|
|
Post by Motto on Apr 12, 2016 11:55:32 GMT -5
These are the last two films I watched, wiki etc gives the low down, I generally watch once or twice a week, usually Spy/War and Indy/World these days though ocassional Thrill/Crime, but little Horror/Fantasy now, Old and new Westerns interest me too. The Olympus was a fast shoot em kill em , East/West, Homeric Ullysses homecoming of the Korean War, Circa today, (incidentally my Uncle served in Korea, but never spoke to me about it.) But it was engaging, but it is cruel of me feeding on such sadism, a cruel world. I still try and understand the twist to the classic Mythological archetypes, but just a bit of a movie The Ghost was a political intellectual thriller, that I never tuned into, too domestic , familiarity feeds contempt. But it was financed by Germany to attack Tony Blair the British Prime Minister is the bottom line, but it swings around the UK political elite and the CIA bond... i usually learn all about a book and a movie before I watch it but some people are offended by spoilers, good viewing. Watching a film with an occasional puff on a well chosen pipe and tobacco or mix and a light beverage is choice .   |
|
|
|
Post by Motto on Apr 12, 2016 12:36:28 GMT -5
I am thick today need a drink to loosen up I missed the Hobby forum for this topic Hi.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparks on Apr 12, 2016 13:11:15 GMT -5
No worries. All taken care of.
|
|
FQ
New Member
Posts: 80 
First Name: Jamie
Favorite Pipe: Chris Morgan Bones
Location:
|
Post by FQ on Apr 12, 2016 13:17:26 GMT -5
No worries, it'll probably get moved to appropriate section. My biggest gripe with Olympus Has Fallen was how ridiculously cheesy it was. I don't mean cheesy in the sense of bad special effects, campy dialogue (although there was plenty of that), or implausible plot (actually, this was major problem for me). The film was cheesy because it was basically a rehash of In the Line of Fire ( IMDB Link) with a disgusting amount of phony nationalism. I won't go into the nationalism issue since we don't talk politics here, but I will explore the regurgitated plot. In Olympus Has Fallen, Gerald Butler plays a disgraced Secret Service agent who must stop a crises involving the President being taken hostage to destroy America with its own nuclear arsenal. In the Line of Fire has Clint Eastwood playing a disgraced Secret Service agent who must stop a very clever individual who wants to kill the President and things get personal when the killer taunts Eastwood's character. In both films, the protagonist is haunted by past mistakes: Butler's character chooses between saving the First Lady and the President in a horrible car accident involving icy roads and saves the President, Eastwood's character was assigned Presidential detail when JFK was shot and feels himself responsible for the death of the former president. This might shock you if I say it, but the films differences aren't huge. Butler's character spends most of the film contending with a highly organized paramilitary force overtaking the White House while Eastwood's character spends most of his time being one step behind Malkovich's character (the antagonist). Although these are seemingly vast differences and genre definingly so (Olympus Has Fallen is an action film, In the Line of Fire is a thriller); the majority of these story developments are simply character refining elements that leads to the same conclusion: good guy defeats bad guy. I still kind of like In the Line of Fire, but Olympus Has Fallen doesn't even execute the story they regurgitated well. The film was clearly made to show off Gerard Butler's badassery on screen but has little else. The most puzzling thing is that they got Morgan Freeman to play Speaker Trumbull. Freeman has been more careful about what films he plays in after a few disastrous missteps so it seems odd that he would agree to play a minor yet visible role in a film with almost no substance. That's just my take on it anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Motto on Apr 12, 2016 13:33:33 GMT -5
But movies are another hobby some people take professionally which is fine, but I admit I do not follow movies as a hobbyist or fan but as a casual observer with some general knowledge and experience of tv and movie watching for my sins...I may add.
|
|
|
|
Post by Motto on Apr 12, 2016 13:40:22 GMT -5
I posted this by mistake hi, then re edited it below , after finding the regular format, but if I spend a couple of hour of my mortal existence on the trashiest of films I try to learn something from it, but I am no critic and not a fan really. But wiki and others give me some idea , but I find there are great films that have been box office flops and panned by the critics but have some original artistic merit. But thanks for the comment. But this has no artistic merit , but perhaps I am not giving it some credit calling it a shoot 'em kill'em computer game spin off genre. My comment about political correct heroes goes back to the old movies from 40's onwards that I was brought up with, the hero now sheds a tear, and behaves like a proper citizen or even the perfect psychological psychopath, for the medical theorists, but often flawed product if modern educational theories, movies as always as propaganda for social manipulation. Even dystopian stories teach propaganda , but I am generalising, and rambling. |
|
FQ
New Member
Posts: 80
First Name: Jamie
Favorite Pipe: Chris Morgan Bones
Location:
|
Post by FQ on Apr 12, 2016 14:36:24 GMT -5
But movies are another hobby some people take professionally which is fine, but I admit I do not follow movies as a hobbyist or fan but as a casual observer with some general knowledge and experience of tv and movie watching for my sins...I may add. Hah, no worries. I got a little carried away there. I sometimes have pretty strong feelings about films and television, but since most people aren't interested in getting into it I sometimes end up getting too excited when someone mentions a film I've thought quite a bit about. |
|
