The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
In the wake of the terrible September 11th terrorist attacks on America, Hollywood held it’s breath. With a state of war underway, and a handful of action movies due for release, what was it to do???
The first reaction was to put them on hold until the situation in Afghanistan dies down (which I think is the most clever option), or edit the films which featured the World Trade Center in them. With war films there was an uncertainty of what should happen, whether the mood was right for a cinematic war when a real one is actually taking place. The release of ‘Behind Enemy Lines’ suggests the American studios feel the time is right for military films when American loyalty is high.
Anyway, back to my main point.
Is it just me or are most American action films so predictable? I mean, in most action movies churned out by the Hollywood Directors, there is always one American soldier who somehow manages to beat all the odds and survive whilst deep behind enemy lines.
And, that leads me nicely on to my next point. Some of you people out there may have seen the newly released ‘Behind Enemy Lines’, as I have, and I feel I need to make my feelings clear on what I thought of the film.
I sat, watching the opening scene, thinking that this was going to be another brilliant action adventure film, but unfortunately I was a little wrong! The opening scene I admit was breathtaking, perhaps the best aerial sequence I have ever seen. Lt Chris Burnett (played by Owen Wilson), is an F-18 navigator bored with just doing simple exercises and reconnaissance missions. On a routine mission, Burnett and his pilot deviate from the agreed course and are shot down by Bosnian surface-to-air missiles. The pilot is killed by Bosnian forces but Burnett escapes (amazingly!) and is chased across what looks to be the whole of Bosnia by the army. As well as miraculously evading Bosnian soldiers and a lone hitman, Burnett also has to pick his way through mine fields without any useful equipment. But, somehow, in a familiar style, he manages to do all this without being blown to pieces! How predictable can you get!??
And, to wrap it all of, whilst managing to survive, he is trying to arrange a rescue mission with his commanding officer, Admiral Reigart (played by Gene Hackman), who eventually defies UN agreements to ‘get our boy back’. (Wasn’t that line also used in another American action film, ‘Spy Game’???!) Eventually, of course, that is what happens in one of the most over-the-top film endings I have seen for ages. The climax really shows us what is wrong with Behind Enemy Lines-where it could have succeeded, but didn’t. There are endless slow-motion and camera effects which seem to slow down the pace of the film rather than enhance it.
But, I have to give the directors credit somewhere, the action does zip along in places and you sort of feel that there is a story in there somewhere-if it had been given the right treatment.
Owen Wilson seems out of place in this type of film, and what starts as a film that looks like it might be another War Scenario hit, like Three Kings or Saving Private Ryan, instead becomes a predictable, suspense free account of how a good ol’ American boy can triumph over odds stacked right against him and outthink a pack of ‘nasty’ foreigners.
The first reaction was to put them on hold until the situation in Afghanistan dies down (which I think is the most clever option), or edit the films which featured the World Trade Center in them. With war films there was an uncertainty of what should happen, whether the mood was right for a cinematic war when a real one is actually taking place. The release of ‘Behind Enemy Lines’ suggests the American studios feel the time is right for military films when American loyalty is high.
Anyway, back to my main point.
Is it just me or are most American action films so predictable? I mean, in most action movies churned out by the Hollywood Directors, there is always one American soldier who somehow manages to beat all the odds and survive whilst deep behind enemy lines.
And, that leads me nicely on to my next point. Some of you people out there may have seen the newly released ‘Behind Enemy Lines’, as I have, and I feel I need to make my feelings clear on what I thought of the film.
I sat, watching the opening scene, thinking that this was going to be another brilliant action adventure film, but unfortunately I was a little wrong! The opening scene I admit was breathtaking, perhaps the best aerial sequence I have ever seen. Lt Chris Burnett (played by Owen Wilson), is an F-18 navigator bored with just doing simple exercises and reconnaissance missions. On a routine mission, Burnett and his pilot deviate from the agreed course and are shot down by Bosnian surface-to-air missiles. The pilot is killed by Bosnian forces but Burnett escapes (amazingly!) and is chased across what looks to be the whole of Bosnia by the army. As well as miraculously evading Bosnian soldiers and a lone hitman, Burnett also has to pick his way through mine fields without any useful equipment. But, somehow, in a familiar style, he manages to do all this without being blown to pieces! How predictable can you get!??
And, to wrap it all of, whilst managing to survive, he is trying to arrange a rescue mission with his commanding officer, Admiral Reigart (played by Gene Hackman), who eventually defies UN agreements to ‘get our boy back’. (Wasn’t that line also used in another American action film, ‘Spy Game’???!) Eventually, of course, that is what happens in one of the most over-the-top film endings I have seen for ages. The climax really shows us what is wrong with Behind Enemy Lines-where it could have succeeded, but didn’t. There are endless slow-motion and camera effects which seem to slow down the pace of the film rather than enhance it.
But, I have to give the directors credit somewhere, the action does zip along in places and you sort of feel that there is a story in there somewhere-if it had been given the right treatment.
Owen Wilson seems out of place in this type of film, and what starts as a film that looks like it might be another War Scenario hit, like Three Kings or Saving Private Ryan, instead becomes a predictable, suspense free account of how a good ol’ American boy can triumph over odds stacked right against him and outthink a pack of ‘nasty’ foreigners.
In the wake of the terrible September 11th terrorist attacks on America, Hollywood held it’s breath. With a state of war underway, and a handful of action movies due for release, what was it to do???
The first reaction was to put them on hold until the situation in Afghanistan dies down (which I think is the most clever option), or edit the films which featured the World Trade Center in them. With war films there was an uncertainty of what should happen, whether the mood was right for a cinematic war when a real one is actually taking place. The release of ‘Behind Enemy Lines’ suggests the American studios feel the time is right for military films when American loyalty is high.
Anyway, back to my main point.
Is it just me or are most American action films so predictable? I mean, in most action movies churned out by the Hollywood Directors, there is always one American soldier who somehow manages to beat all the odds and survive whilst deep behind enemy lines.
And, that leads me nicely on to my next point. Some of you people out there may have seen the newly released ‘Behind Enemy Lines’, as I have, and I feel I need to make my feelings clear on what I thought of the film.
I sat, watching the opening scene, thinking that this was going to be another brilliant action adventure film, but unfortunately I was a little wrong! The opening scene I admit was breathtaking, perhaps the best aerial sequence I have ever seen. Lt Chris Burnett (played by Owen Wilson), is an F-18 navigator bored with just doing simple exercises and reconnaissance missions. On a routine mission, Burnett and his pilot deviate from the agreed course and are shot down by Bosnian surface-to-air missiles. The pilot is killed by Bosnian forces but Burnett escapes (amazingly!) and is chased across what looks to be the whole of Bosnia by the army. As well as miraculously evading Bosnian soldiers and a lone hitman, Burnett also has to pick his way through mine fields without any useful equipment. But, somehow, in a familiar style, he manages to do all this without being blown to pieces! How predictable can you get!??
And, to wrap it all of, whilst managing to survive, he is trying to arrange a rescue mission with his commanding officer, Admiral Reigart (played by Gene Hackman), who eventually defies UN agreements to ‘get our boy back’. (Wasn’t that line also used in another American action film, ‘Spy Game’???!) Eventually, of course, that is what happens in one of the most over-the-top film endings I have seen for ages. The climax really shows us what is wrong with Behind Enemy Lines-where it could have succeeded, but didn’t. There are endless slow-motion and camera effects which seem to slow down the pace of the film rather than enhance it.
But, I have to give the directors credit somewhere, the action does zip along in places and you sort of feel that there is a story in there somewhere-if it had been given the right treatment.
Owen Wilson seems out of place in this type of film, and what starts as a film that looks like it might be another War Scenario hit, like Three Kings or Saving Private Ryan, instead becomes a predictable, suspense free account of how a good ol’ American boy can triumph over odds stacked right against him and outthink a pack of ‘nasty’ foreigners.
The first reaction was to put them on hold until the situation in Afghanistan dies down (which I think is the most clever option), or edit the films which featured the World Trade Center in them. With war films there was an uncertainty of what should happen, whether the mood was right for a cinematic war when a real one is actually taking place. The release of ‘Behind Enemy Lines’ suggests the American studios feel the time is right for military films when American loyalty is high.
Anyway, back to my main point.
Is it just me or are most American action films so predictable? I mean, in most action movies churned out by the Hollywood Directors, there is always one American soldier who somehow manages to beat all the odds and survive whilst deep behind enemy lines.
And, that leads me nicely on to my next point. Some of you people out there may have seen the newly released ‘Behind Enemy Lines’, as I have, and I feel I need to make my feelings clear on what I thought of the film.
I sat, watching the opening scene, thinking that this was going to be another brilliant action adventure film, but unfortunately I was a little wrong! The opening scene I admit was breathtaking, perhaps the best aerial sequence I have ever seen. Lt Chris Burnett (played by Owen Wilson), is an F-18 navigator bored with just doing simple exercises and reconnaissance missions. On a routine mission, Burnett and his pilot deviate from the agreed course and are shot down by Bosnian surface-to-air missiles. The pilot is killed by Bosnian forces but Burnett escapes (amazingly!) and is chased across what looks to be the whole of Bosnia by the army. As well as miraculously evading Bosnian soldiers and a lone hitman, Burnett also has to pick his way through mine fields without any useful equipment. But, somehow, in a familiar style, he manages to do all this without being blown to pieces! How predictable can you get!??
And, to wrap it all of, whilst managing to survive, he is trying to arrange a rescue mission with his commanding officer, Admiral Reigart (played by Gene Hackman), who eventually defies UN agreements to ‘get our boy back’. (Wasn’t that line also used in another American action film, ‘Spy Game’???!) Eventually, of course, that is what happens in one of the most over-the-top film endings I have seen for ages. The climax really shows us what is wrong with Behind Enemy Lines-where it could have succeeded, but didn’t. There are endless slow-motion and camera effects which seem to slow down the pace of the film rather than enhance it.
But, I have to give the directors credit somewhere, the action does zip along in places and you sort of feel that there is a story in there somewhere-if it had been given the right treatment.
Owen Wilson seems out of place in this type of film, and what starts as a film that looks like it might be another War Scenario hit, like Three Kings or Saving Private Ryan, instead becomes a predictable, suspense free account of how a good ol’ American boy can triumph over odds stacked right against him and outthink a pack of ‘nasty’ foreigners.
Heh, nice post, and I agree with a few of the points made. The Americans do seem to like making themselves out to be the big heroes, and I agree with what you said about Behind Enemy Lines.
Thing is, how many English conflict films have we seen??
Thing is, how many English conflict films have we seen??
Bosnians? are you sure it's not the Serbians? i haven't seen the film so i can't say for sure but i'd expect it to be Serbians rather than Bosnians.
Ant wrote:
> Heh, nice post, and I agree with a few of the points made. The Americans do seem
> to like making themselves out to be the big heroes, and I agree with what you
> said about Behind Enemy Lines.
Thing is, how many English conflict films have
> we seen??
Battle Of Britain, A Bridge Too Far, Enigma...kind of..., and thats the problem. English films are too low budget, generally, to attempt this genre of film. Even so, what conflicts could we actually portray, The Falklands anyone ? Any director would have a massive job making that turn out good, but it could be done. Would we all moan when the Para's enter Stanley ? Maybe we could do Malaya, but again we didn't even make that a war, it was an emergency, and we'd need to change the ending so that it was a little happier, installing our own sympathetic government might not be the best ending eh ?
There are other wars that could be made in movies. But who knows about them. However htey would be made the director would have to, to a degree, make them patriotic. Anyone not doing so faces being blasted by press and public alike, at least in their home country. This is where the problem is, in my opinion anyway.
American films are primarily for America, thats where the highest grosses are e.t.c Its easy to have a go at American war films because, to a degree, they show what England used to be - the most powerful country on earth. Many dont hate American war movies because they are war movies, its because they are American. Many people, especialy the older generation, still live with the memory when England ruled loads of places and controlled the seas. Well it isn't the 19th century anymore ! We, as a nation, messed up and now its some other countries turn to try and do better. At least there are American war films.....what do we make over here; "Brassed Off" "Full monty" "Enigma" "Notting Hill"...and so on - pure rubbish and not at all adventurous.
> Heh, nice post, and I agree with a few of the points made. The Americans do seem
> to like making themselves out to be the big heroes, and I agree with what you
> said about Behind Enemy Lines.
Thing is, how many English conflict films have
> we seen??
Battle Of Britain, A Bridge Too Far, Enigma...kind of..., and thats the problem. English films are too low budget, generally, to attempt this genre of film. Even so, what conflicts could we actually portray, The Falklands anyone ? Any director would have a massive job making that turn out good, but it could be done. Would we all moan when the Para's enter Stanley ? Maybe we could do Malaya, but again we didn't even make that a war, it was an emergency, and we'd need to change the ending so that it was a little happier, installing our own sympathetic government might not be the best ending eh ?
There are other wars that could be made in movies. But who knows about them. However htey would be made the director would have to, to a degree, make them patriotic. Anyone not doing so faces being blasted by press and public alike, at least in their home country. This is where the problem is, in my opinion anyway.
American films are primarily for America, thats where the highest grosses are e.t.c Its easy to have a go at American war films because, to a degree, they show what England used to be - the most powerful country on earth. Many dont hate American war movies because they are war movies, its because they are American. Many people, especialy the older generation, still live with the memory when England ruled loads of places and controlled the seas. Well it isn't the 19th century anymore ! We, as a nation, messed up and now its some other countries turn to try and do better. At least there are American war films.....what do we make over here; "Brassed Off" "Full monty" "Enigma" "Notting Hill"...and so on - pure rubbish and not at all adventurous.
With so many war films having the same old scenario (the classic hero ending), it isn't surprising this point wasn't brought to our attention sooner. I saw "black hawk down" at the weekend and what do you know, another boring hero scenario, but this film was slightly different.
At the beginning of the film there is about 5 minutes of uninteresting talking, but you do have to pay attention because it sets the scene well and suggests whats going on and what the US military are going (hoping) to do.
Its then on to the action and there isn't time to blink with people getting killed every second. Most of them villagers but a couple of them US fighters. The effects are immense which makes the film different to others.
But back to my main point. With bullets, missiles and grenades flying all over the place it isn't surprising that some more 'heros' weren't killed. Every man covers the next man and does it well but when caught in no mans land they all seem to survive. Why don't losts of men die? Why are they firing there guns like mad and don't seem to run out of ammo quickly? They don't carry big bags on there back to supply much ammo for themself! Why do the men, that are on there own, surrounded by enemys, always
run out of ammo quickly? Is it to build up the suspense? If it is, then it is brilliant film directory, but then it isn't based on a true storie like the writers say. I know that every little piece of fottage can't be fully accurate but this is in every film like "Saving Private Ryan", "Behind enemy lines", and "Three Kings", and i agree it can happen but not in every situation. The endings are unbelievably predictable.
This proves that the US think they are always the hero and that they never fail, because in the four films i have mentioned and in many more films past and present, the US always succeed. In reality this is definately not true because the US don't have a one hundred percent record in war.
"Black Hawk Down" is the closest a film has come to real life but still isn't close enough. I doubt there will ever be a film that is.
At the beginning of the film there is about 5 minutes of uninteresting talking, but you do have to pay attention because it sets the scene well and suggests whats going on and what the US military are going (hoping) to do.
Its then on to the action and there isn't time to blink with people getting killed every second. Most of them villagers but a couple of them US fighters. The effects are immense which makes the film different to others.
But back to my main point. With bullets, missiles and grenades flying all over the place it isn't surprising that some more 'heros' weren't killed. Every man covers the next man and does it well but when caught in no mans land they all seem to survive. Why don't losts of men die? Why are they firing there guns like mad and don't seem to run out of ammo quickly? They don't carry big bags on there back to supply much ammo for themself! Why do the men, that are on there own, surrounded by enemys, always
run out of ammo quickly? Is it to build up the suspense? If it is, then it is brilliant film directory, but then it isn't based on a true storie like the writers say. I know that every little piece of fottage can't be fully accurate but this is in every film like "Saving Private Ryan", "Behind enemy lines", and "Three Kings", and i agree it can happen but not in every situation. The endings are unbelievably predictable.
This proves that the US think they are always the hero and that they never fail, because in the four films i have mentioned and in many more films past and present, the US always succeed. In reality this is definately not true because the US don't have a one hundred percent record in war.
"Black Hawk Down" is the closest a film has come to real life but still isn't close enough. I doubt there will ever be a film that is.