Post a response to this discussion thread
What on earth is (twallace) talking about? The film is a slick, mainpulative peice of shit that appeals to people who like their symbolism and hackneyed moral philosophizing handed to them on a silver platter. Add in some travelogue style cinematography and about 8 million self effacing cameos from various A-List exposure whores who wanted to prove their ability at material beyond rom-com and cheeseball action crap and you have 3 hours of facile rumination and contrived preaching along the lines of 'War is Bad': something that anyone with half a brain could have worked out for free. And I have to agree with cranky that the studio did con a lot of the public into thinking this film would be a lot more exciting than it was. This was a really feeble piece of middle brow entertainment that pandered to the baser snobbery and cultural stagnation of it's audience. People liked it because it seemed to have something to say, then said it repeatedly and in paint by numbers fashion so no-one actually had to apply any kind of real thought to it. It was also mainstream enough that people didn't feel threatened about having to go and see it: war film, violence, recognisable stars = lots of cash from the largest audience demographic, teenage guys. A vacuous, hollow, polished, commercial, pseudo poetic waste of space that unsurprisingly was nominated for a ton of awards 9probably by people who hadn't even seen it).
(twallace) needs to sort his/her thinking out. I in Europe and I don't know where this misconception that everyone here speaks several languages and reads poetry stems from. We have our own fair share of human doorknobs. We also make shit, formula based films. Actually try visiting these places.
Post a response to this discussion thread