Maybe the only thing funnier are the 1-star reviews written by the FNC crowd and/or foreign trolls. This is a fine satire with a very talented cast and a clever script. Only criticism would be Mark Rylance's character being a little to similar to his character in Ready Player One. Maybe that's what McKay was looking for (and they are similar in nature, even if this character is a little more sinister). All in all fun.
Reviews
4 Reviews
Race with the Devil
(1975)
Solid 7; good cast, fun to watch; Saturday morning keeper
6 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Maybe it's the nostalgia having seen this at a much earlier age. Central-west Texas still looks much like it did 45 years ago (I'm writing this review in Feb 21 outside Gatesville). Warren Oates is Warren Oates, and Peter Fonda and Loretta Swit and Lara Parker provide a believable cast of protagonists who just happen upon a Satanic Cult in the rurals. It's a classic what-if disaster road trip before cell phones would render this story unbelievable to many viewers. The director does a good job with suspense - are the rural Sheriff and his people just aloof or are they conspirators; are the pool-goers friendly or in on it? And a pitched gun battle in a motor home on rural highways may seem far-fetched, but Satan and it's followers are persistent. Worth a watch if you're into mid-70s nostalgia/suspense/thrillers.
Stop-Loss
(2008)
Good initiative, Poor execution
19 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
It is unfortunate that between this film, In the Valley of Elah, Lions for Lambs, and Home of the Brave seem to all be based upon common stereotypes about veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The boozing, the fighting, the short-fuses, the broken marriages, guys freaking out and digging a foxhole in their front yard when they're drunk, etc etc etc.
Does it happen - yes, but not as often as one would think after having watched any of these movies. I think that it is unfortunate that these directors/producers/writers choose to grind their axe against the political establishment by portraying soldiers in such an atypical way. In this particular film, Kimberly Peirce didn't even throw us a bone, like showing the new children that were born while a family member was deployed, or the kid who grew up in some ghetto who can now afford college thanks to the GI Bill, or the couple who can afford a house, or start a new business, earn their citizenship, etc etc etc. Instead, we are treated to the stereotypes because the people who made this film only want to show you the bad side.
A couple of issues with the film itself: 1) somebody screwed up by putting Phillippe in for a Bronze Star with V after he led his squad down a tight alleyway after having been baited by a gunman in a taxi. Pretty stupid, but yes, it happens. 2) the humvees didn't have any turret armor, so we are supposed to believe it is a near the beginning of the war, yet every soldier and their brother has an ACOG and every possible attachment for their M4? sorry, don't think so 3) Timothy Olyphant as a Lieutenant Colonel? It's hard to believe, but I just checked an he turned 40 in May, so the timing isn't too off. 4) He strikes two soldiers to escape being sent to jail after saying that he wouldn't return to Iraq (upon having learned that he had been stop-lossed). So he's a fugitive. Then, when he finally turns himself in at the end, and they take him back, he keeps his rank and deploys with the same unit? Sorry don't think so.
I can only describe it as one giant stereotype of the Army and the Infantry. Do some of the events portrayed in this movie happen to some soldiers, yes. However, in this film you get practically every stereotype in the space of about 100 minutes, and really things just aren't like that for most soldiers returning. I wish the director had made a point of doing a little better research instead of starting off with her agenda and then making a film.
Of the movies I mentioned at the beginning of this post, the best one is probably Lions for Lambs, which is more a commentary on the sad state of Generation Y+ than it is about the Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or the Bush Administration. If you really want to see this film wait for cable or Netflix it, don't pay cash directly to rent it.
Does it happen - yes, but not as often as one would think after having watched any of these movies. I think that it is unfortunate that these directors/producers/writers choose to grind their axe against the political establishment by portraying soldiers in such an atypical way. In this particular film, Kimberly Peirce didn't even throw us a bone, like showing the new children that were born while a family member was deployed, or the kid who grew up in some ghetto who can now afford college thanks to the GI Bill, or the couple who can afford a house, or start a new business, earn their citizenship, etc etc etc. Instead, we are treated to the stereotypes because the people who made this film only want to show you the bad side.
A couple of issues with the film itself: 1) somebody screwed up by putting Phillippe in for a Bronze Star with V after he led his squad down a tight alleyway after having been baited by a gunman in a taxi. Pretty stupid, but yes, it happens. 2) the humvees didn't have any turret armor, so we are supposed to believe it is a near the beginning of the war, yet every soldier and their brother has an ACOG and every possible attachment for their M4? sorry, don't think so 3) Timothy Olyphant as a Lieutenant Colonel? It's hard to believe, but I just checked an he turned 40 in May, so the timing isn't too off. 4) He strikes two soldiers to escape being sent to jail after saying that he wouldn't return to Iraq (upon having learned that he had been stop-lossed). So he's a fugitive. Then, when he finally turns himself in at the end, and they take him back, he keeps his rank and deploys with the same unit? Sorry don't think so.
I can only describe it as one giant stereotype of the Army and the Infantry. Do some of the events portrayed in this movie happen to some soldiers, yes. However, in this film you get practically every stereotype in the space of about 100 minutes, and really things just aren't like that for most soldiers returning. I wish the director had made a point of doing a little better research instead of starting off with her agenda and then making a film.
Of the movies I mentioned at the beginning of this post, the best one is probably Lions for Lambs, which is more a commentary on the sad state of Generation Y+ than it is about the Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or the Bush Administration. If you really want to see this film wait for cable or Netflix it, don't pay cash directly to rent it.
Threads
(1984 TV Movie)
Brutal, Stomach-turning, Effective
7 December 2002
I first saw this film when it was broadcast on television in the mid-1980s. My parents had made me watch "The Day After" in 1983, which is another very good film on the genre. What I like most about "THREADS" though, is that it follows the story out over a decade after the war, to show the long-term effects of radiation poisoning and how it would affect future generations.
As in most British productions though, the special effects, camerawork, and overall quality of the film could be better. Comparing it to "The Day After", the two films tell two totally different stories on the same subject. Whereas "The Day After" tried to follow a pseudo-documentary style with it's use of DoD file footage, "THREADS" is far better in terms of actual research and detail in the subject matter.
As in most British productions though, the special effects, camerawork, and overall quality of the film could be better. Comparing it to "The Day After", the two films tell two totally different stories on the same subject. Whereas "The Day After" tried to follow a pseudo-documentary style with it's use of DoD file footage, "THREADS" is far better in terms of actual research and detail in the subject matter.
Tell Your Friends