MovieChat Forums > Into the White (2013) Discussion > Really IMDBers? A 7?

Really IMDBers? A 7?

posted 12 years ago by hexedd
11 replies | jump to latest

How does this movie only get a 7? There is so much Hollywood crap and then a movie like this gets a 7? Ok I know it's not the best film on earth but it did a lot right, and it was a great and inspiring story about the way adverse situations bring out the best in everyone. Some people seem mad that it ignored a lot of the politics, but I'm pretty sure that is ridiculous thinking. If you were stranded in a cabin in the -20 temperature with your "enemies" I'm pretty sure in order to survive you'd drop the charade pretty quick and would become fast friends. It's so easy for jackasses on IMDB 70 years later to sit there and say "oh this would never happen" "That would never happen" blah blah blah. So what? It is still a good film and stuck way closer to the real story (which I've read lots about and you can too) than 90% of war movies I've ever seen. This movie deserves better than a 7. OY

[–] shadycady 12 years ago

Agreed. I thought it was fantastic, and there were true situations that happened in World War I too like this.

The Divine Genealogy Goddess

[–] hexedd 12 years ago

Shady: Thanks for bringing WWI in there too. That is also true. There are many accounts of soldiers putting aside their differences despite the politics. I know from my grandfather that there were also many times in WW2 that soldiers put aside their differences even when it meant disobeying direct orders. This movie wasn't perfect, but it was way better than a lot of other films out there and deserves better than a 7 for the effort and execution.

[–] Kawada_Kira 8 years ago

World War I was rather different though. In that war the two sides were basically the same ideologically. It was just different colonial empires fighting over spoils, with lots of conscripted working-class people forced to fight a war they didn't believe in, suffering in the misery of the trenches for an empire only their rulers benefited from. It was relatively easy to find common cause with the guys on the other side, despite the bitterness of the fighting, because everyone was pretty much in the same boat.

WWII had a lot more ideological content to it than WWI did. While it was also a war over empire and spoils, from the layman's point of view there was a lot to separate the different sides that time around. People believed in the anti-fascist cause. Hitler was a genuine menace to the world, unlike the Kaiser who was little different from the British and every other European imperialist government. There was also a lot more bitterness between the different sides. There were a lot more atrocities and they were much more visible than in WWI, with more advanced weapons and more attacks on civilian populations, as well as the added fanaticism of the German Nazis and the Japanese militarists. Tensions were more highly charged than they had been in WWI, and people were more committed to the cause, on all sides.

This isn't to say that there was no commitment whatsoever in WWI or that there was no potential of bonding with the guys on the other side in WWII, but things had changed quite a bit between the two wars and the circumstances were very different. It wouldn't have been as easy to make friends with a dude fighting for Hitler (whether he believed in him or not; he was fighting for him either way) as it would have been with a dude fighting for the Kaiser.

[–] Dropkickmeelmo 11 years ago

Agreed. I thought it was fantastic, and there were true situations that happened in World War I too like this.

Yep, on Xmas Eve in 1914 or 1915, both sides came out from the trenches and got drunk and celebrated Xmas together in No Man's Land; then the next morning they went back to fighting each other.

[–] skat1140 12 years ago

You're right.

Given the wooden acting and terrible plot arc, the rating it vastly inflated.

It should be 5 or lower.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] writinman2004 12 years ago

No, a "7" sounds just about right actually.

[–] cold_sky 12 years ago

Agreed, superb film, but just doesn't really make an 8 in my opinion. Most 8/10 movies I'll rewatch. Loved this film, but not about to pop it back into the player again lol

is.gd/cagedvirgins!

[–] Tyler-Durden 11 years ago

This was also one of my first thoughts upon viewing the film: how on earth does it only have a 6.9 (as of October 2013)? Thankfully I read some reviews and was interested by the storyline, because based on rating alone it doesn't seem as good as it really is. It's a very good movie in my opinion and 6.9 (not even a 7, as it apparently had in March when this thread was started) does not do it justice.

I'm not innocent, but you're guilty.

[–] hexedd 11 years ago

Glad someone agrees with me. And the fact that it's the leader of Fight Club makes its it more special. ;) Oops, sorry I forgot the 2nd rule of Fight Club. ;)

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

7's a good score. Sorry, but this film is no Lawrence of Arabia nor Fight Club for that matter. I gave it a 6.🐭