Watched this last night and thought god, how can you take the story of the most decorated regiment in US history and make such a boring film.
Could we look without a fear,
If we knew our end was nigh?
Get Spielberg or Hackeron in to direct?
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.
I agree completely. The makers were obsessed with tedious flashbacks, so I nearly fell asleep during what could have been a gripping film.
How the hell this film cost over 3 million dollars to make is a complete mystery. The action scenes (presumably the most expensive part) looked like they were all filmed either a) in a set, or b) in a forest. The wounds didn't look particularly real and the cast wasn't so huge that that would account for the budget, so where did all the money go?
I don't know.
It is for sure slow - and some flashback are a bit non-sequiturs.
Pat Morita appearing in a cone of light is - well- somewhat absurd.
But, Only The Brave has a style and a way to tell a story.
They could do much worst and go fior a rat-at-at B-movie as 'Inglorious bastards' (I mean, the original 1978 one) or they could go for an ageography, the upper-stiff-lips, heroes and saints fighting the Evil.
The film came out as a middle way - not bad.
About the '3 million dolalr budget' - the main set looks like the usual 'french village' lot (Paramount's, I suppose) when countless stories passed thru.
Seems quite much the same village where the Star Trek Voyager crew had the usual 'holodec malfuncitions' and they found in the middle of WWII - 7of9 as the chanteuse of the bistrot, Tuvok as the Maquis and I don't remember who else doing what.
And yes, the forest looks like a forest doing a 'forest' impression.
Still, also this lot - and the modification needed into it - didn't came for free.
Quite less expensive than build a set from scratch, but still they had to pay a rent for that.
Nor the weapons, blank ammunition and insurance for the people to use those blanks are cheap, either
The uniforms were good replicas - also the flashbacks had good props, hairstyles, cars and so on.
Lightning equipment (for the 'lame' blue effects someone critized) and all the technica stuff didn't come out the depots to support the cause, nor the catering and so on.
So, I'm not that sure that evenm Spielberg could do much better on the 'looking real' department, with just three million dollars.
Atually, on such a shoe-string budget, I have seen much worst waste of filmrolls.
This was a pretty accurate portrayal of what war is often like.
There is a LOT of sitting around talking, thinking and internalising. Action, when it happens, is nothing like the blood & guts Hollywood crap people seem to expect.
I'm sorry if you find this boring, but that's what real life is like.
In addition, it wasn't really about the 442nd, their battle achievements, their sacrifices and the prejudices of whites against Nisei - For that, watch films like Go For Broke (1951).
It was about a few individuals and their personal stories. The unit they belonged to was almost immaterial, although I'm glad to have more people being made aware of the 442nd. WW2 is the setting, the story of the Lost Battalion is the sub-setting and the events around a few soldiers the main plot. In short, it's a good solid war film that not only brings a very special regiment to yoru attention, but portrays the Nisei as having pretty much identical stories to all the other Americans.
"Looks like a forest"??!!
What kind of remark is that? It *was* a forest and it was *supposed to be* a forest. They were in a forest for real, so they shot it in a forest. Where's the issue?
I don't understand what you're getting at, there...
3mil is not a lot of money in today's movie industry.
The cinematography is very stylistic and has an edge of surrealism, which I like because it's mostly being told as a guy remembering, recalling his own flashbacks at the time and also having mild hallucinations (maybe - You're left to decide that yourself).
Additionally, a lot of the combat is at night and rather than show precisely how it actually looks, the film makers opted for how people tend to perceive and recall it.
The Spacehunter Forum:
http://spacehunter.phpbbhosts.co.uk/
The film certainly shows honour and respect to a unit most casual viewers will probably be unaware of, but the poor script, with endless flashbacks, destroys any flow to the narrative.Dialogue is often mumbled and action scenes just seem thrown in for measure.
sharebut the poor script, with endless flashbacks, destroys any flow to the narrative.Dialogue is often mumbled and action scenes just seem thrown in for measure.
The film certainly shows honor and respect to a unit most casual viewers will probably be unaware of, but the poor script, with endless flashbacks, destroys any flow to the narrative.Dialogue is often mumbled and action scenes just seem thrown in for measure.
I disagree. The movie was told from a very intimate, personal point of view -and is not a necessarily bad thing to do. There are plenty of directors who can give you a blockbuster but a good story is harder to tell.
The movie was never going to be popular with the average American who don't want to know about this story of heroism by Japanese-Americans. I imagine it will take another good 70 years to distance ourselves from the events to truly appreciate what this regiment accomplished.
Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.