I was just thinking what a coincidence it was to have these two similar movies released on the same year and competing for Oscars. After all, both are adventures on the sea, in which there are flying fishes, sharks and a giant whale.
share[deleted]
Kon-Tiki was a $hity wannabe-Hollywood historical inaccurate piece of trash, and Pi was a watchable CGI-orgy, but still waaaay better than Kon-Tiki.
Max Manus and Kon-Tiki are one of the most overrated pieces of historical inaccurate $hitflicks that have come out of Norway, home of the $hittiest filmmakers in the world.
So what if it's not entirely accurate? When is a film ever entirely accurate? I've never seen any film without someone complaining about how inaccurate it is to the true story. And yes, I liked the film, so what? If you've got a problem with that, I don't really care, but whatever you will comeback at me with will not change my mind. Say whatever you want to say.
Fear not the darkness, but welcome its embrace.
Idiot. The accuracy is that one of the characters is portraited completely false.
You can change the story etc to make the script more flowing etc, but to change the looks and personality of a real life character 180 degrees is cowardous and proof of poor script writers.
You can of course like the film, but I feel sorry for you if you are so easily entertained.
If I were a member of the Watzinger-family I would beat the living $hit out of the directors.
They also portraited Max Manus as war hero who single handedly beat the Nazi's, but they didn't mention the thousands of jews that was deported at the same time. Why? Because Norway is perfect and we got war heroes you can't talk bad about etc. Max Manus is also a horrible movie with some of the worst acting I've ever seen
[deleted]
So... you HATE the film because one character is portrayed differently? Okay, but that's one of the things I meant when I mentioned that not all films are accurate. When you walk into a movie based on a true story you should of course expect to see a change in a character or more characters. But, oh well, if that's what you hate the film so much for, so be it, don't over exaggerate and make us people think you're pissed because other people liked it as well. Just saying.
Fear not the darkness, but welcome its embrace.
You idiot. It's like if someone portrayed Hitler as a good guy.
Watzinger was a hero and he was strong and brave. Not som fat fecker who acted like a retarded coward 24/7.
The directors of this movie are known for their historical inaccuracy(check out the propaganda movie Max Manus, terrible). I expect movies to tweak the characters a bit, but not by this much. Crappy movie anyways. Not just because of Watzinger.
Ah well, your opinion is your opinion, I on the other hand, loved the movie.
share
you won't find many complaints about the accuracy of Dark Blue World, and most of what you'll find will be stuff like "a plane had the wrong size number on the tail and was the wrong shade of green"
I do, however, realize that film is the exception to the rule
some of the best moments we pass in this life are in the dreams of others