Sorry folks, misses the mark...... - Da 5 Bloods (2020) Discussion

[–] brux (14840) 5 years ago

I think you should think about the movie. I felt like you do as I was watching the movie, but the ending allowed me to forgive the flaws I might have seen in the movie.

The combat scenes are not the point of the movie, and they are probably not emphasized because it is the opposite of a war movie trying to get the audience caught up in the orgy of violence. If you want to review pro-war movie ... go watch one.

I see this movie as having been deliberately done the way it was ( not that there are not major irritating flaws in it ) in order to make the point that doesn't show up on the screen itself. I think you are way off. The movie was great if only for that scene where the Viet Cong radio announcer lady is opening the eyes of the black GIs in Viet Nam stuck there at 3 times more than their fellow white soldier "brothers" to die and do the dirty work for a country that killed Martin Luther King and is still lynching black people.

And you quibble because Delroy Lindo doesn't hold his rifle to your satisfaction ... you should be ashamed.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Who are you to make value judgments on other people based on the opinions of a movie??

Do me a favor, since you are incapable of replying to my postings with courtesy put me on block, will you?

And it's you who should be ashamed for being unable to discuss what did or did not work in a movie in an adult manner.

reply

[–] brux (14840) 5 years ago

> Who are you to make value judgments on other people based on the opinions of a movie??

Give me a clue as to how you can be so insulted by my post, and please tell me what is not adult about my comment.

I thought my writing was both clear, and not insulting or incourteous.

Sorry if I somehow offended you, but I gave you good counter arguments to your thesis. Maybe the comment about you should be ashamed was a bit much but it is not non-adult, insulting or judgmental about you. It was neither an insult or not adult ... it was pointing out that you are weighing a fairly complicated not-an-action movie by a kind of simplistic action-movie criterion, i.e. how Lindo holds a rifle?

I imagine no one likes the callousness of some Internet chat room rhetoric, but I suffer many times worse on an average day of trying to have an intelligent online conversation. 'Fraid that if you do not want to see my comments or replies you have to block me. If I don't hear back from you I will assume you did just that.

reply

[–] jekporkins (1985) 5 years ago

Naw dude, I just read your dialogue and you told the guy he should be ashamed because he saw a major irritating flaw.

However, earlier you pointed out that there were major irritating flaws.

You can sit there and pretend to be some intellectual but you really just disagreed with what he wrote so you scolded him like he was a kid. You should be ashamed? What are you, his mother?

reply

[–] brux (14840) 5 years ago

Don't have the confidence to reply on your real account, TruMovieFan? Or
you don't want to admit you read and are replying to my second comment
to you. And then you went back to supposedly read some of my other comments
on the movie, but do not have the courage or the intellectual honesty to actually
make an argument, you just tell me I am pretending to be an intellectual. That's
hilarious. Should I be ashamed, that's what you are saying?

You don't seem to know how to read since I did not point out that TruMovieFan
should be ashamed because he saw a "major irritating flaw" because what he
pointed out was not major or a flaw, as I proved with my comment. The proof
that my comment was true was the intensity of his reply.

If you think my other comments are incorrect or your disagree you are free to
reply in any way you want, but when you lie or mischaracterized or reply in bad
faith, don't expect me to be silent or not to point it out.

The other thing is that neither of you, or your accounts can decipher what I meant
by "you should be ashamed", and decided to over-react and assume the worst.
Seems like that usually means you are ashamed.

The original post was:

> Sorry folks, misses the mark......

But what is the mark. Why would this movie have been better if the Delroy
LINDO ( not Lindsay by the way ) character had been better able to handle
an M16. Who would care or pick that for the major flaw?

> For example, Delroy Lindsay's character, of who we are told he
> did three tours in Vietnam, fires a gun like a 13 yr old picking
> up a rifle for the first time.

The original M16 rifle was a 5.56mm automatic rifle with a 20-round magazine.
It might be accurate to point out that throughout the movie, LIKE IN MOST
WAR OR GUN-CENTRIC MOVIES THAT THE AMMUNITION NEVER RUNS OUT,
way past that 20 rounds.

reply

[–] jekporkins (1985) 5 years ago

I don't know the original poster and this is not a second account. What kind of loser would have two accounts on a random movie site? To what... pump up their own argument? I also don't have the time nor the inclination to go look through someone's account to see how they post. It sounds like something an absolute tool would do. Does that actually happen around here? I never even considered it.

All I was saying was from what I read you were condescending. From looking at your reply, you're attempting it again. People watch movies for different reasons, and there are people who will nitpick on things like how a person carries themselves with a weapon. That's why directors hire technical advisors. One of the ways an actor performs isn't just how they regurgitate dialogue but how their character interacts with their surroundings or handles themselves physically in a situation. You don't give an actor a sword and call him a ninja. He needs to learn how to handle the thing.

Take my post for what it is - constructive criticism from a third party. Or don't. Arguing with a stranger on the internet is a pointless endeavor.

reply

[–] brux (14840) 5 years ago

> All I was saying was from what I read you were condescending.

The way I read your comment was hardly that you were attacking me for something you assumed I said or was doing in an internet post ... which was hardly "all you were saying". That is, you comment was about me, not about the subject, except that by making it about me you implicitly agreed with an argument from the original poster that hardly made much sense.

If arguing on the internet is pointless, so it trying in a provocative way to be critical constructively.

reply

[–] jekporkins (1985) 5 years ago

Dude, you told someone they should be ashamed of themselves for pointing out the guy playing a Vietnam vet has no idea how to fire a rifle. Is that provocative or constructive criticism? Really?

reply

[–] brux (14840) 5 years ago

> Dude, you told someone they should be ashamed of themselves for pointing out the guy playing a Vietnam vet has no idea how to fire a rifle.

Yeah, I stick by that in a semi-humorous way I meant it, however, I will make a special nod to you that you ought to be ashamed of yourself, if you are even a "self" instead of a automated troll. What a dumb comment, and what an even dumber followup and insistence on trying to shame me for a MovieChat comment. You're toxic, and I would wager a liar as well in your previous comment.

reply

[–] jekporkins (1985) 5 years ago

You are certainly entertaining me and my wife. So you can't answer the question and are ignoring what I'm saying. I simply pointed out you were being aggressive with the guy and pointed out why and then you started getting on a soapbox and getting fired up with me.

How on earth am I a liar? What, pray tell, am I lying about? How am I being toxic? Way to toss out one of the most overused words ever put on the internet.

Tell you what - it's a great movie, Fishbourne can carry a rifle, and we are all ashamed of ourselves for criticizing it. We are all ignorant little plebs, probably bots or whatever that is, with multiple accounts to argue fake, multiple points of view against those who clearly see more and know better. We'll never point out anything wrong with a movie again. How dare we have criticisms on a movie opinion site, right?

reply

[–] brux (14840) 5 years ago

You're fuckin' easily entertained. I guess you failed to pick up on that I am done with you, yet?

reply

[–] jekporkins (1985) 5 years ago

Yet you keep replying. You should be ashamed.

reply

[–] brux (14840) 5 years ago

Believe me, I am. ;-) LOL

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

To brux,

Why on Earth would I have any desire to continue a discussion with you?

Instead of replying with an insulting and condescending reply, you simply could have suggested viewing this film from the overall perspective of the message of the film versus the way it was assembled but you chose not to

And the way the actors held rifles was not the only issue I had with the film, I just listed that one thing as an example. As other replies put forth, the combat scenes were not well done at all and at times looked more like segments from a video game.

So I would suggest in the future if you desire to discuss movies like an adult then to act like an adult.

Oh, and for your other idiotic claim if me creating another account to reply for lack of "courage"....grow up will you. It all goes back to me deciding to ignore your replies and move on.

reply

[–] brux (14840) 5 years ago

> So I would suggest in the future if you desire to discuss movies like an adult then to act like an adult.

It was hard for me to believe you were so very hurt, angered and offended by that comment. If that is really true just know, I don't know you, I bear you no ill will, and there was no intention to attack you. The "you should be ashamed of yourself" ( sheesh, it's very hard believe you and another person, if that was another person are serious about that ) comment was was not meant seriously. Do you think it is an appropriate level of sensitivity on a internet chat board to be so outraged?

Asking me to explain your motivation to have a conversation is not something I can do, you're such an adult, decide for yourself ... do or do not ... quit throwing it at me.

So, you give me some advice, I will return the favor, make an effort to stifle emotional reactions that you get when reading stuff from people you do not know and cannot assume the intentions of. I will tell you I was not judging you, but with very little reason and no evidence you have consistently judged me harshly, and will not stop complaining and let bygones by bygones and talk about the movie. You know, you can put me on ignore?

As an adult you might surmise that if you responded to my last post with movie discussion, but I am not seeing that you have some deep perceptions about this film but I am still giving you the chance. So, does that still sound like I am judging you, or maybe something else?

> And the way the actors held rifles was not the only issue I had with the film

You are the one who made the original post ... "There is just so much off about this flick - filming, dialog, story and so on". The "essay" form requires that you state a thesis and back it up, but if there was so much "off" about the movie why just mention the one trivial thing? Usually when people say there are multiple points to discuss, as a critic they the pick the one that is the biggest. Was that the biggest problem?

If you are willing to try, what is the main thing you found "off" about this movie? I wonder if you cared about the actual themes in the movie, and why you concentrated on the video game aspects of the movie if you are not looking for those aspects ... i.e like an action adventure movie - which this was not, or only partially was.

reply

[–] rudeboymurray (3291) 5 years ago

A let-down for me. It was watchable, although way overlong, and there are flashes of Lee’s expert craft, but the actors are left to do the heavy-lifting, struggling to make the script work. They don’t succeed - the cliches simply overwhelm their efforts. Delroy Lindo is magnetic and the ending does pack a punch, but this is not one of Lee’s strong movies, and it had me rolling my eyes more than once. 4/10

reply

[–] brux (14840) 5 years ago

I disagree with your assessment of the movie, I'd give a 7/10 ... but

> the actors are left to do the heavy-lifting, struggling to make the script work.

This is a fair point. Plus, to me there were an awful lot of black cliches, including the overuse of the MF-word, and using the word "blood". I could be mistaken about the use of the word blood since I am not black and don't really remember when it was used, where it came from or why ... (blood brother maybe). It doesn't matter much but I never thought that term appealing or understood it.

reply

[–] KBiker (1252) 5 years ago

Agree about the combat scenes. The actors looked like they were simply portraying soldiers and doing it poorly. Even the terrain seemed way off, not like the jungles of Vietnam I remember, even though they were filmed in Thailand. Compare this to combat scenes of Platoon, my idea of the best Vietnam flick. Second place to Apocalypse Now.

reply

[–] brux (14840) 5 years ago

> Compare this to combat scenes of Platoon, my idea of the best Vietnam flick. Second place to Apocalypse Now.

Which were all filmed in the Philippines, no? Thailand is much closer to the terrain of Viet Nam that the Philippines is.

Maybe I am missing your point. Are you saying a Viet Nam war movie would be more realistic if it looks like other American Viet Nam war movies even though they were not filmed in Viet Nam, and filming in the actual jungles of Viet Nam would be inferior?

reply

[–] KBiker (1252) 5 years ago

The combat scenes were only one aspect of the film that seemed "off," as the OP said. In another post, I gave an assessment of the entire film.

reply

[–] brux (14840) 5 years ago

Did you not read my reply ... can you reply to it?

reply

[–] rudeboymurray (3291) 5 years ago

Actually, one of the few things I liked about this was that the actors were not re-cast as their younger selves, or ‘de-aged’ Irishman-style. I found it amusing to see the sixtysomething cast huffing and puffing as their teenage selves alongside the ripped Chadwick Boseman. Funniest thing about the movie.

reply

[–] brux (14840) 5 years ago

Let me try this again, in a different way, or a different thread. I think by going on in and jumping on one mostly superficial point that irked you about the movie ... and I am not commenting on or qualifying your perception, I am merely trying to say that by deciding to stop at that point I think you missed out an a lot of really meaningful packed full of positive feeling, wisdom, effort and hope movie.

Further, by putting conclusion out there they way you did, however honest it is, works to prevent others from benefiting from seeing this movie in the deeper light that it needs to be looked at in. That I would want to see others have the opportunity to perceive freely without being prejudiced.

I mean, I could pick some aspect of the movie like that, like say this movie misses the mark because all they do is say motherfucker in it a million times, and that would be a factual valid statement, but it's not really about the movie, it's about how I feel about the word motherfucker being used to excess in a movie.

So?

reply

[–] Roguemail (1634) 5 years ago

I find it hilarious that anyone would advocate someone staying within their comfort zone, in any capacity.

I would rather people stretch out and try something different and end up compromised or even fail, but would still admire them for trying.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Roguemail,

I think I should have been clearer in my usage of "comfort zone" when addressing Lee and this movie. After reading initial reviews of the excellence of this movie, I had great all-around expectations and then watched the movie and was vastly underwhelmed. And this was not by the content - I thought the opening was excellent, as with the historical facts of the movie. But other parts seemed like that of a movie from a college student filmmaker or a first-time independent filmmaker.

So, what I meant by "comfort zone" I meant you have directors and moviemakers who are fabulous when it comes to certain types of moviemaking and not others. For example, can you picture some of the CGI-superhero moviemakers doing a small, drama with fine acting? Or if other well-known action movie filmmakers were to make a Rom-Com or Hallmark movie.

I thought it was fascinating how he chose not to use CGI or younger actors for the main characters in the flashbacks and thought even though their age wasn't right in the flashbacks, that choice was more effective than Scorsese's decision to do what he did in The Irishman.

reply

[–] DracTarashV2 (4497) 5 years ago

Welp... there you have it, folks! This is the final word. The numerous clear reactionary propagandists giving their several cents on this film aside, looks like no one has any reason to feel differently than the OP. Ya hear that, folks? Don’t watch it (or expect it to deliver) if you were intending to cuz OP speaks for everyone, no arguments.

Why Lee, why you had to go and do something new? You made something that was still 100% identifiably you in many aspects, but from an overall filmmaking pov it was something different.

Oh please.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]