Oh I'm sorry, Did I Break Your Conversation........Well Allow Me A Movie Thread by S&T

Can you explain the night transition with the flare? Did the Germans light the flare purposely so they can see the enemy better or?
Yup. Since the town was highly contested on both sides moving at night for sneak attacks was preferred. I don’t want to believe all those flares were specifically for Schofield so the Germans just came across him stalking the night.
 
I feel like with these nominations; the subs, what liberals are complaining about representation wise, the academy is telling Hollywood to step their game up.

I personally feel its been a weak year competition wise. I'm looking @ these categories and am not feeling strongly about winners cuz there's like one movie or actor clearly better than the rest so it's not much of a debate. Other stuff is even that I wouldn't even argue it.

Not even mad @ the lack of black nominees or women.

No Dafoe or Pattison nominations for Lighthouse :smh:
Wild crazy snubs.

That stuck out to me the most.
 
Last edited:
I stand corrected. Parasite and Bong Joon Ho got Oscar nom’d For best pic and best director Respectively. Game on gents.

And the drama of lack of women is they should get there based on their merit and skill and not just having a woman nominated for the sake of it
 
Jay and Silent Bob Reboot 3.5/8 - As a massive fan of the original this was awful. I didn't even enjoy the characters reuniting. The gag reel was the best part of the movie.

Climax 4.75/8 - I didn't really get it. There were some great shots and the music/dance pairings were pretty trippy. I would avoid this one though unless you love Gaspar Noe.

1917 6.5/8 - Really well done. Amazing camera work. Seeing it in Dolby Atmos really elevated the bombs and tense moments. Great flick.
 
1917 is diet Dunkirk, and anyone who loves it don't give a **** about character.
Don't disagree but I found Dunkirk to be some of Nolan's weakest character work. It was all visuals, score, and the expected nonlinear timeline storytelling. The theme of survival was definitely present but faded as the movie went on and dealt with the civilian sailor and then Hardy in the plane.

If anything, I expect that last part is why ppl like the character work more in 1917. One singular character (two to start) to focus on the journey of his mission through the war.

I enjoyed 1917 more as an entertaining action flick though.
 
Bad Boys 3 was 🔥

Terrible and corny, but 🔥

Loved the music from 95, some of the dialogue was witty and certainly a toned down version of what Bay would have done.

But, overall, it's family. It belongs with 1-2.
 
‘Bad Boys for Life’ Review: A Surprisingly Fun Return by Going the ‘Fast & Furious’ Route

*Gets standing ovation from C CP1708

jk, I’ll be seeing it this weekend no matter what. I never even realized that Michael bay wasn’t directing. Sort of disappointing.
 
1917 was buns. So tired of these white male slurping war movies. If one were to know nothing about history and only watch these war movies, one would assume that Blacks didn’t also fight in these wars. Black people fought in these wars too, but they’re never included in these movies. We need a movie about black soldiers who fought for this racist country and returned home to segregation.
 
1917 was buns. So tired of these white male slurping war movies. If one were to know nothing about history and only watch these war movies, one would assume that Blacks didn’t also fight in these wars. Black people fought in these wars too, but they’re never included in these movies. We need a movie about black soldiers who fought for this racist country and returned home to segregation.

have you seen mud bound? Not really Focused on the war but the plot is similar to what you describe.


Description
Laura McAllan is trying to raise her children on her husband's Mississippi Delta farm, a place she finds foreign and frightening. In the midst of the family's struggles, two young men return from the war to work the land. Jamie McAllan, Laura's brother-in-law, is everything her husband is not - charming and handsome, but he is haunted by his memories of combat. Ronsel Jackson, eldest son of the black sharecroppers who live on the McAllan farm, now battles the prejudice in the Jim Crow South.
 
1917 was buns. So tired of these white male slurping war movies.

Well... first things first, you do realize this is a movie based around Britain and not the US, right? So the thing about "segregation" need not apply.

Also, the majority of black soldiers in Britain at the time were fighting in India (via the BWIR) and Africa - not the Western Front. Did they exist? Yes, but the numbers were very small in comparison to the overall British army.

There are many war movies that definitely need more black representation but 1917, at least from a historical perspective, really isn't one of them.
 
Just seen 'Bad Boys 3'....Will Smith seen what the 'Fast and Furious' franchise is doing and wanted parts. :lol:

Definitely the weakest film in the franchise (imo), but still somewhat enjoyable.
 
1917 was buns. So tired of these white male slurping war movies. If one were to know nothing about history and only watch these war movies, one would assume that Blacks didn’t also fight in these wars. Black people fought in these wars too, but they’re never included in these movies. We need a movie about black soldiers who fought for this racist country and returned home to segregation.
I agree but you're forgetting about segregation during the war.

The reason you don't ever see black soldiers in these white war movies is cuz black soldiers weren't allowed to fight with white soldiers. They had their own companies and command. This is going back to the American Revolution. Every US war is like that until the Korean War where they intermingled and Vietnam war. Thing is they rarely nake movies about the Korean War and Vietnam movies are usually about something else.

Spike Lee is making a Vietnam movie about black soldiers.
 
I don’t know if anyone still watches South Park, but I just saw the few the episodes from 2019 and didn’t think they were funny at all.
 
1917 was buns. So tired of these white male slurping war movies. If one were to know nothing about history and only watch these war movies, one would assume that Blacks didn’t also fight in these wars. Black people fought in these wars too, but they’re never included in these movies. We need a movie about black soldiers who fought for this racist country and returned home to segregation.

As Master Zik said black regiments trace back to the revolution and the US civil War. Want a movie reference? there’s the movie Glory in the 90s with Matthew Broderick and Denzel Washington the troops was black but the commanding officer had to be white.

But if you want 20th century wars it still continued. All black troops in World War I and two. A famous WW1 troop was the 369th infantry regiment. Nicknamed the Harlem Hellfighters by the Germans. There were also the Tuskegee Airmen that carried into WW2. The movie Flyboys with James Franco lightly touches this. French and American pilots teamed up and some of the French were black.

Now in WW2 the black regiments are primarily centred two locations Italy and southern France. The 00s movie Miracle at St. Anna followed a black troop in Italy. If you want to dig further look up Hennessy’s history and you’ll see why black people have geared towards it after all this time.

And to continue it. America carries its race problem on its chin. The Brits or French don’t roll like that. So much so there was a bar fight during the war in which black troops went into a bar and the American soldiers tried to kick them out Jim Crow/segregation style while the British drinking at the bar asked “WTF is going on?!” And defended them. And this was in England

/history nerd rant
 
Back
Top Bottom