accused of this. way to be ten years late tot he party depalma.
hollywood needs to get their ear to the grindstone and make movies again, not propoganda drivel.
john wayne is rolling over in his grave some more. -
look at what you wrote...america is a great place with many wonderful people. and then followed by some people commit awful acts. why MUST hollywood make movies on that 1%? i do agree that ALL of are politicians are scum, but isnt hollywood about art and entertainment? these movies are representations of what CNN reports. ill stick with movies that help me escape the realities of day to day news that blares on my tv 24-7. because that is why i go to the movies, for escapism from reality...one simple reason why a lord of the rings, indiana jones, and star wars do so well at the box office.
-
"propoganda drivel", The Green Berets.
-
Like I said, the movie I'm referring to as having me "grinning ear to ear" is Phantom of the Paradise. Read the review again.
-
Just awful. When Tal said he was grinning ear to ear, he wasn't the only one. People at my screening were laughing. That should give you a pretty good idea how hamfisted it is. By comparison, Crash is a model of restraint. Actually, my biggest complaint with the film is that it wants to be looked at as a documentary, but the filmmakers took none of the risks involved with actually filming an Iraq War documentary. There's nothing at stake. I saw "Heavy Metal In Baghdad" and those motherfuckers risked their lives to make a statement about the Iraq War. DePalma rented himself a soundstage and got some non-professional actors and played war for 12 hours a day. And speaking of non-professional actors, boy, do they suck. Each and every one of them is an archetype. They don't feel like real people. Not for a second. And when you're trying to mimic a documentary it might help to have characters that feel like something other than a cardboard cutout.
-
There is a place for all types of films, pure entertainment, art, whatever. The vast majority of which are not Anti-American. Oh, and yes, ALL politicians are scum, America do not have the monopoly there.
-
My bad.
-
Maybe this movie will get loads of media and talk'about everywhere outside America. The concept of being "anti-american" is all around out here these days.
-
plasticman2000 says it sucks, I'm not surprised. People think Requiem for a Dream and the Fountain sucked too. It's not for everybody. But saying a first year film student could do this is ludicrous. It's the kind of movie a first year film student will try to rip off and fail repeatedly, over and over again, because he's missing the finer points.
Media itself - the news, the web, film - is a character in this film, and that's what distinguishes it from other movies.
The character's themselves are cliched, and quite frankly, people are cliched. The average person is really obvious and not that clever. If you're used highly fictionalized, urbane, fantasy versions of people (like in Wes Anderson movies) the characters in this film may not be "fancy" enough for you.
I openly admit that I haven't seen many of De Palma's movies, but I'm conscientious enough to sense that Black Dahlia and Snake Eye were going to suck, and not indicative of this amazing De Palma guy everyone talks about. I'd prefer watching these unknown actors over Nicholas Cage breathing through his mouth.
But isn't it a testament to the Redacted that I want to see all of De Palma's movies now?
-
Which directors do you like?
-
"what's the last De Palma movie that was really any good?" Since The Untouchables? He's made at least one great war movie (haven't seen Redacted yet), one beautiful Gangster film, and easily the best Mission Impossible film of the three, it's also one of the best blockbusters of the 90's.
-
Regarding your list of directors you claim have had a bigger impact on film than DePalma, the first director you named was Tarantino, and he himself claims to have been greatly influenced by DePalma, and he loves the movie "BlowOut", which is one of the reasons he campaigned so hard to get Travolta in "Pulp Fiction". So already evidenced by your list, DePalma has greatly impacted film just by one of the directors he's influenced.
-
that America is the greatest country on Earth." Sorry, you lost me there mate. It's people like you that give Americans a bad name. Bye.
-
Seriously, I don't remember you being pleased with anything film related...or happy about any directors. I've sometimes wondered, for those people on the right who base their movies on political ideology, what exactly do they watch? Care to share?
-
I already conceded that fact in the talkback...but thanks for being smug. Jesus, everyone is so touchy in talkbacks related to politically charged films.
-
I would have thought Frank Capra was too sentimental for you. But the only directors still making films are Coppola and Spielberg. I think if some of those others were still around and making movies, they might be saying things with their craft you wouldn't like. The arts are a liberal medium in general.
-
Thanks for proving that you're not touchy about this. Is it me that you're mad at, or the world?
-
People that claim America is the greatest country on Earth give Americans a bad name??? Name a better country to live in.
-
But to act like all our soldiers over there are murderous, rapist thugs being destroyed by GWB's ill conceived invasion is ludicrous. I have no problem with a director making any movie he wants, but this is clearly doing more than telling a story that happened in Iraq. He is trying to suggest that this is indicative of ALL soldiers, and who in their right mind could support such nonsense?
-
Don't lose me now! Return of the King is definitely going to be an all-time classic (mind you, not alone, but with the two preceding films). You're right about the others though (except maybe Million Dollar Baby, which I think was expertly made in a straighforward, minimalist way we rarely see nowawadays).
-
There's an abundance of crap in movies these days, and I guess this is the place to vent. Ultimately though, movies, and the hate of bad ones, should be all in good fun. Agreed about Billy Wilder. I just saw "Sunset Boulevard" for the first time this week.
-
'cause it was incredible! I thought I knew a lot about WW2, but man, I learnt me somethin' about the war watching those 14 hours! I used to think that we might have been wrong to nuke the Japs, but after watching that, I think it was the only thing we could have done to win the war and save lives, not only on our side but Japanese lives, as well. (huh?) Yeah, despite the fact that we killed probably 500,000 people with Fat Man and Little Boy, the lives that would have been lost on both sides during a ground invasion of Japan would have been much higher, 'cause Japan was ready to go down fighting to the last man, woman and child. WW2 was FUBAR-ed, no doubt! It also made me realize how we're never going to win the war on terror. Why? Because unlike WW2, terrorists don't live in one country that we can attack and force to surrender, unlike Germany and Japan. (and Iraq and Afghanistan don't count, because unlike G and J, they don't officially sponsor terrorism, and those countries haven't attacked us or declared war on us, either.) Even if we capture and kill Osama tomorrow, it won't end the war on terror, 'cause another head on the Hydra will pop up and we won't be able to have a true victory like at the end of WW2. We might be able to eventually kill the bad guys, but we'll never actually "win" this war. (Unless a middle-Eatern country like Iran, open declares war on the U.S. and attacks us, but that'll NEVER happen, 'cause they KNOW we'd bomb them even FURTHER back into the stone age!) War sucks!
-
I agree that he's lost some steam, but The Fury, Sisters, and Dressed to Kill (though completely ripping off Psycho) are pretty damn good films.
-
You're clearly a fucking moron. I do not debate with morons.
-
but they weren't officially sanctioning or declaring a war of terror on the U.S. as a country. (And there IS a difference)
-
Huh.
-
You guys are gonna feel mighty silly for arguing about it. That would mean the film warranted some kind of discussion. It doesn't. Not unless you want to talk about the headache you got from being clubbed over the head with such pedantic "observations" (war dehumanizes people, revenge is hollow...)
-
Right on. Like when Antonioni ripped off "Blowout" and turned it into "Blowup". That hack barely even changed the title. And that super cool scene in Untouchables with the baby stroller, some guy ripped that off and took it back in his time machine to the year 1925 and put it in his film "Battleship Potemkin". DePalma totally can't catch a break. Tal, your knowledge of film history is remarkable.
-
But what does it have to do with DePalma being a bad director and Redacted being a horrible movie? Focus, buddy.
-
was that, unlike WW2, the war on terror has no clearly defined enemies like Germany and Japan, and that we'll never have a decisive victory on terrorists, be they al quaeda, Taliban or whomever, like we did in WW2. (and I always thought the Taliban was leading the Afghan government around like a puppet; they had a gun to their heads and did what they were told, unlike Nazi Germany and Tojo Japan, which were gung-ho for world domination and the destruction of the U.S.)
-
Keep the truth spreading man.
-
While there are crazy Christians in America, me NOT being one of them, they shouldn't even be put in league with terrorist organizations of the Islamic kind.
-
I'm interested to hear why you brought up the comparison? Are you anti-christian?
-
Of the brain cells that were "mudered" every time mom dropped him on his dirty, morbidly-obese-for-a-child, head.
-
is a really good serial killer movie by the guy who directed The Host. And this clown is befouling its name.
-
People have been ripping off DePalma for years? Actualy DePalma made a career of ripping off Hitchcock. Better than The Thin Red Line? Well, that's easy. Thin Red Line was beautifuly shot, but lacked logic, continuity and a cohesive story. War is no longer fought on the ground? That was one of the stupidest statements I've heard in a long time. I believe you meant to comment on how War is reported, not fought. DePalma is an over rated hack who hasn't made a watchable movie in 20 years.
-
Man, you guys really want to hate this movie. Maybe you should write a review. Oh wait, you haven't seen it! Twats.
Politics aside, is it that hard to imagine that Brian de Palma made an interesting movie? I'm sure some of the movies he's made are truly awful. But the guy did do Carrie. And Scarface. Those were flukes?
I was just as surprised as anyone by how impressed I was with this movie. I couldn't believe this was the same guy that directed Mission Impossible. The film just worked for me.
It's not like his career is spotless, but who's is? What has Francis Ford Coppola done lately? When was the last time George Lucas made anything good?
De Palma isn't perfect director. But a "bad director"? A "hack"? Uwe Boll is a bad. McG is bad. Michael Bay is so bad he's become almost critic-proof ("What did you expect? It's Michael Bay movie"). Even Brian De Palma's "flukes" are better than any of these director's best efforts. Keep shit in perspective.
-
...You mentioned one soldier who threw himself on an IED. There were four soldiers who raped a child and murdered her family. So, by your reasoning, wouldn't it in fact be more realistic to portray them all as rapists, rather than self sacrificing heroes?
Oh, and USS Cygnan...What does someone jumping out of the WTC have to do with Soldiers raping kids in Iraq? You've lost me there.
I'm no fan of Depalma, and I'm pretty centered on my political views, but jesus, you wanks never shut up about being fair and balanced, like there isn't enough pro war propoganda already out there for you. I would say, if you don't like it, don't watch it. Vote with your wallet. But whats the point? We all know that nobody is going to go see this flick anyway. Sounds kind of tossish. -
rips off Hitchcock. He is the Suspense Thriller Genre. I'm some what interested in seeing Redacted. Looks like a grittier Casualties of War without the gloss and the name actors.
-
No, I meant what I wrote. You're just being to literal. I'm sorry this review a wrote for fun at 1:30 in the morning isn't lucid enough for you.
If you watched the movie, you'd realize that the use of media goes beyond mere "reporting", and how the act of documentation can be used to intimidate and escalate violence. -
I registered just to add to this talkback. This movie may blow chunks, but I really don't think that's the point. I believe Depalma was trying to shed some light on an horrific event that occurred during a criminally ill-advised war. To think that some of you feel that our "national pride" is more important than the fact that a teenage girl was raped and that she and her family were murdered. Ask yourself this -- what if that had happened in the U.S.A.? The animals (yes, the men who actually did this are lower than scum-sucking pigs) who did it, would be condemned on all levels, regardless of their military affiliation. But I guess because the girl and her family were Iraqi, that makes the whole incident somewhat less important. This leads me to believe that many of you feel that AMERICANS are "superior" to everyone else in the world -- that they are more deserving to be alive. If you study history, you will find that there was a similar sentiment in Germany in the late 1930's. Greatest country in the world, huh?
-
anchorite has acolytes now! The end is truly near. I must observe, lovely anchor, that you automatically react defensively and nastily to EVERY project, either announced or released, that seems to have a point of view other than "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" Why? There are stories to be told wherein the U.S. powers make bad choices that lead to horrible consequences. What about these stories terrifies you so? They can be treated simplistically and polemically, sure, but they can also be told with complexity and wisdom. As can films which accentuate the positive use of power. Stop being so childishly chicken.
-
This douche-nozzle comes here to bitch about "rhetoric", yet spouts off a SHITLOAD of his own?? Read up on it, you ignorant fuck. They were TRIED and CONVICTED. Way to support putting our troops in DANGER for an ISOLATED INCIDENT. You and people like you are BELOW the soldiers convicted of this crime, asshole. Hide behind your monitors and make vicious and unfounded statements against those who put their life on the line EVERY SINGLE DAY. I can see WHY you have a sense of "superiority". YOU get to complain about MOVIES on the INTERNETS.
-
Fundamentalist Christians are not terrorists. But they are, similarly to the Islamic population that generates terrorists, short a rational, scientific, modern, way to go about understanding themselves in today's world. They, like fundamentalist Muslims, refer to a poetic text and an often terribly shallow history of religious "commentary" to judge the worth of others. Their ignorance can lead to inhuman, criminal, maybe even terrorist behaviors. Mathew Shepherd was tortured and killed because of a fundamentalist, anti-modern, cultural strain of "Christian" thought that deemed homosexuals evil. Fundamentalist Christianity is of course constrained by the plurality of other American perspectives and hasn't risen to the level of violent hate reached by the so-called "Islamo-fascists", but they aren't as far apart as some people like to think.
-
Which is why I'm so certain it sucks.
-
There is a difference between skipping over a "stream", and travelling across an OCEAN. So saying they "aren't as far apart as some people think" DOESN'T mean they AREN'T "far apart". Jesus, some of you are pathetic. ANYTHING to try to further YOUR way of thinking, eh?
-
So who gets to decide what stories are "important" enough to be turned into film? Is Toy Story more important? How about Invincible? The Chronicles of Riddick? This may be an intelligent treatment of a story that exists within a terribly complex context of politics, grief, rhetoric, and valor. We don't know yet, at least most of us.
-
Your post proves my point. If you were truly American in spirit, you would understand that dissent and free speech are FUNDEMENTAL American beliefs. Yes, unfortunately girls get raped every day. But not so common is when the act is perpetrated by a GROUP of AMERICAN SOLDIERS who were in Iraq to protect innocent civilians in the first place. They PRE-PLANNED it and then tried to COVER IT UP. I think that is disturbingly unique enough a situation to make a movie about it. Who is more ignorant, someone who will question the events that are happening? Or someone who just marches in lock-step with all the garbage spewed out by conservative media? There is a difference between having a problem with America itself and having a problem with America's current leadership and policies.
-
Are you suggesting I'm pathetic? I don't understand what, exactly, about my argument you take reasonable issue with. I began saying that fundamentalist Christians are not terrorists. I then argued that they have an unreflected upon devotion to "the word" which can be dangerous in a similar way that radcal muslims have toward the koran. There are many cultural, historical, and theological differences which have not led American fundamentalist Christianity toward terrorist behavior, but a rational discussion of the fundamentalist mind must be able to identify pretty sizable area of overlap between both cultures. They are not exact, and their behavior is very different, but there are parallels that are easily discerible. Easier than many would like to admit. That argument is not pathetic; refusal to join a conversation rationally is.
-
He was "inspired" enough by Kubrick's score for Barry Lyndon that he uses it here, note for note.
-
watching the "patriotic" idiots explode (pun intended) on this thread. It's no use engaging in debate with these types, as they will continue to spew the same bullshit they've been fed, regardless. One thing though, isn't Bush a born again Cristian who is on a "crusade" to attack every towelhead country he can, that were all armed in the past by the good old US of A?
-
I'd love to read it.
-
When did I ever write, "All American soldiers are BAD because of this incident"? Some of you really read a lot into these talkback postings. Contrary to popular belief, you CAN support the troops and not support the war. I must say, the word "ignorant" sure gets tossed around a lot. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
-
Long time, first time.I agree with the point Holy Hell was trying to make. I differentiate between ideology and violence.In terms of violence perpetrated, obviously Radical Islam takes the cake. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. But in terms of ideology, Radical Islam and Fundamentalist Christianity are similar, like Holy Hell said.Pat Robertson, a prominent Christian, has said on his show that the extermination of gays is a good idea. I'm not trying to bash Christianity, I know he doesn't speak for everyone or even most people, but he does have a large influence over some people.To me, him saying that is no different than a Radical Muslim saying the extermination of Isreal is a good idea. Now, like I said, Radical Islam goes much much further in terms of creating violence, but I hope you can understand the basic point that Holy Hell was trying to make that ideology is universal.
-
Except you are bringing up things the "Church" did IN THE PAST. Radicals? They are CARRYING THEM OUT TODAY. If YOU can't see the difference, YOU are PATHETIC. And C Legion? You are a fucking moron, who refuses to acknowledge the FACT that you are, INDEED, a moron. Debate? You sad, fucking shithead. To "debate", you FIRST have to have a POINT.
-
I believe it was Robertson who also blamed lesbians for 9-11. That is dangerously anti-modern and finds a friend in radical Islam. By the way, I am a practicing Christian absolutely disgusted with the fact that the fundamentalist strain has seemingly hijacked the religion from decent, curious people. Perhaps that explains my passion.
-
Bush is a devout Christian,he is exclusively attacking Muslim people. He himself discribed it as a "Crusade". Now go visit Wikipedia then come back and debate.
-
You are either drunk or four years old. The first example I chose, Matthew Shepherd, occurred something like 15 years ago. The example I just posted, 9/11, occurred 6 years ago. I wasn't discussing the crusades. An ammendment: pathetic is not only refusing to join a conversation rationally. It is also not respecting yourself enough to read effectively before insulting people in ridiculously impotent ways. Go back to school.
-
It WAS Robertson that said that. Gays and abortionists, don't forget the abortionists.
-
I do see the manifold differences. I noted a few. What is your point, anyway? Seriously.
-
I refuse to waste another minute writing about it. Here's my review in a tiny nutshell: There's a big difference between having something insightful to say and simply pushing buttons.
-
...I can't wait.
-
What's "Religulous?"
-
supposed to sound something like "ridiculous"...not much info on IMDB, but you can see various TV appearances by Maher where he talks about it by searching the title on YouTube or Google Video.
-
thank you Broose. I'll investigate.
-
... cops out.
It's unsurprising. It's easy to dismiss the film as more partisan sentimental hogwash. Personally, I feel Redacted is a legitimate work of art.
-
DePalma is not Oliver Stone or Michael Moore. He may very well hold principles which we could identify as "liberal", or more pointedly, "anti-war", but his portfolio is hardly made up of leftist political propoganda. Be real for God's sake. I am not defending the film, I haven't seen it. Why are you damning the film before YOU have seen it? Same question I asked earlier: what are you afraid of from films that tell stories of American abuse of power? They can be crap, but they can also be smart. Just like pro-soldier films can be good (We Were Soldiers, Three Kings) and derivative, dishonest tripe (Behind Enemy Lines, FlyBoys). YOU are a fundamentalist nationalist. Try opening your mind to other perspectives. That doesn't mean a wholesale value of your critical faculties or your American pride. On the contrary, it will sharpen your ability to argue toward truth and can strengthen the character of our country. I'm not asking you to have any particular opinion; I'm asking you to consider the intelligence with which you come to your opinions. Reason is not in evidence.
-
...but I have to give him props for making me laugh out loud in the middle of the airport with his Scorcese post. Good show, anchy. Stick to movie stuff and I could read your posts all day. But when you start quoting Wikipedia as though you researched the validity of anything contained therein on your own and as though it somehow proves that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, you just make yourself look sad. Very few folks still labor under that fabricated impression and most, fortunately, are too ignorant to figure out where their desingated voting places are. I know you are smart enough to know how hollow your arguments are, so I have to wonder if you haven't secretly switched sides and you're now just trying to make the most faithful of the brainwashed seem even that much stupider for continuing to swallow what the Bush administration feeds them to justify this illegal, immoral, ill-conceived war. All of that said, I can't help but think this movie is wholly unnecessary at this point, and for many of the reasons I've pointed out above. There are so few people who actually believe anyuthing good is happening over in Iraq due to the U.S. presence any longer and the accounts of misconduct by U.S. soldiers and contractors are so well documented and thoroughly publcized that making this movie is almost a metaphor for its subject matter: the rape of a tired, beaten victim. It's almost a cheap shot. De palma can do better.
-
Any person who wants other people to die because of their beliefs is dangerous. Across the board. Secularists who want Christians to die are dangerous. Fundamentalists who want gays to die are dangerous. Everybody who wants someone else to die is dangerous.To me, there is a difference between faith and religion. Faith is when you take the basic teachings and principles and you turn them within and you use it to improve your life and your outlook on the world. This is beautiful and I would never denegrate anyone for their faith. Religion is when you take those basic teachings and principles and project them outwards in order to manipulate and indoctrinate people. There are strains in every religion that does this and they are dangerous. As has been said, these strains in Islam are the most violent in the world. But that doesn't excuse the less violent strains in other religions. And in this country, people are more exposed to those strains of Christianity. Calling out a Pat Robertson for his hate doesn't equal calling out the nice, sincere family that goes to churhc every Sunday. Their faith is good. Their faith is beautiful in my eyes.
-
I do not hate fundamentalist Christians at all. I just don't think they arrive at their judgements in an intelligent way. They start from a devotional posture toward somewhat shallow discussions of sacred poetry. Simply, they have a lot in common with other sheep like Sean Hannity disciples and Al Franken groupies. I don't hate those people either, but I don't have copious amounts of respect for their positions either. Fundamentalist Christians are a bit scarier because they bring an institutional weight and influence; their ignorance weilds influence over the other sheep: our lawmakers in Congress and our executives in the White House.
-
Why is the "positive" info you receive from conservative media outlets and conservative political personalities any more veracious than the "negative" info your hated "main stream" media supplies?
True story: my brother-in-law recently got back from a year in Iraq. He went in as a conservative republican Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld supporter and NOW, I shit you not, he is prepared to vote for a Democrat (though he won't even consider Hillary). Why? Because despite the fact that he headed up agriculture and irrigation reconstruction efforts, in which good works were done, he bore witness to both the inept management of the war and the "hopelessness" (his words) of those good works amounting to anything sustainable. He describes it as an absolute shitstorm.
I suppose you may not believe that story, but I have NO political agenda. I want truth and smarts. Period. Which is why I question your label of "brave" placed upon films that would tell stories of the good work being done. What would the context be? What could it be? What would the message be? That good stuff is going on and is taking hold? That seems to be overly optimistic. If it focused on the good work AND the staggering complexity, danger, politics, and violence of the situation, then I'm all for it. I have a feeling, though, that you'd STILL bitch about it being anti-American unless it spikes the situation with ground-up happy pills. The situation sucks. It is full of death and chaos. I'm not saying it's unwinnable AT ALL, but it is certainly a pit of disfunction and corruption. -
It's brave to try to tell the truth. Period.
-
because of their beliefs is Dangerous".
I'm afraid that's religion in general. It's all about preparing to die, dying, and where you go next.
Chritianity is based on Jesus dying for what he believed he was supposed to do
Paradise or another crack at life awaits in nearly all religions.
Religion demands that you must die for it's offer of eternal life.
-
And Scarface IS over-rated. Mission Impossible wasn't very good. CageSnakeEyes was bad, bad, bad. Femme Fatale had beautiful women in steamy situations, so I can't honestly rate it ass a film. I'm not a DePalma fan at all, come to think of it.
-
Well actually they've been ripping Hitchcock like him.
I like DePalma in a pulpy way. i thought Raisin Kane (a trashy Psycho riff) was really entertaining in hammy kind of way.
Like his Scarface he lets his lead just roll out the ham. -
That may be one way people indulge in religion, but it's certainly not the only way. I think that's a pretty stupid way to chaacterize your religious life. There are relevant, authentic, metaphoric, and revolutionary ways to converse with religious elements. When they are fixated on death and execution, which is what Noodles was suggesting they sometimes can be, they are dangerous anti-modern death cults, which most religions certainly are not. I think your declaration is pedantic to the point of prejudice.
-
It is because I support the troops that I want immediate withdrawal from Iraq. In ten or twenty years, when Iraq is back in the hands of an iron-fisted, Islamist dictator, everyone will know that the Americans who so valiantly fought and died there did so for NOTHING. Just like Vietnam. It wasn't the UNITED STATES that invaded Iraq, it was the U.S. military controlled by ONE SOCIOPATHIC IDIOT that invaded Iraq. The U.S. military is an awesome force, made up of some of the finest Americans alive. Bush abused that force by invading a country that was NO THREAT TO US. He displays the most disrespect for the military by putting them in danger for reasons only he knows for sure. And as for the "good that the soldiers are doing" in Iraq - Let's remember that the U.S. invaded and is now occupying a country that was no threat, regardless of any prior intelligence, real or manufactured. That makes us the bad guys. Just because it's the U.S. doesn't make it right.
Oh and by the way, if what you said before about the sex slave trade in Kosovo is true, you're absolutely right that Depalma (or anyone else) should make a movie about it so that it gets exposed. -
Good list and it made me LOL.
-
Yeah, my point was that religion can be used for nefarious purposes, and has certainly been in the past, but the vast majority of people of faith are peaceful.The whole point of religion in the first place was to instill a sense of morality in how people live their lives not how they bring about their deaths. But as things turned out you can have one without the other. Religion and morality I mean.
-
It's funny, you're right: people certainly don't need to practice an institutional religion in order to discern between right and wrong. Our various cultures and experiences do that for us. What's happened to religion is that the values emphasized have always been conservative, ie conserving the social traditions in which the particular religion took root. Well, we live in a crazily plural world, and we can't expect to hold on to certain archaic "social" determinations of right and wrong. A few of the ten commandments, for example, are downright irrelevant. The church, for the most part, is still preaching the conservative values, which do not help people cope with today's tensions and realities. It tends to conjure up an illusion of simplicity for the scared and confused. That is just dangerous. That is when people become so frightened and turned around that they can become filled with hate and do horrible things. I thinbk that's part of what happened with radical Islam, and I see that same spirit in American fundamentalism. The church should help people understand the sacred dimension to life in the midst of today's global world, not in spite of it! It should encourage values of conversation instead of conservation. I feel as if something beautiful has died every time someone portrays ALL religious experience as naive and and ignorant.
-
"It should encourage values of conversation instead of conservation."
-
I appreciate your point of view. There's a couple of points of difference, though:
I don't think people who oppose(d) the war, either as private citizens or as politicians, have damged the mission in Iraq at all. All the funding called for by the adminnistration and the Pentagon has been approved. All of it. Congress has had NO impact on the war at all, which is why anti-war activists hate the Dems, too- they seem impotent.
I have to believe, as an independent, that if Al Gore had won the presidency in 2000 we would NOT be in Iraq now. There does seem to be a certain "Bush-iness" about this business that I think only he (and a select other few) would've pushed for. I don't think we'd be there if McCain had wont the nomination and beat Gore in 2000, either.
I AGREE completely about pulling out. It seems ignorant, fearful momentum got us into Iraq in the first place and that ignorant, fearful momentum is going to get us out too soon. I too am worried about a power vacuum there after our departure. The question, which seems to have a disturbingly inarguable answer, is: Can Bush get his shit together and make something really good actually happen? Ouch. -
as a wounded and outraged Christian this is the shit I think about. I may have a rhetorical headstart on non-church-goers...
-
talk of "our brave troops over there trying to help". They're hired killers, illegally invading a country to help America steal their oil. A country which will be fucked for the next few decades at least, as warring factions struggle for control. hundreds of thousands have already died, in the end the count be in the millions. "So there, we have figured it out, go back to bed America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your government is in control again. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed America, here's American Gladiators. Here's 56 channels of it. Watch these pituitary retards bang their fuckin skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go America, you are free... to do as we tell you. You are free, to do as we tell you."
-
I'm actually an atheist so I'm a non-church-goer but I'm not intimidated or hateful of devout Christians either. I just don't like being told I'm immoral just because I don't believe in God, so that's where my thought process comes from. Philosophically I'd put us in the same camp though.
-
Sorry I didn't speak to the point about the media: I would agree that coverage has had a somewhat defeatist tone, highlighting tragedy instead of construction, but I think it kind of has to have that tone if it's at all concerned about the larger story. It seems to me in conversation with my bro-in-law (who is certainly just one man and doesn't necessarily represent a majority of the military) that the reality is pretty bad. If the outcome begins to look up, because of smart adjustments and new strategies, then the tone of the coverage would shift, too. We need some REAL good news, not positive tid-bits that won't amount to much, but something that really fills people - soldiers, journalists, citizens - with hope. We're not really getting that. And I don't think the media's coverage of the war has "made the troops' work harder" at all. Bush and the terrorists did that all themselves.
-
Maybe one day you'll open your eyes and see the truth. I hope you do, though I doubt it.
-
... you are way too easy.
I avoided comparisons to Fahrenheit 9/11 because quite frankly, I thought that movie sucked. Me and my friend walked out of it 3/4's of the way through. It was a piss poor excuse for movie making, and I was really disturbed when it won at Cannes.
My disenchantment with Michael Moore began with Bowling for Columbine. You can actually read my review of it here.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/13420
I reason why I'm defending this film is because it's going to be easy to dismiss, by people like you, as mere knee-jerk propaganda. It's anti-war to be sure, but there's something else happening with this film; its operating on a higher level.
Like I mentioned in the review, there's a teenage girl who gives a one minute anti-war rant on a webpage. It's juvenile, reactionary and naive. Brian De Palma knows this, and shows it anyway. Because the scene isn't about the content or merit of her reaction, but the nature of it.
This movie is like Starship Troopers ... I think it's a lot smarter than people will initially give it credit for. It actually has merit, unlike those propaganda films you mentioned.
-
Legion - you're an ass. Soldiers, sailors, flyboys, etc, are not hired killers. They are instruments of force in an uncertain world. They can be weilded with wisdom or with ignorance - it depends on the commander in chief.
Anchorite-
I AM a churchgoer. My dad is a minister, so I grew up in churches. My wife is Catholic, and I attend mass with her family four or five times a year. There are sacred immutable values that will probably never vanish: the whole "golden rule" thing is the most obvious. It's less about values than it is about their relevance. For instance: the commandment against idolatry is as present as ever, but has NO relevance to living a human life, in America, in 2007. The fact that we're extremely globalized economically has changed the nature of what "consuming" is, morally. When the traditions were formed, trade was pretty damn local. Now, my dollars (allbethey pretty few) go toward encouraging a system which has great consequences for the world my as-of-yet-unborn child will inherit. But religion doesn't say much about commandments for conscientiously consuming in a complex, environmentally fragile, child-labor happy, world economy. That seems like lunacy to me. -
Soldiers are payed, yes? They're hired killers.
-
...which should not to be confused with my big list of directors with big asses.I was pointing out directors who have made bigger impacts than De Palma has. Sure, De Palma has influenced other directors. But nearly every director on that list has influenced nearly every other director on that list. That's the nature of any art form. Hell, De Palma is a pale, pale imitation of Alfred Hitchcock in the end. Sure, De Palma caught the eye of the artsy leftist film critics during the late 60's, but he wasn't doing anything more ground breaking than any number of directors at the time. But, he was in the right place at the right time with the right group of fellow up and coming directors which included the likes of: Spielberg, Lucas, Coppola, Scorsese, and several others.Sorry to say, but De Palma is the least of that group. Almost a hackish ghost of his former self now-a-days. He was graced with a few amazing actors that ate up scenes like no tomorrow and that forwarded his career to a point.Let's face it, Italian 'giallo' directors were using De Palma's style before De Palma was. Who know's, maybe De Palma saw some Mario Bava films and decided that was the way to go. Foreign films were not as easy to come by during that time, so it just makes it that much easier to rip off.In the end, De Palma is known mainly not for the 'impact' he's made to film making, but for Al Pacino's scene stealing performances in Scarface and Carlito's way. When people talk about those two films, they quote Pacino. They don't discuss story structure or how an incredible camera shot. They quote the words written by Oliver Stone and David Koepp, respectively.
-
good conversation, but I've got to run - the wife is home and I can't be a total asshole. I'll check back later, though.
-
the consensus is that DePalma's trying to manipulate people. But I think, generally speaking, the point of these movies isn't that our troops are terrible people, it's that war makes good people do terrible things.In the Valley of Elah for example (a movie I didn't really like btw) makes this point. It's heavy handed obviously but that's the basic point and there's nothing wrong with that.The lesson from this, I think, is that if you're going to put troops in combat you have to make sure you back them up with the best possible policy because the military isn't a tool like a hammer or a knife it's a precious commodity. I don't think it happened in Vietnam and I don't think it's happening now.Is pulling out yesterday a good idea? No. But just think about it. If those celebrities really wanted troops to die, don't you think they'd keep their mouths shut and let this flawed policy go?
-
majority of people belong to a religion purely due to geography, parental choice,or cultural background
Religion is rarely something you've learned but something you have been told.
A large part of that belief is death.
The fear of death and nothingness is integral to religion.
Religion offers up an alternative spiritual world and the promise of life beyond the physical.
It's funny how we are all athiests when it comes to Zeus or Odin but partial to Jesus Christ and Vishnu.
Death is virtually the soul reason why Religion exists.
As the question goes "What is the meaning of life?"
-
Phantom of the Paradise is a great soundtrack. And I dont understand all the hate on DePalma, he's brought us some great film moments that I will always love. Blow Out, Carrie, Body Double, The Untouchables, PotP, Scarface, Dressed to Kill, and Im sure Im forgetting several others. Oh, and Nancy Allen is hot.
-
Anchorite- when people call soldiers murderers, rapists, or "hired killers" (as C Legion did) I think they do exactly what I do and probably what you do - laugh at those people. Most people, including those very citical of the war, do not invoke those sorts of Vietnam-era labels. I think (as do the analysts I've heard discuss the topic) that people have been pretty good about that with Iraq, as opposed to 'Nam. That aggressive anti-troop atmosphere just isn't here, in my experience. My wife's brother told me that troop morale was pretty high. He said care packages were abundant and they felt supported, in general. Most of them, put in the shit, did seem to dig in their heals and rally around the commander in chief, but they didn't seem too annoyed with the war's opponents, especially as the war kept going and their tours were extended. My biological brother served in Afganistan, too, before he was medically retired. He didn't feel compromised by war opposition, either. The soldiers and sailors are smart, professional people, and the opposition seems to respect their position. I don't think general war opposition is a morale issue at all.
Now, polemic, assinine, political attacks on soldiers, if that's what DePalma's doing, would be met with outrage, by soldiers AND by me. But conscientious studies of war, no matter who's mistakes and sacrifices are documented, should not be disregarded out of presumptions. We should hold off on judgement until we see them. This film, like Stones upcoming one on Mai Lai, could be crap. But they COULD be honest attempts to figure out horrible, unavoidable, bye-products of war, ineptly-waged. -
You're wrong. Religious belief is contingent upon the individuals mind upon accepting that belief. If you are indoctrinated blindly by tradition, then your belief is not religious at all. It is laziness or mind control. If it is entered into with a sense of curiosity, inquiry, rigor, conversation, and relevance, it becomes a place where life's value can be discussed and explored to the limits. THAT is what religious experience is. Many traditions today don't encourage that kind of thing, but many do. You are painting with one brush a diverse crew of religious people. That is ignorant behavior, perhaps the result of laziness or mind control, that is just as diabolical as close-minded religious fundamentalism.
-
that DePalma is using the rape incident as a metaphor for the actual war. I've not seen the film so I can't comment but it seems that a film built around a single incident usually uses that incident to represents the bigger picture.
Something like The Ox Bow Incident.
If DePalma is anti war then he's entitled to comment on it.
For all i know it could be as heavy handed as his other stuff but that doesn't mean he can't say his piece all the same.
It's not like the landscape is full of anti-war properganda.
-
Until someone mentioned them above, I forgot those two. No, scratch that. I should say I MADE my mind forget those utter pieces of shit with a self-imposed Jedi mind trick.Whenever we get a film such as this one...dealing with this type of volatile subject matter...it's a sure bet that the Talkback will quickly become a Left vs. Right, America vs. anti-American rant forum where it's always amazing to see the people around here choose up sides, so before that happens I just want to say I have no real interest in this movie simply because DePalma is pretty much a HACK director who only gets it right when he decides to just steal from other directors or ape their work...oh, I'm sorry. I meant he's doing a "homage" to something. (cough, cough, bullshit)So frankly given his track record for YEARS and YEARS now, anyone thinking this film will be good is doing lines of coke. Or else they DO just want to push it for political reasons in an election year because the idea of DePalma actually making a good movie long ago became a total joke.
-
I'm open to spirituality, I've seen a lot of bizarre stuff in many pockets of the world.
I've experinced things that make me question the static and unmoving nature of pure science.
The point is that my interest is still pricked by the knowledge that i'm going to die and that I'm looking for something which may nswer a few questions.
Religion and death are interlinked.
As id the power of belief. -
The movie explicit states in an opening paragraph that all the events in the film are not real and have been imagined.
What's interesting about the film is that we already know that most of the events, in some way, shape or form, did happen. -
I agree with alot of what you said. There is a desperate lack of basic decency in human affairs these days. For some reason, people have stopped trying to interact with respect, generosity, and rational intelligence. I'm not talking about old testament bible values or new fundamentalist hate principles, but about the values that should define human civilization- conversation, reasoned argument, good faith, perseverance, charity. We've become so cynical and suspicious that we've forgotten how to be generous with each other, and how to respect listening and logic in how we go about solving problems. It's maddening.
-
And I do think that Bush's presidency has either summed up this collapse of human decency or pushed it over the edge. He has been aggressively insulated from debate and argument. I know 9/11 ratcheted up the paranoia factor, but it's encouraged us to forget the principles that scaffold our humanity. That sounds kind of over the top, but why the hell not? We have got to TRY to behave decently or we'll forget how.
-
Not offended, just unmoved and bothered by the straight-to-DVD production. The acting was so stiff it was like talking points were handed out to the actors and the rest was poorly improvised.
-
My thoughts exactly. Although now that you disagreed with him, Tal will probably pester you for an in-depth review.
-
Thank you for for commenting on the film, and not railing on and on about its politics or the merit of Brian De Palma's other films.
Garbageman, way too ... uh ... agree. I mean, it's not hard to do better than saying it sucks, dude.
I can understand being turned off by it's low budget, HD aesthetic. I mean, it ain't Saving Private Ryan. The audacity of it is why I kind of admire it. It made me realize how romantic and sentimental movies like Saving Private Ryan or Letters from Iwo Jima actually are, despite some of the tragedies that those films depict. The cinematography in those movies are just so ... beautiful. Redacted made me ask myself how much of that is actually purposeful, and how much of that is an aesthetic exercise. It made me think of how we, as civilians on the friendly side of the content, actually experience war, through highly informal, politicized channels.
I'm probably too forgiving of the acting, the same way I'm forgiving of Jessica Harper's shitty dance in Phantom of the Paradise. The acting is stilted but for me, it's stilted in the right way. It worked for me, the same way the soap opera performances of Starship Troopers worked for me.
By the way, I had no idea people hated Brian De Palma THAT much. It's crazy. People almost seem personally offended by his existence. Is there a course in film school where you were taught by Brian De Palma and he was a dick to you? Do you wish you were Brian De Palma. Shit.
-
Almost inspired to jump in and help, but not quite. Still, you're not alone, pal.
-
Keep fighting the good fight.
-
i dont like sitting through movies that lecture me on what to think and what to know and what to do with my life. i have better things to do. like the sun and the moon.
-
but if you've got any kind of problem with Thin Red Line- NO MORE FILMS FOR YOU!! You must go and scratch stick men on walls for entertainment you DEVOLVED SIMIAN F**KS!
-
but it is always amusing to see "Star-spangled Anchorite" in full flow- regardelss whether you agree with him. BTW- Quoting wikipedia? for shame Anchorite, for shame
-
All you arm-chair patriots, please stop crying about a movie you have not seen. De Palma is a good artist and is using his freedom to make a film that may run contrary to popular opinion. Soldiers should be fine with that, seeing as when they sign their contracts, they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.
-
THIS IS TAAAAAALKBAAAAAAACK
-
Quit playing arm-chair patriot.
-
were anything other than lying cocksuckers when it came to Iraq?
-
By the same logic, do you not think that reporting true events has some value?
-
Because you make a very strident case that he has deliberately gone out of his way to vilify the soldiers (who, by the way, need no help from Hollywood). I haven't seen it- in fact I hadn't heard of it until recently, but I had heard of the incident itself as just one in a shameful list. Simply because I haven't seen it, I'm not defending the film, but I disagree with you that he was anti-patriotic (I can't think of the proper word) in making it. I do get it for chrissake, but I would like to point out that there are numerous vile pieces of propaganda that masquerade as cinema that don't incense the right as much as movies that comment on the current debacle.
-
Regardless, you are reading more into what I wrote than is intended. Not once have I mentioned nobility. All I'm saying is if you are going to get all worked up about this, you might want to wait until actual soldiers come on here and act hissy. Hint: That probably won't happen. As for Valley of the Wolves... I have no problem with someone making that film. I don't have to see it if I don't want to. I don't expect it to get a big stateside release, so who cares? Besides, it is probably pretty funny.
-
...will never be made. How come we're not seeing any films about the enemy, Brian? My guess is you lost your balls after seeing what happened to Theo Van Gogh. Alas, TRUE LIES will be the last great film with Muslim extremists as the bad guys and now US soldiers are the bad guys instead. Pathetic.
-
people spew phrases like "Anti-War propaganda" as if it's wrong to be Anti-War. Hello "patriots", War IS fucking awful, an abomination, the more Anti-War propaganda the fucking better.
-
Hello again.
C Legion - That is fucking asinine. People SHOULD make works of cinema that manipulate the stupid and uninformed into forming shallow and uninformed opinions if those opinions mesh with your politics? That is as unAmerican as starting a war on false pretenses, standing idly by while chaos begets more chaos, and manipulating a country with fear and hate. You give intelligent people with anti-war positions a bad name. You are a sad, ineffectual, Pat Robertson-wannabe of the left.
Anchorite, I read that Village Voice review, and it read as if DePalma was speaking to an outraged liberal audience (which is what he was doing). It was pretty simplistic, for sure, but I can't draw a conclusion about a piece until I've seen it. The work could perhaps offer layers of political/aesthetic/ethical/structural elements that could reward the critical observer. I have no patience for the assholes, like C Legion and MAYBE DePalma, who spout vitriolic anti-soldier rhetoric, but I also lack patience for those who judge a piece before they've rationally conversed with it. -
Why do we need a film about crazy terrorist fuckers? We know their crazy, and that their fuckers. To make it at all dignified it would take a lot of exposition about the forces that twisted human souls into death machines. Any such picture would be an attempt to understand the psychology of the "enemy", which would certainly result in you and your ilk suffering severe strokes at the idea that we should even be interested in the "why?" of terrorist cultures. No, I think what you would enjoy would be a simplistic action epic of heroic Americans saving the day from one-dimensional super-villains. Watch He-Man take on Skeletor, or the harrowing United 93. The stupid have no business warping reality with stories of simplistic action film conventions. That is damaging to the country and is condescending to the soldiers. BTW, this should not be read as an endorsement of all left-leaning films: they are just as often victim of simple polemic impulses.
-
but I think you lose a little credibility. The truth is that you are presuming the film will be one thing based upon reviews and interviews from various sources. They may be accurate. I certainly take my cues from reviewers and general word of mouth, too. But I don't condemn a thing unless I can honestly say I listened to it. You've had your experience mediated by other biased beings; don't listen to what other people say and take their word for it! You don't have to see it, certainly, but you don't need to condemn the thing either. I wouldn't condemn the horseshit I hear from much of conservative talk radio if I didn't let Sean Hannity and Michael Savage tag team me with their utterly irrational snarky bullshit, or if I didn't check in with Limbaugh and Medved on the weekends. I just couldn't call such criticism informed or honest.
-
But there are other forces, too. Historic and political forces beginning after World War One which gave haphazardly defined territories to colonial powers. Or the dominant oil economy, to which we all contribute, which buttresses corrupt and feudal foreign governments and cartels to maintain their suppression of the poulation. The heavily militarization of the region during the Cold War, etc. I don't speak as an expert, but there are subtler, more nuanced pressures working on the region than a racist heritage. Not that it EXCUSES any violence, nor does it CONDEMN earlier political decisions, but it does bring ambivalence to the discussion which many scared and proud Americans would not suffer through. I think that's a shame.
-
Maybe I'm being silly. But Ezra Pound, one of the most stylistically and linguistically challenging poets of the modern era was an admirer of Mussolini's. He was an idiot, but he was also a gifted artist. BTW, I've got to bail again - leaving for a wedding down south for the weekend. Be well.
-
I can't get this fucking talkback out of my head. I'm halfway through packing my shit up when I decided to check this out again.
My point with Pound is tenuous at best. I was trying to suggest that a person's politics doesn't necessarily destroy the other elements of his or her craft; that we can find value within a piece created by a fuck. I think you're conflating the artists "conclusions" with the craft. The film can be viewed as an argument, not as a statement. If it turns out to be worthless propoganda than engagement with the actual premises of the film, raqther than the political conclusions of it's maker, could elevate the discussion of its themes. The themes, regardless of our various opinions, are worthy of thoughtful consideration, rather than uninformed reaction. To condemn a thing because it's origins are from an ideological camp and NOT because it's arguments are invalid SERVES the deplorable collapse of human conversation and problem-solving. It becomes a food fight instead of a debate, and these times are far too sobering for food fights. -
Now I really have to pull myself away or this weekend will see me at both my brother in laws's wedding (yes, the ex-republican naval officer) and my own divorce proceedings. Out. Most likely for real this time.
-
"The stupid have no business warping reality with stories of simplistic action film conventions. That is damaging to the country and is condescending to the soldiers." LOL. Perhaps you should be telling that to Harry Reid Jack Murtha and the rest of those surrender-monkeys. Seriously, when is some brave, cutting-edge filmmaker going to give us a film about how kids are being taught the ways of jihad and to hate and kill "zionists" by age 3 in the madrassas overseas? Don't hold your breath.
-
What does one have to do with the other? It is so OBVIOUS, loin-man, that the terrorists have been brainwashed into committing acts of deplorable violence, that I don't see the point in a mvie telling us that. They are real-life villains, and everyone knows that. Even Harry WetBlanket Reid. And it seems you're suggesting that we aren't allowed to consider the use of American power in film unless we first declare our hatred of terrorists. C'mon. That's like saying you can't think about rotten milk before you announce that your guitar's out of tune. Be sensible. Or at least don't be so damned cocky without evidence of any kind of intelligence.
-
I realize you're a DePalma fanboy (and probably for G.A. Romero), but let's face it. These "masters" have lost it in their sunset years. Their points of view and social commentary were subtly interweaved in their films and required intelligence to recognize. Now, they just brow-beat people over the head with it, and it's all extremely leftist. If they made these films during World War II, they'd be seen as treasonous and for good reason. "Treason" is not a word in your dictionary unless it pertains to Dubya or Cheney or Rumsfeld, and I realize you don't understand that because your perception of the threat we face as a civiliaztion if filtered through the likes of DailyKos and Jon Stewart and Bill Maher. So let me pose this question to you as a Gulf War I veteran: if Bush 41 had ignored the UN and had proceeded to Baghdad to demolish Saddam as originally planned, would we even be having this discussion? I didn't think so.
-
"the terrorists have been brainwashed into committing acts of deplorable violence, that I don't see the point in a mvie telling us that." No, that's EXACTLY what we need. If these idiot directors are going to give us US solders as enemies of our own country, then they sure as hell should give us films with brainwashed, Islamic extremists who have been killing Americans since the Beirut barracks bombing in 1983. Wake up, man.
-
I don't know why I've allowed you to engage me. You are full of idiotic presumptions and inane reasoning. I am an independent, no fan of the Dems. I would vote for Chuck Hagel or even Arnold if he'd run. I'm no fan of DePalma's, which I've mentioned on this very talkback. I think Daily Kos, which I've only visited once out of curiosity, is polemic nonsense created by sheep. You are uniformed and condescending to the troops. As this talkback clearly divulges, both my brother and my brother in law served in Afghanistan (from which my bro was medically retitred) and Iraq, respectively. And almost ALL Americans realize that Islamic radicals are evil. What they need a little more of is rational discussion of the issues, rather than incompetent, unreflective, aggressively arrogant, neo-patriotic pop-speech from the likes of you. Blug in your mind.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 325 total posts 322 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 106 total posts 106 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 63 total posts 60 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 74 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 159 total posts 51 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 47 total posts 41 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 161 total posts 34 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 488 total posts 33 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 121 total posts 23 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 70 total posts 20 posts