MovieChat Forums > ShavedPeanut
ShavedPeanut (5)
Posts
Replies
I loved it. I've never read the book but I enjoyed the '94 version, and this version, with its non-linear narrative, works extremely well. Definitely worth watching if you like the story.
I can see why they omitted the planting of the flag. SPOILER. Considering that they only land on the moon right at the end of the film, and considering that the film was essentially about Neil Armstrong coming to terms with his daughter's death, it made sense not to kill the well-built momentum and the rather affecting finale by taking time out to show the flag-planting (which in the context of the the finale wouldn't in any way serve the very personal story the filmmakers were telling).
I don't for a second believe the omission is some form of revisionist history; it's about telling a well-paced story. As important a historical moment as the flag-planting was, it would have taken away from the heartbreaking moment where Neil lets go of his daughter's wristband. It's about storytelling: about knowing what to focus on to make the most effective and moving story.
Also, I disagree that the filmmakers were claiming that sending a man to the moon was an immoral waste of money; they were merely showing what was a very real concern by a number of Americans at the time that the money spent on space exploration could be spent on other things. And to balance that scene (and very real concern), they showed what a staggering achievement landing on the moon actually was.
whynotwriteme, does the film at any point state that Wakanda excludes other races? A country where the majority of the population are (broadly speaking) of one ethnic group is not a sign of prejudice - it just shows a lack of immigration. I mean, heck, look at countries like Japan, Ghana and Nigeria; they're not expressing prejudice because they don't have a lot of whites living there.
NorrinRad, if you don't mind my asking, what exactly is your point? You seem to be desperately searching for negativity towards the film, which, considering you haven't seen it yet, seems rather odd. Do you want it to fail? Do you want to dislike it? Because gathering by some of your words, you seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about Black Panther; and other than the most obvious possibility, I can't for the life of me figure out why.
Or is your original post satire and it's completely gone over my head?
Firstly, dolemite72, film/art/entertainment is subjective, so people can defend it by virtue of liking the very thing you're criticising. (One man's gold is another's mould, as it were.) Secondly, as unrealistic as this film may be (it is entertainment and not a documentary, after all), it would be just as unrealistic if it were a single man taking down a bunch of bigger, stronger men. I mean I love Batman, but if a guy tried to become the Dark Knight in real life, he'd barely last a week.
Thirdly, I happen to think Charlize Theron is a superb actor with a rather weighty screen presence. If you don't like her, that's fine; at the end of the day, any kind of performance is down to the personal preference of the viewer.
Fourthly, I thought Atomic Blonde was okay. There were some things in there I didn't like - I found the fractured narrative a bit unnecessary and I didn't care for James McAvoy's character or performance - but I thought the film was beautifully shot, had an engaging central performance from Charlize Theron and had some superb action scenes. Not a bad day at the office!
View all replies >