First and foremost as a former Marine, we do not like to be called "soldiers" and since the movie was about Marines, they did not back it, and there are very few movies that they have backed. I think it was an ok movie, I was in the Marines during this era, 89-96, but can say that they did not portray Marines in the best light, was worth renting, that is about it.
Lmao! Those were the enemy, not our own. Dont forget, that a long time ago too...alot has changed.Bubbalo wrote:
According to the Allied prosecution of Nazi war criminals, that's no excuse.sergeriver wrote:
I think soldiers obey orders and they are trained to do so.
But you are soldiers.
No we are Marines
Isn't it up to the individual soldier to stick up and disobey orders when he feels that it goes against international law/human rights?
Comparing soldiers in Iraq to Nazi SS soldiers is a pretty big leap... being told to shoot innocent, defenseless Jews is quite a different order than being told to go clear a house which is suspected to be full of insurgents.
Comparing soldiers in Iraq to Nazi SS soldiers is a pretty big leap... being told to shoot innocent, defenseless Jews is quite a different order than being told to go clear a house which is suspected to be full of insurgents.
No. *We* are MARINES.Bubbalo wrote:
But you are soldiers.
it was an auto-bio piece wasn't it? based on the book by douche's character? the disappointment at the end was kinda the whole point, like getting an unfinished bj, he worked his ass off, went through hell to bakc up his squad and spotter, and when he finally got the chance to prove himself he was interrupted......
a rifle round would have been cheaper
a rifle round would have been cheaper
Which is type of soldier. Officers are soldiers, too. British Royal Marines are soldiers. Soldier is a generic term for a member of the armed forces, typically the ground forces.schmedy wrote:
No we are Marines
And where is the line drawn? My point is that if a soldier is given an order which clearly contravenes moral behaviour and he follows that order, then, according to the Allied forces, the fact that he was given an order is no excuse.schmedy wrote:
Comparing soldiers in Iraq to Nazi SS soldiers is a pretty big leap... being told to shoot innocent, defenseless Jews is quite a different order than being told to go clear a house which is suspected to be full of insurgents.
Well, where the line drawn is totally up to whoever who was elected.
Apocalypse Now > Jarhead
Wait, which movie were you watching? If anything the movie was about the contradictions inherent in war. We say "war is hell," but even that isn't always close to the truth. You see the glint in Gyllenhaal's eye when he tells his commanding officer that he wants to take the shot, and you believe that he would do it, out of pure bloodlust. That's why the movie is so uncertain, and why the critics all said that it didn't have enough focus, because it was a movie about conflicting emotions. It doesn't want to have a point, per se, more than it wants to present things as they are.sergeriver wrote:
They went there defending their country and that's all that matters.
Judging from the movie, the guy who wrote the original memoir pulled more than a few things from Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried.
This all gets pretty technical when you start talking about postmodernism and resisting meaning, but I think I got the general idea across.
In which case there was nothing wrong with the Holocaust because Hitler said so.Spearhead wrote:
Well, where the line drawn is totally up to whoever who was elected.
Not my line, whoever is in charge decides where the line is drawn. My line is way more liberal. But I don't draw the lines for the military. See what I'm saying?
The only thing the sales reflect is the general populations un-willingness to see/understand a little more about what marines and any other soldiers go through. Generally, people dont want to see it or know about it.jonnykill wrote:
One of the worst movies ever made. The sales are proof.
Personally I thought the movie was great. The firts time I saw it, it was ok, but after watching it a second time, I thought it was great. It was nice to see the perspective and mentality of the soldier, without it being all actioned up with explosions and all that. It was a good movie that showed what the soldiers went thru.
bub, marines are "special", it's often just best to nod and back slowly away
That's what I do around any American (or Eastern European) with a gun.
Marines are special because we have a bond that lasts longer compared to the bond that other branches have. You see a soldier(Army) in the street, and a fellow soldier from another war probably wouldn't say anything to him. I took public transportation today in my Blues, and more than a handful(not all at once, happened throughout the course of the day) came up to me telling me that they used to be in the Corps serving as far back as the Vietnam era. A Marine is a Marine because of the discipline instilled in him and the training that taught them to take care of each other. Sure we have Semper I's, but for the majority, a Marine will be there for others, especially his own Marines.
A Marine could be a soldier, but a soldier definitely isn't a Marine until he earns his EGA's!
Back to the main point of the topic, I think the movie was alright. I'm still pretty new to the Corps, so I can't really talk about the accuracy of the movie. But I do understand how it is to be deployed. And if this was supposed to be a real hollywood movie, then it would for sure be damn well entertaining as compared to boring and not making sense. Civilians in general wouldn't understand this movie that well.
Corrections to my post are readily accepted.
A Marine could be a soldier, but a soldier definitely isn't a Marine until he earns his EGA's!
Back to the main point of the topic, I think the movie was alright. I'm still pretty new to the Corps, so I can't really talk about the accuracy of the movie. But I do understand how it is to be deployed. And if this was supposed to be a real hollywood movie, then it would for sure be damn well entertaining as compared to boring and not making sense. Civilians in general wouldn't understand this movie that well.
Corrections to my post are readily accepted.
You still don't get it: no matter how special you are or aren't, you're still a soldier.
Someone that stays on topic. And btw that understood the movie. I didn't say it's the best war movie ever. I recommend you to watch this movie because it shows what Kracker said, one asshole (because the main character is an asshole) who worked so hard to get there and didn't get the opportunity to do his job.kr@cker wrote:
it was an auto-bio piece wasn't it? based on the book by douche's character? the disappointment at the end was kinda the whole point, like getting an unfinished bj, he worked his ass off, went through hell to bakc up his squad and spotter, and when he finally got the chance to prove himself he was interrupted......
a rifle round would have been cheaper
Did any of those Marines disobey the orders they gave them, even when many of them knew those orders were wrong? The movie is about the contradictions of war but mostly is about a solider who can't get his job finished, because some bureaucrat said so, after all the work he did to get there.Skexis wrote:
Wait, which movie were you watching? If anything the movie was about the contradictions inherent in war. We say "war is hell," but even that isn't always close to the truth. You see the glint in Gyllenhaal's eye when he tells his commanding officer that he wants to take the shot, and you believe that he would do it, out of pure bloodlust. That's why the movie is so uncertain, and why the critics all said that it didn't have enough focus, because it was a movie about conflicting emotions. It doesn't want to have a point, per se, more than it wants to present things as they are.sergeriver wrote:
They went there defending their country and that's all that matters.
Judging from the movie, the guy who wrote the original memoir pulled more than a few things from Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried.
This all gets pretty technical when you start talking about postmodernism and resisting meaning, but I think I got the general idea across.
most of the reasons the sales werent that great, is because people were hoping it was a run and gun shoot to kill kind of movie, which it wasnt. Everyone thought it was a modern day 'Full Metal Jacket', which i think is where a lot of the disappointment came from. The book was a whole lot better however, alot of things that were going through 'Swoff's head before he deployed, more random fantasies, alot more backstory on him and where he came from. A good example of this is in the movie you briefly get a description of his father, it leads you to believe he was a Vietnam war vet that saw one too many firefights, according to the book, his pops was an Airman in the Air Force who didnt see a lick of combat but was an extreme alcoholic. But I stick by my thoughts that everyone thought it was going to be a 'FMJ' clone and it didnt deliver in that sense. Still I give it thumbs up.jonnykill wrote:
One of the worst movies ever made. The sales are proof.
Yup , pretty much the reason I hated it. I was in the mood for a good old guns a blazing movie and after waiting for an hour I think I'm finally going to see a killer head shot followed up by some good sniping but no- nothing, not a thing. Witch reminded me of the thing I hated most about my time in the service. Hurry up and wait because you might be needed to do something- no we aren't ready yet. Oh wait here we go we are ready. Uht , no we aren't. Reminds me of 5 blue bayonet formations at 5AM just to be told we aren't going anywhere at all.d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
most of the reasons the sales werent that great, is because people were hoping it was a run and gun shoot to kill kind of movie, which it wasnt. Everyone thought it was a modern day 'Full Metal Jacket', which i think is where a lot of the disappointment came from. The book was a whole lot better however, alot of things that were going through 'Swoff's head before he deployed, more random fantasies, alot more backstory on him and where he came from. A good example of this is in the movie you briefly get a description of his father, it leads you to believe he was a Vietnam war vet that saw one too many firefights, according to the book, his pops was an Airman in the Air Force who didnt see a lick of combat but was an extreme alcoholic. But I stick by my thoughts that everyone thought it was going to be a 'FMJ' clone and it didnt deliver in that sense. Still I give it thumbs up.jonnykill wrote:
One of the worst movies ever made. The sales are proof.
He didn't have a job to do, which was why he was so bloodthirsty in the first place. He was eager for action, a departure from the norm. If you'll remember, most of the time he spent "getting there" wasn't exactly time he considered well spent, either. He didn't necessarily want to be in a war, but as long as he was, he wanted to actually take part in it. See? Conflicting.sergeriver wrote:
Did any of those Marines disobey the orders they gave them, even when many of them knew those orders were wrong? The movie is about the contradictions of war but mostly is about a solider who can't get his job finished, because some bureaucrat said so, after all the work he did to get there.
The movie wasn't about war. The war merely served as a backdrop and a vessel to demonstrate the protaganist's struggle with what and who you are compared to what and who you thought you would be and what and who you want to be.