MovieChat Forums > Bolchevik > Replies
Bolchevik's Replies
Somewhere in North Africa, Don't think we can know for sure.
Alessandro's article said Washington confessed in Court.
That was also pretty contradictory since Carl denounces police behaviour but at the same he triggers it. That character was so dumb:
1. Playing tough guy with a toy gun;
2. Staging his friend's death;
3. Firing not one but several shots at the ... army (wth!?);
4. Doesn't understand why the cops came while it was obvious because he shot them;
5. Run like a sissy while he was playing tough guy all night long;
6. First to run;
It was like the director wanted to justify his Killing by the police.
Was Louisiana in the war ? If so, probably there wasnt much fight there so I suggest the director wanted Louisiana's landscape but had to pretend it was in Virginia for historical Reason.
I Don't think it was out of spite, according to what the movie showed us at least.
It seemed to me he was playing with Kidman for Shelter but seemed to care for Dunst even if he could not resist to the Young and hot Elle Fanning.
Well they were interrupted but it seemed very clear to me they were just about to have sex :
1. They were lying on a bed;
2. They were doing preliminaries;
3. They were obviously having fun;
4. It's 1850, you Don't expect a grown man in a teen's bedroom at night for any othe reason. Well, even in 2019 lol.
The real question is, was it their first time ?
It was more than disbelief, it didn't make any sense
Isn't racist to be obsesed by race and to make a living by racially scanning everything you see ?
Westeros is like medieval Europe. It would not be very serious if it was full of colored people. Just as I wouldn't expect any white people in a film about Shaka Zulu.
Apart the fact it wasn't clear if Washington was dead when being burned, I think the movie pretty much covered how barbaric was his death. I know he killed that woman but definitely didn't deserve such an horrific death. The crowd was probably pissed that they could not hang him before the trial so they tortured him to show they still had "control".
It's beyond me how normal people can assist and enjoy such things. But in medieval times, torture was very common and people were enjoying it like a show. In fact, only 100 years or so before Washington, they were still officially doing even more gruesome sentences. Lookout the guy who tried to kill the French king Louis XV. I won't repeat the details here but be ready to make nightmares after reading it. I remember Casanova relating in his novel that some people had intercourses while watching the horrific death and the crowd applauded after the untenable ordeal...
I found it entertaining but beside the conference at the start, I didn't see the Spike Lee's touch. Very conventional movie unfortunately.
Brian Cox ? Just kidding.
While I didn't find Rose Byrne that beautiful but she was definitely the most attractive of the lot for me.
Yeah, I didn't like Peter O'toole performance either
@OP : One of the few movies I Always like to rewatch, probably because it's epic. Weirdly, I think Gladiator is cinematically Superior but I just can't rewatch it.
I think the Reason why they don't make too much historical movies these days is because it's just not that popular anymore. Today, superhero is the new trend, sadly. I dare say historical movies are more for mature audience. The market moved on television. Vikings is pretty interesting. The English series of Troy is also really nice, much more complete though less epic than the movie.
It seemed poor script, even if they tried to adress the issue in the movie. We can also add that :
1. The chief was smart enough to send a black a cop to a black panther conference but not enough to send a white cop to a white conference;
2. I doubt the KKK would have accepted a black cops as a "protection";
3. I even doubt the KKK would have accepted any protection at all;
4. When the chief gives Ron the protection mission the racist cop presence wasn't justified and he certainly had no say;
It was pretty insulting since you're assuming the bar's glasses are dirty. You should either say Nothing or not drinking.
@brude : It's all the more weird then. Why insert such a scene if the director knows it can "disturb" people. He should have just have avoided it completely.
Mark, im surprised of your comment which let me think you did not read my post except maybe the first line. Though I Don't think the story of the movie was really relevant, I would have been ok with a "guy acted like a dick once and then got his ass handed to him by a feminist". But the whole movie was much more than that, which was a deliberate and political choice from the movie maker.
I will add it doesn't take a lot of courage to do such a movie these days. It would have been brave in 1950. In 2018 it looks more like resentment. Or what about a movie how women are treated in Saudi Arabia today ? That would be much more relevant and courageous in my opinion.
You Don't need to see snowflakes or SJW on these forums. The movie in itself is doing their jobs.
The movie could have been moderate and intelligent : people go see women playing tennis so they are entitled equal pay, let's beat Bobby. But no. The whole movie's point was to degrade men. It's called "battle of the sexes" but it could easily be renamed "eradiction of the male" "or "men slavery". This movie is not about equality but about how men are not Worth to live at all, except maybe to produce heirs.
You Don't have to analyze it very much. All the women are almost perfect. All the men are flawed. Plus the super PC.
1. Bobby is chauvinist and a gambler;
2. The husband is cuckold but still nice to her wife;
3. Another husband does the babysitting so her wife can have a career;
4. The gay men are a caricature;
5. The gentleman is a dinosaur;
On the other side :
1. Bobby's wife is the perfect forgiven wife;
2. Billie is perfect;
3. the two lesbians are both strong indpendent women;
4. The whole women team is near perfection (except one who is a little jealous and gets beat by Bobby);
Zero subtlety. Billie happens to also be a lesbian. So a super cheesy sub-plot about that and her new flame. It was so emphasized it was embarrassing.
So it's not about that it's a true story or not. the filmaker made many choices and purposefully put the emphasis on some elements rather others.
Try to remember the scene. The cast was actually never in front of any Elephants' horde. It was obviously shot at two different locations/times and was edited to look like a confrontation. But it was not. They were clearly not together and you had no big plan showing the mature éléphants on one side and Wayne on the other side.
@iammel1270
Instead of using the movie to see how the society evolved since then, you could do the contrary and see how it also partly socially regressed. I also think Hatari was really progressive for the time and I invite you to listen to other movies of that era to notice it. Now on your comments :
1. The team always treated the Africans decently and never harmed one or insulted one. Not sure people in Georgia did the same in 1962;
2. Some Africans were depicted as normal people working with their team and obviously were getting paid;
3. Some Indigenous Africans were also depicted with respect for their status and civilisation (water system, etc.)
4. Some Americans learned the Africans’ language and sometimes talked to them in their language;
5. They treated the animals with respect, never harmed them or insulted them;
6. Women were treated like equals except for the physical part of chasing animals, which was much more physical;
7. No women were harassed or sexually assaulted. On the contrary, they were playing love games with men who were always respectful of them, even when talking about them;
8. The least well treated person was Pocket a white grown men, playing the clown. I didn’t see you criticizing his treatment.
All of the above are proofs of great respect, especially for the time. To be honest, I was pretty surprised to see that much respect for a hollywoodian movie made in 1962. Maybe it doesn’t address the today’s extra-sensitivity but that’s another story.
Moreover, your analysis of Dallas’ treatment seems wrong. Dallas had the treatment she deserved not because she was a woman like you seem to want to believe but because she acted like a spoiled brat at first. Just imagine a man would have done the same:
1. She comes unannounced in the middle of Africa (we’re not talking of a neighbour);
2. She presents herself to the team by invading the private bed of John Wayne in the middle of the night;
3. Despite that, she refuses to explain who she is and command them to wait the next morning (oh and Wayne can’t sleep in his bed of course);
4. The next morning, she’s the last one to wake up and comes for breakfast (of course we can assume she didn’t help to prepare any of it) and then requests to be part of the team while she has no training or experience in that field (and we know it’s dangerous since the Indian got to the hospital the day before);
5. When getting a “no”, instead of trying to earn their respect by another way, she imposed herself by financially threatening them;
So yeah, at this point she was a big nuisance and very unsympathetic character and the way she was treated in the chase was deserved
Later she becomes more sympathetic, but it does not change the fact she’s unexperienced so it totally makes sense she did not know or forgot not to go to the water hold alone
The only point I agree with you is the Dallas’ crying which was a product of its time and influenced by hollywoodian’s standards and commercial purposes (need a love sotry, John Wayne status). Indeed, beside those scenes, Dallas was still a very independent and strong woman as the film showed otherwise just like the other one who was actually their boss.
Concerning the animals, I am not a specialist of how to capture an animal for a zoo but honestly, I’m not sure what we could expect ? I guess at the time they didn’t have sedatives. Their goal is to capture the animal so you just do it and the way they did it seemed pretty accurate. Yes it can seem a little brutal but how do you think all these animals ends up in the zoo that you probably went at some point in your life ? The ones you’re eating are probably treated worst but it’s still legal and ethically justifiable (killing animals, not brutalizing them). I admit CGI is a great improvement though.
Wouldn't say progressive but you have definitely some left leaning elements :
1. Very obvious mixed couples;
2. A lesbian coming out;
3. All the guys/men are flawed;