According to them, this is one of the best films of all time, perfect in every way.
Wow. Just wow.
Other notes:
16.8% voted 1 vs 16.6% voted 10.
The score drops with older voters. Teens are idiots.
Only 1/4 of voters from US, they give it lowest 4.7.
Dude, this is actually a really well made and interesting film. YOU MISSED IT. Get over it.
share"Interesting" is an opinion, but how could anyone say this film is "really well made"? Please explain.
share""Interesting" is an opinion, but how could anyone say this film is "really well made"? Please explain."
I say "really well made" because it has a command of technical know-how and film language. We go from scenes that are hand held POV video, standard in a bunch of movies nowadays, to ones that are meant to come from another film itself. The changes in shot selection and depth of field, color tinting, and even sound speak to someone who is well versed in the language of film, as DePalma is.
For one thing, where we switch to the driver's POV as the car moves through the checkpoint. There is nothing automatic in making that selection. After spending all this time with the soliders, we then take the POV of an Iraqi driver of these same soliders.
Also the decision to mix in other forms of media (the webchat with the Dad, the views of videos on webpages) to move the story was ingenious and not simply gimmicky. For instance, we see the insurgent's video as a POV of the same event we just witnessed from the solider's camcorder, which is reflective of the actual reality over there (insurgents videotaping attacks and events and posting it on a website).
And I work with film budgets- that they got this made for $5 million is pretty impressive.
For instance, we see the insurgent's video as a POV of the same event we just witnessed from the solider's camcorder, which is reflective of the actual reality over there (insurgents videotaping attacks and events and posting it on a website).
soliders ... soliders ... solider's
"Reality? These videos (and "a website") are completely unrealistic. Go and see some real ones (videos and websites). All this stuff was completely surrealistic."
They reflect the reality as in "there are actual websites where videos of actual IED attacks are shown". It's not a fictional conceit. Now I disagree with the notion that the website and videos shown were unrealistic as in "not like the real ones". I mean....we're watching a movie:we know they're not real. The point was to chop the story up and move it not only through different viewpoints but media itself. I mean, did you think the webchat between the father and son was "real"? Did you think the blog of the soldier's wife was a "real" webpage? No. We all know it's created for the film. I felt all of it- including the insurgent's webpage- was realistic enough to convey the feeling that was intended, and if you're going to fixate on how close the created webpage is to the real thing then you can't see the forest for the trees.
"What is a "solider"? "
What someone without spellcheck will type.
"Now, practically everything about this film was crap: script/screenplay, acting, direcing, cinematography."
Completely wrong on that count. The acting was good, if a bit uneven. The writing was strong in places, less so in others. The directing was interesting and the cinematography was effective.
"I hate this movie with a passion because Casualties of War was a good film and I excepted quality here too."
Well, first of all, "Casualties" was a major studio film with a studio budget. Hence it had a larger scale and that lush "movie" look. Comparing the two on that level is to compare apples and oranges. And I saw "Casualties" when it first came out and though I thought it was well made, I found the movie structurally flawed and not very moving. I think it is the inferior film.
Oh, so now you sayng it was all (whole movie from realism's persective, I mean there was not one thing remotely realistic in this film except the Sargeant's death) totally unrealistic on purpose, becuase "we know they're not real" anyway. Okay.
I felt all of it- including the insurgent's webpage- was realistic enough
Well, first of all, "Casualties" was
Wow dude, you simply don't get it.
"I mean there was not one thing remotely realistic in this film"
Bull- plenty of things beside the ones you mentioned were. I felt the time in the barracks was realistic, the scenes at the checkpoint were. Wrong again.
"totally unrealistic on purpose, becuase "we know they're not real" anyway. Okay."
Wrong again. For instance, the example that I gave, the Iraqi webpage, was a realistic presentation to me. I got what it was meant to be, and it looked like what it was meant to be. It was not "unrealistic". Your complaint about it is stuff that NO ONE notices. I have to break the news to you, but the other 99.999% of the population is not only unaware of the "proper" flags an insurgent website would have, THEY DON'T CARE. Your complaint is a petty detail irrelevant to practically everyone. Therefore to say it is "totally unrealistic" is wrong. It is realistic to the audience that buys into the film's experience, of which I am one of. It's not to you, but you clearly have issues.
"Probably because you are target audience - clueless people who don't know anything on the subject."
I'm the target audience in that I'm interested in the film's experience and not burning up the message boards with angry drivel. I wanted an interesting film- it was interesting to me. I found it realistic (enough), grim, and emotional. If I found it boring, phony, and flat I would have criticized it for that.
"First of all it was not written by De Palma. And not produced by him himself. There were people looking at his hands, therefore they ensured he will make a good film."
Um, the guy was the director. He's pretty responsible for how the film turns out. The way it works with an A list director is that usually he asks for what he wants and the producers try to deliver. Rather than they sit over him and "make sure" he makes a good film.
BTW the size of the budget is the definite factor in the size, scope, and technical quality of a film, so if you're not taking that into account you're really lost.
"Redacted is some of the worst films I've seen in my life"
Obviously you haven't sat through "The House Bunny" or "The Bounty Hunter".
I felt the time in the barracks was realistic, the scenes at the checkpoint were.
THEY DON'T CARE.
I found it realistic (enough), grim, and emotional.
Obviously you haven't sat through "The House Bunny" or "The Bounty Hunter".
Oh, and I'll give you an example:
An insurgent action video... where nothing happens? A random shephard finds a dumped corpse and the said corpse is not even booby trapped (hiding bombs in dead animals and people is a common insurgent tactic). Can't you fell THE EXCITEMENT? Not really? Me neither, that's why no one does videos like that. Hey, how about... an execution video? No? How strange!
Now, "insurgent" website that is using Iraqi national flags? Give me a break. De Palma did not do his homework, and by "homework" I mean opening a laptop and seeing some websites (here's a leading Sunni 'nationalist' group: http://iaisite-eng.org/, go and try to find some secular flags - and don't even start me on the totally Islamist groups, then remember this scene in the stupid film is supposed to be "based on" the revenge killings by non other but Al-Qaeda in Iraq).
And then a clueless guy like you calls it "realism". I just hope you're not serious.
"An insurgent action video... where nothing happens? A random shephard finds a dumped corpse and the said corpse is not even booby trapped (hiding bombs in dead animals and people is a common insurgent tactic). Can't you fell THE EXCITEMENT? Not really?"
Yeesh. Um, the POINT of that video was finding the corpse. That was the time when we, THE AUDIENCE, find out about Angel. The point is not to be 1000% true to whether actual real insurgents would make such a video. We are finding this out first from the POV of the people who did it. You are not getting it.
"Now, "insurgent" website that is using Iraqi national flags? Give me a break.
.....And then a clueless guy like you calls it "realism". I just hope you're not serious."
You know what- I never noticed anything about those flags. Never occured to me. You know why? Because I don't know a goddamn thing about them, and I don't care either. I suppose it would have served DePalma better to have gotten it right for nitpicks like you, but you know what's even MORE important? TO BE EMOTIONALLY INVOLVED WITH THE FILM. I was. I understood what it was supposed to be (an insurgent website), it seemed like a credible reprensation to me, and I stayed with the film emotionally. Which is the real point.
You remind me of guys that fixate on military hardware in movies and get into a snit over certain details ("You would never see an X15 used that way!") that are incidential to people like me. I don't know a BB gun from a rifle, and I don't much care. As a viewer, I'm concerned with "does it feel real?" and "do I care?". I'm always aware that I'm watching actors being filmed, but does it convey a feeling that lets me lose myself in it or not? And by that I don't mean the right gun or flag but by behavior and language. It would be better if films got those other details right (if only to avoid howls from guys like you), but it's even more important to get the story and characters right.
I was emotionally into "Redacted" so the scenes had the intended effect. Not only would I never know which flags were correct, I don't really care. I find your complaints to be weak tea compared to the power of the sequences.
Um, the POINT of that video was finding the corpse.
Because I don't know a goddamn thing about them, and I don't care either.