|
warspite1 -> RE: OT: Dunkirk the Movie! (12/18/2016 6:12:46 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Having done so, I actually am not convinced that Mr Ebert even saw the film.
quote:
It would have been nice if he'd watched the film before commenting on it.....
What's your point? [&:]
warspite1
My point is old boy, the guy has really wound me up! On re-watching the film yesterday, it becomes apparent that, given his comments, he couldn't have watched it. Now of course, we know he did watch it, so why spout the nonsense he did?
If he didn't like the film because the acting was poor/actors were mis-cast or the script was poor or the film was all lies or the director got the pace of the film wrong or Ben Affleck was in the film or you know, any of the usual reasons why someone does not like a film then fair enough - that's his opinion.
But a lot of the points he made are either simply untrue or exaggerated because he has nothing relevant to say. E.g. unless of course I fell asleep without realising it for part of the time, there was no 'little Red Cross nurse - brave or otherwise'. And the story of what was happening and why could not have been more laid on a plate if the director had decided to use the services of a narrator. We get to understand about the Battle for France being lost and thereafter, after some delay, the Germans turn to the UK. We are told about the Germans needing to wipe the RAF from the skies in order to launch an invasion - or at least force the RAF back over the Thames. We are told the position re the relative strengths of the forces involved. In other words this was not one of those films that needs a ton of brain power to understand.
But perhaps most bizarre was that his arguments were so devoid of substance that he actually started attacking this war film for showing too much war action. He admits 'there was a TV special about the authenticity of the movie', and that 'some of the aerial photography is very good. We see dogfights actually filmed in the air and fought by real planes (instead of by models and visual effects)'. So having admitted that, he is left scrabbling around for something to criticise and comes up with 'we see hundreds of German bombers, row after row, thundering across the sky to bomb London. But every one of the bombers moves at precisely the same speed, There's no relative change in position, or correcting for altitude. Nobody even dips a wing'. In a two-hour film those shots must have taken up in total about 2 minutes - and I am being generous, I don't think it was anything like that length of time.
Film critics are like politicians or anyone else - as soon as you have to lie and falsify to make your point, you are toast - and so is the argument you are making.
|
|
|
|
