MovieChat Forums > PrimeMinisterX > Replies
PrimeMinisterX's Replies
I remember being shocked when I first learned years ago that a TV show's story is not fully worked out from the start. It just seemed obvious that it needs to be.
Quite. She doesn't look 60 but she does look a good 10 years older than her actual age. She is younger than I am but, if I didn't know better, I would think she is significantly older.
Do explain.
I think that he ascribed qualities of Democratic and Republican figures and groups to both sides.
You're correct that a few of Trump's qualities were given to this President. But it's also always the conservatives who are talking about secession. And certainly any resistance group from Florida you would expect to be conservative. And putting Texas and California together was clearly a calculated move to signal to the viewer that any traditional understanding of politics is not in play in this film.
It's noteworthy that never once does anyone in the film make any overt political statement, and the one time someone is asked what it is they're fighting for, the answer is simply, "Someone is trying to kill us; we are trying to kill them."
I might caution you not to expect too much in terms of battles and seeing the actual war playing out on the front lines. That only makes up about 15% of the 1 hr 42 min run time.
I interpreted the message of the movie as being: "No matter what side of the political aisle you're on, you don't want this shit. Find another way to work out your differences."
The best way to convey that message in a way that everyone gets it is to something exactly like Garland did, with no clear political motivations for either group.
Trump fan here. I enjoyed the film.
I guess you viewed the Western Forces as some kind of liberal coalition? A liberal coalition made up of California and . . . Texas? And the other resistance group in your mind was a group liberals from . . . Florida?
It seemed clear to me that Garland was trying to actively obscure the political motivations of either side.
While there are a few qualities of the president in the film that are consistent with Trump (dislike for journalists and the intelligence agencies, referencing God in speeches), there are no clear political motivations for anyone in the film. All we know is that there's a war on and that's it.
The very fact that Garland makes the principal rebel group in the film an alliance between Texas and California indicates that he was not trying to ascribe clear political motivations to anyone in the movie.
How to say a lot without saying anything. The worst allegation in the Variety link is that Stallone called a group of people "ugly." Not even an individual person, but a group. And who knows if that is even true.
This sounds like much ado about nothing.
I just watched the film a few nights ago. From my recollection, Jeff Daniels' character is talking to his brother and his brother three or four times in quick succession calls black folks "darkies." And then Daniels says something like, "Let's don't refer to the negroes as 'darkies' anymore. It is condescending."
I don't think there is much about the film that is PC. With the respect that it showed to the Confederacy, I actually regard it as gloriously un-PC.
That would be great if it actually happens but I am skeptical. Lang was great as Stonewall though, so if it does happen it would be awesome to see him tackle the role of Lee.
I finished the film last night and had a similar view. I love Duvall and enjoyed seeing him on screen, but he did seem to be sleepwalking a bit through this role. It's strange because you'd think he'd be great in a role like this.
I see someone above complaining about the casting of Sheen as Lee. While I agree that Sheen seems like a strange choice, I think he gave it all he had in his performance and so I cannot complain much.
Pretty sure I remember the scene you're talking about, where Jeff Daniels' character is talking to his brother. If that's the one, his brother didn't call the blacks "negroes," but "darkies."
Definitely not joking. I didn't think the 2014 film was boring. It took the Jaws approach to the monster and I think it worked.
It's certainly one of the more memorable moments of the film. Not only is Cage in top wacky form, but you can also tell that in the world of the film Archer is trying hard to keep it together and not not go insane despite the fact that he is wearing his archenemy's face.
LOL. I do think that parents should be kind and nurturing to their children, but I agree that our culture has gotten very gayified, especially over the last 20 years or so. The very fact that so-called "transgenderism" is now being taken seriously as a real thing is evidence enough for that.
I guess so. I mean, I certainly don't have a better explanation. While this never bothered me on earlier viewings, in retrospect I think a scene or two where we see him actually being taught a few basics would've helped.
Still a great movie, in any case. In fact, it's one of my most-rewatched movies of all time. It's certainly the best chess movie ever made.
A few years ago I watched Gettysburg for the first time. I enjoyed it enough that I bought this fine collector's set:
https://www.amazon.com/Gettysburg-Generals-Limited-Collectors-Blu-ray/dp/B004OA684O/
However, I have only now started watching Gods and Generals. Being that the Director's Cut--which I have heard is quite superior to the theatrical cut BTW--is 4 hrs 39 mins long, I am taking my time getting through it. But I am enjoying it so far.
In regard to Stephen Lang playing different characters in each film, I guess it's been long enough since I saw Gettysburg that I didn't even notice.
As for what would've happened with slavery if the Confederacy had won the war, I guess there's no way to know for sure. And while part of me agrees that it would suck to have our country split in two, I can't help but wonder how things would've been otherwise. America in the last 15 years or so has disappointed me greatly. I feel like we, as a nation, have lost our national identity and have become a fundamentally different country than the Founders intended and envisioned. I do wonder, if the Confederacy had won, if perhaps the Confederate States would've done a better job of preserving the vision of Washington, Jefferson and Adams.
If you watch the sequel to Gettysburg, Gods and Generals, one character says that if the states secede "slavery will die a natural death." I think this is almost certainly true. Not only were there already plenty of abolitionists in the South at that time but abolition of slavery anywhere in western nations was simply the direction things were moving in.
To think that there would still be slavery in the South today, in the 21st century, strikes me as absurd.