@frimmel:
What I’d compare it too is “Pearl Harbor” or “Titanic” only the first half isn’t quite as boring as either of those. You get to the big thing happening like the attack starting and the ship hitting the iceberg and the movie becomes much more interesting. I don’t care to see the whole thing again but I’d watch from just before they leave to steal the plans till the end again. The neat things are really neat and much of everything else is a pile of “meh.”
That’s kinda funny because while decorating Christmas cookies with my wife last night, I put on Mr. Plinkett’s review of Titanic. Partially because I wanted to listen to something funny and intelligent, but also because I thought my wife would at least be interested since she loves the movie. It worked and she actually laughed throughout. Point being, it was about Titanic and he even mentions Pearl Harbor a few times.
@frimmel:
I’d have liked it much better without the shaky-cam which I tend to think is a trait of directors who don’t actual believe in their material and as I think more about the tonal unevenness I’m inclined to pin that on a cynic trying to make a sort of traditional patriotic war movie and badly copying “Saving Private Ryan.” But he didn’t believe any of it. Maybe I’m trying to say the film was trying to be both “The Green Berets” and “Born of the Fourth of July.”
Did you ever watch Jason Bourne? As in the new one.
I was interested to see if you would post about it back when it came out, knowing you are an anti-shaky cam guy as a general rule. You will absolutely flip your $h!t if you watch it. I walked right out of the theater less than 30 minutes in, it was so bad. Still haven’t seen the end.
The plot was poor and derivative, the acting was uninspired, the characters were all re-hashes of previous versions. It did not hold my attention at all. The camera work and editing was so broken that it is the only film that has actually made my head hurt trying to follow it.