MovieChat Forums > Taking Chance (2009) Discussion > Very deficient movie

Very deficient movie

posted 14 years ago by pepeds2002
25 replies | jump to latest

I thought this movie was gonna be interesting, but within the first half hour I was very disappointed. I kept watching it nevertheless, and I found it to be a very deficient movie in several aspects, there is very little interesting content, and feels strongly as propaganda. The only character that is developed at all is Lt.Col. Mike Strobl (but not very deeply either), all the rest of the characters are absolutely uni-dimensional. There are too many narrative deficiencies, and it really never caught my attention.

I understand that for the people that has family involved directly in this war, or that has a deep emotional attachment with the marines, it could have been a very touching subject (by far the demographic group that gives this movie the highest rankings are women older than 45). Nevertheless, by no standards does that make it a good movie.

As respectful as you might feel for the families of the marines killed in action, it's very difficult to ignore the obvious bias on the uni-dimensionality of all characters, and the blatant emotional manipulative intention of the ubiquitous slow-paced soundtrack.

I know many of you disagree with me, but I am trying to be objective here, and I hope if you respond, you do it in a similar fashion. In advance, please save your insults, they say nothing about me, but a lot about yourselves.

[–] redwingjs 14 years ago

Since you make the claim that the movie is propaganda, please explain what about the movie propaganda.

Dinging a movie because minor characters who have passing parts is pretty weak as well. You can't expect characters that appear in a single scene with just a couple of lines to be developed in any way.

Additionally, this movie was based on the real life experience of Lt. Col. Strobl and nearly all of the encounters he had appeared as they happened in real life.

I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.
www.werepissedoff.net

[–] pepeds2002 14 years ago

If you read my post, the lack of development of the characters is only one of many deficiencies that I see in the movie, but if you want to talk about it, I will use it to elaborate for you one of the reasons why I consider it propaganda:

All the characters, including the main one, obviously have a very deep respect and a strong emotional connection with the marines and what they represent, this, even if many people thinks is the way it should be, it's obviously not truth. There is not one single antagonism, there is no obstacle to overcome, no digression, no peripeteia. The movie presents a world where there is only one universal truth, and it requires from the spectator allegiance to that universal truth, even where there has been no development that leads him/her into it, which makes the narrative very deficient, and makes it feel less of a movie and more as a very long commercial (or better: as propaganda for the United States Marine Corps)

[–] redwingjs 14 years ago

No, you project all of what you just said onto the movie and onto what a single Marine experienced.

If the USMC wanted to produce propaganda, they could do far better than telling the story of a man who volunteered to escort a dead Marine back home.

I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.
www.werepissedoff.net

[–] TcH3rNo 14 years ago

A movie completely devoid of any type of political statement and yet, I'm mesmerized to see a few people say that this movie is "propaganda". The film merely depicts, accurately if I may state, all the honors and customs bestowed upon combat troops killed in action. The beauty about this movie is that the actors do not try to do too much, and simply react to the events themselves. You might think that the lack of character of development is a deficiency but it was done on purpose because this type of movie does not attempt to entertain its viewer, merely show you the facts.

http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/movies/

[–] ecjones1951 14 years ago

The one universal truth of this movie is very profound: everyone, military or civilian, deserves respect and dignity in death. Surely it comes as no surprise that Taking Chance resonates so strongly with women over 45; women that age are the most likely to have buried a child killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. I hope it provides them some small comfort to know that their loved one's last journey was marked by honor and dignity, and that he or she was never left alone. There are countless "road movies," some silly comedies, others poignant or profound, and in each one we get only glimpses or vignettes of the people met along the way. That's what happens along any journey be it for pleasure or for the most solemn of reasons.

In Taking Chance several of the characters and scenes are fleshed out and are quite memorable, including the sergeant in Minneapolis who is escorting his own brother's casket back to Rochester, MN. I'm thinking too of the corporal we meet in the bar who served with Chance and describes being in the convoy when the IED exploded, killing his buddy. We meet the funeral home director who makes a 10-hour drive round trip to meet LtCol Strobl and escort him and the casket back to Chance's hometown. And, most moving of all for me is the scene on the highway where impatient drivers eager to pass the slow-moving hearse and Strobl's car see the flag-draped casket in the hearse and drop back to form an impromptu funeral procession, turning their lights on as a sign of respect. This did not seem corny or contrived to me in the least. I also felt it was very effective to have Chance's father read the letter sent to the family by Chance's commanding officer as a voiceover to the funeral service. I did not expect to be, but I was very moved by the whole experience.

[–] actionmanrandell 9 years ago

you are an idiot

this movie was based solely on the escorts legal journal logs he kept when on the escort more over it doesn't meet the requirement to be propaganda which is defined as information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

it has no unbiased or misleading nature and is not trying to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view

[–] Talon884 14 years ago

This movie is larger than needing character devolopment, it is about honor and respect! And being sympathetic to all who have lost loved ones and gratefull for their sacrifices. Period.

[–] wyliec 14 years ago

To the OP - can you produce evidence that the airline pilot, the baggage handlers, and others did not actually act with the respect an honor displayed in the film?? How does one develop characters whose involvment in the story were transitory yet meaningful in the aggregate?? Don't denigrate a movie simply because you don't understand it or appreciate it....

[–] nlapietr 14 years ago

I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist, but for what it its worth, here are my thoughts.....

Perhaps you need to be in a similar place (mentally) with Lt. Co. Strobl to understand the character development. This movie was about (at least to me) Lt. Col. Strobel doing a penance to make up for his self conceived feeling of guilt for not being deployed (a second time, he was deployed for the Desert Storm I believe). He volunteers for escort duty to do something to make things right to those who did go, and died or were wounded as a result.

I was active for 15 years and reserve for five after that. I was active during Desert Storm, and several other conflicts. I was never deployed to the combat zone. I did not try to get out of it, but I did not try to get into it either. I also carry guilt about not being there, like I took the easy way out and didn't pull my load. I understand the Lt. Col's feelings, and his wish to make amends, even though logically I feel there is no reason he should feel this way. I hope the journey provided what he wanted and he has gained some peace.

Every one of us owes a debt to everyone who was deployed or stayed back to keep things running. The military personnel are not deployed or kept in garrison to represent one person's point of view. The Military, as a tool of diplomacy (and yes,we are a tool of diplomacy even in war), represents the Country, a living, breathing, entity unto itself, responsible to all those inhabiting it for keeping them safe, and secure. To do that the Country has its own set of priorities, strategies, and objectives. From a personal point of view we may not agree, and luckily we can voice our dissent. But it is not about us as individuals.

I'll get off my soap box now.

[–] LTUM 14 years ago

i think the OP said it best.

to the ones in this thread attempting to negate what he said, subjectivism must be iinterfering with your ability to hear the man. he makes sense, and is not attacking the war, or soldiers, or the movie for that matter. he is just saying it was very flat and one dimensional, pandering and SUGARY sweet, and i for one agree with him

well said OP

-----------------------------------
"Where.... can I put my ash?"

[–] TanteWaileka 12 years ago

subjectivism... hmmm... This movie was exactly what and how it should be ... it did not need nor have over dramatizing and it pushed absolutely NO agenda.

It was far from being 'sugary sweet' (which is really quite redundant a phrase) nor was there any pandering....

So women over 45 appreciated this movie? I'm fine with that, being in my 60s. My first husband was killed in Vietnam, my uncle died during WWII and my daughter lost a limb in one of the more recent wars.

If you think you can live in the US of A , the greatest country in the WORLD, and have more opportunity to do and be and have what you want from life, and not ever have to risk your own life, then be thankful and grateful and respectful for others who have had more courage and love of country than you do. Because of their sacrifice, and their family's sacrifice too, you have more opportunity than anywhere else in the world.

That's what this movie is about.

You want drama? Go watch Bonnie and Clyde or White Heat or some 'rap' venue.

Life is a journey not a destination. Fear nothing.

[–] LTUM 12 years ago

1-- do i know you?

2-- why did you pick me from the middle of the pack? shouldn't you be replying to the OP?

3-- 45 Y O women... w t f???

4-- if you want to compare, i can ASSURE you that my family served more than yours, returns and losses. guaranteed. and, moreover, nobody (me nor the OP) said ONCE anything bad about the USA, the military, or any of that. we were saying the movie sucked (not the subject it covered). so i ask you, why defend a bad movie? is it because... you like the subject so much, that excuses everything for you? ridiculous.
and yes, subjective. and you are a perfect example. you can't see EVEN THE POINT IN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE for your own hard-held views on the subject. a spade is a spade, and this movie was boring

5-- it did pander. to types like you. and the irony is you are too close to the pandering to see you were being pandered.

6-- look. have no prob whatsoever with the content. it's the poor filmmaking that is the issue here.

7-- more power to the USA, all military, having more opportunity, et al. nobody said otherwise.

8-- i hate rap. HATE it to the core. so that suggestion is about a thousand percent off lmao

"Cos... f__k's sake, who'd wanna keep trying to shoot a nice guy like me?" ---XXXX

[–] raynkim96 14 years ago

This is not a "movie" per se. It is a filming of a log that the Colonel kept of his entire trip and what he encountered. He rarely got to know the people involved during his travel so how could there be character development? Imagine fiming a day in your life. How much development would your characters have?

[–] GeorgiaBound 14 years ago

You say that you thought this movie was going to be interesting. This was a movie based on real-life and not meant to be in any way a blockbuster. I felt it was an excellent movie and I have no ties to the military whatsoever. It was very touching and I thought they did an excellent job in showing the difficulty they have in doing what needs to be done for a fallen soldier whether they are from the marines, the army, the airforce or the navy! I am still proud to be born and raised here in America even though this country is going down the toilet with Obama at the helm! God bless this country...we need it!

[–] kslinks 14 years ago

As a military spouse for 12 years (but under your age quotient) with a husband currently deployed, I can say that this was truly a good film experience. And it was very true to the experience of being in the military, an occupation that allows for the meeting of many people but not for the depth of relationship that one would hope for given more normal circumstances. As military members move frequently, there is a tendency to avoid becoming terribly close to folks that you will have to say goodbye to all to soon. And yet, military members are a family and the chance meeting of another member does confer a certain relationship that is immmediately felt, whether for moments or days.

As for the experiences with civilian strangers, the portrayal was very accurate...these kinds of interactions do happen to members in uniform, as I have seen personally. We have been honored with thanks, free meals, offers of help and merchandise, strangers picking up the tab for things when we are out somewhere and he is in uniform. The portrayal of the reactions by Col. Strobl were also accurate; when these things happen, we are never sure quite how to react other than a strained "thank you".

Also, although most military members have true conviction in their roles and feel very deeply about what they are doing, it is nonetheless not discussed openly...as if to discuss the sacrifice makes it harder to bear. So military members tend to brush off, evade, and avoid discussion of their basic beliefs, values, and feelings about their own sacrifices and the sacrifices of their brothers and sisters in uniform. So the lack of discussion about the issues of Col. Strobl is appropriate as well.

What you mistake for a lack of depth is simply a lack of familiarity with the actual circumstance of being involved in the military. From a military member standpoint, this was a true and honest portrayal.

[–] barbosa-vicki 14 years ago

I generally like movies with plenty of action and conflict, and I understand what the OP is saying. But this movie has a subtle, thought-provoking subtext underlying the apparently simple actions and travel. Putting oneself into the mind of the officer, you can feel some of his reactions and feelings, and it becomes very powerful. Kevin Bacon is no mean actor, and does a good job portraying the appreciation of the respect accorded to both him and PFC Phelps, his conflicted feelings over his own role, and also his coming to appreciate the man he was escorting.
I never cry at movies, but found myself shedding tears at this one. There was action and conflict, but it was something you have to imagine for yourself, from the clues presented. And it was good in that it helps us appreciate even more the sacrifices of our servicemen and women -- no matter what we may think of the war, we are pretty well united in support for them.