MovieChat Forums > '71 (2014) Discussion > Overrated

Overrated

posted 9 years ago by t-l-s
8 replies | jump to latest

1) The young subaltern who makes them go out without riot gear - 71 is pretty early in the escalation so maybe the news saturation had not hit home what Northern Ireland was like, but I can't believe that they would be so stupid as to not brief the new young subalterns who had never been in Northern Ireland of the basics!!

2) There is no way after having just lost 2 soldiers, that the British Army would not have gone out in force back to the scene to look for them. Yet instead they just do nothing but send one Defender driving around the streets! Not only would sending one Defender on their own driving around at night in a republican area be ineffective, it would also be bloody dangerous.

3) After the pub bombing. He is in a deeply loyalist area (pictures of the queen, the union flag etc make that pretty *beep* obvious to even a thick squaddie). What is the one thing you would not do? LEAVE! Not only would the loyalists help him if he said he was british but a bomb has just gone off. At some point the RUC are going to come to a pub bombing! At which point once he identified himself as a British solder to them, they would have given him any needed medical help and if not returned him to his base. Finally if the car being driven by the loyalist with the badly injured boy in it was going to a hospital as you would expect, then why the HELL did he not get in.

4) Daughter just says oh yeah we are collaborating by keeping a British soldier here, they barely needed to even push her and she just blurts it out, what and idiot. In reality she has basically signed her fathers death warrant. Yet when the British come after him, it takes a gun pointed at her fathers head and her head till she talks, even though the chances of the British killing her father are FAR less than the IRA who will certainly murder him as an informant.

5) When he kills the IRA man, they have this touching little moment ..... Yeah lets have a little moment with the man who murdered your mate and has been trying to kill you all day. YEAH. I don't care if he has never killed before, that was over the top.

6) The whole nonsense of the British killing a British soldier. What TOSH! The entire British establishment knew that the SAS, MI5 and Army Intelligence was running special operations in Northern Ireland. There would be no need to kill him, the private would be pressured into being quiet, just as the lieutenant and the private were pressured into silence at the end. It made the ENTIRE storyline of them trying to silence him, absolutely *beep* nonsense.

7) Yeah he just decides to throws his tags into the sea and quit the army. Just like that, so easily. Complete lefty *beep* to take a dig at the army. The Army who were trying to keep the peace between two warring factions.

For a British film this is surprisingly pro-republican and anti-British Army. Historically neither side were clean and pure, many of the IRA were simply criminal gangsters hiding behind a purpose, dealing out violence to Catholics as well. Yet although the republicans are undoubtedly ruthless in their cause in this film; they are pretty much mostly shown as good.

In all completely overrated, lefty revisionist nonsense wrapped up in a brilliant lead performance and good cinematography.

[–] ronfirv 9 years ago

I saw the film as quite balanced I have to say and I am a Unionist(not Irish).
The tags scene - straight out of "Top Gun"! lol!

[–] t-l-s 9 years ago

Unionist Side:

Incompetent Subaltern
Cannon Fodder soldiers
Unionist boy shouting fenian scum every 5 seconds
Potentially Incompetent Loyalist bombers blowing themselves up
British Special Ops killing their own side
RUC beating the *beep* out of people

Republican Side:

Doctor and daughter who help him regardless of the fact he is a British soldier
Woman who tries to stop the two soldiers being beaten up at the start
Screaming woman in house, being terrorised by the RUC
IRA Proper who turns out to be working with Special Ops who wants to turn over the British soldier
IRA split off group, who are hunting the British ruthlessly as "freedom fighters"
Innocent IRA Split Off Group youngster who has never killed anyone and can't bring himself to do it, until he saves the life of a British Soldier

Balanced? Are you out of your mind

[–] ronfirv 9 years ago

No, not out of my mind.

I lived through these years, living on the UK mainland. We had daily coverage on radio, tv, and newspapers complete with graphic photographs. I know what happened over there - it is engraved on my memory even I was a boy through much of it all.

From your comments here, you didn't live through it all (just as well) and live many,many miles away from us on these isles.

[–] t-l-s 9 years ago

Actually I did, and I don't. Not only did I spend time in Northern Ireland growing up, coming from an part Anglo-Irish family prior to the GF agreement, I also studied in detail Irish history as part of a History Masters. So I am sorry that rather trumps your growing up on the UK mainland and watching the news.

I listed all the main depictions of both sides and you made zero comment as to how those depictions can be considered at all equal

[–] jay_guevara-1 9 years ago

Not only did I spend time in Northern Ireland growing up, coming from an part Anglo-Irish family prior to the GF agreement, I also studied in detail Irish history as part of a History Masters. So I am sorry that rather trumps your growing up on the UK mainland and watching the news.

Anecdotal evidence is not irrefutable. Just because you "spent time" in NI whilst growing up doesn't make you an expert any more than someone of German extraction who spent time in The Third Reich during their school holidays. The same applies to credentials claimed from studying a topic "in detail" as part of a course. During my own MA, that was taken at a supposedly prestigious institution, I witnessed numerous lecturers repeatedly state erroneous historical information as gospel truth and every so often, I'd correct them, for the benefit of the other students who were none the wiser.

I listed all the main depictions of both sides and you made zero comment as to how those depictions can be considered at all equal

Yet you conveniently omitted the depiction of irate Republicans throwing urine packed projectiles, along with other missiles at British soldiers, spitting in their faces, hitting them, knocking one of them out cold, stealing an L1A1 SLR assault rifle and then beating the disarmed, outnumbered soldiers to a pulp during their polite and restrained attempts to retrieve it and last but not least, executing one of them at point blank range.

That's just a small summary of acts committed by the IRA/Republican sympathisers during the film that you chose to ignore.

[–] gilbert_gumphrey 9 years ago

To quote Ebert -- "a movie isn't what it is about, but how it is about it".

A lot of your problems were ones I had while watching too; for a gritty, highly praised Indie flick, there were a lot of action movie cliches and tropes it didn't sneak away from.

But a lot of your problems deal with the politics you bring to the movie, and what politics you think the movie is giving out. Knowing next to nothing about the Ireland issues at the time, I found the movie pretty balanced as well -- all sides seemed violent, confused, angry, possibly corrupt, possibly hopeful. It was a total mess, which I think is how conflict like this should be represented. Not every movie can have an obvious stance like JFK or a Michael Moore film; sometimes a movie just wants to show the chaos of one day, from the perspective of one soldier.

Was the film perfect? Hell no. But I'd give it a strong 3.5/5, because the flaws and faults weren't enough to outweigh the strengths. Basically what I'm saying is that from an outsider's perspective, I didn't see the film pointing more of a finger at any side in the debate; it pointed fingers at everyone.

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

1 I questioned that myself, but there seems to be no one actually advising the platoon commander beforehand, which in itself is unlikely IRL.

2 Agreed. A really unlikely scenario, 1 lousy landrover returning hours later. It just wouldn't happen like that. IRL the cavalry would be returning in numbers to really shake things down.

3 This has come up before on other threads. The guy was severely injured himself in the explosion. You have to accept he's concussed and really has no idea where he is and who friend or foe are.

4 They are humanist Catholics playing Good Samaritans and having just about everyone bar the Pope and the Queen of England stick guns in their faces threatening them. I had no problems with their responses.

5 My initial thought was ... You have to be kidding!

6 I felt the same way. There really was no reason to silence him. So what if the MRF were helping the Loyalists. There all in the same office at the end of the movie anyway. It was a real Furphy.

7 May be they gave him an honourable discharge due to his experiences, but usually one signs up for a number of years. It's not just a case of ..."OK, I'm out of here".

I didn't think it was pro-Republican. I just thought the producers basically had a go at everyone; Republicans, Loyalists, MRF and the British Army itself, leaving the film with this curiously kind of muted, neutral stance.

Aside from this I'd imagine that the film must be pretty difficult to follow, for anyone not even half way interested in the conflict. There was no pre or post credit explanations or backgrounding. The film saw fit just to drop Hook and the viewer right in the midst of the Troubles.

An interesting offering, but yes, I think it's somewhat overrated too.🐭

[–] gss2 9 years ago

I liked the film. I think it accurately showed the spirit of the times, even if much of it was fiction.