A friend of mine took me to see the movie "The Birth of a
Photojournalist", which was the sequel to the infamous D. W. Griffith
film with a similar title.
Oh, what's that, that wasn't the title of the movie?
As some reviews will point out, this movie is not what audiences are >expecting.
From its title, I was expecting a historical drama about the War
Between the States in the 1860s, and I was expecting to dislike it
because, in order to have mass appeal to U.S. audiences, it made it
seem like there were two sides to the conflict.
Instead of treating the South like the bad guys in a World War II
movie.
But it wasn't a movie about how bad Trump and the January 6 crowd
were. Modern politics does not rear its head. The President of the
United States is portrayed as looking a bit like Trump, but that's it.
Florida and Texas, states strongly supporting Trump and the Republican
Party, are two of the states leading the secession faction in this
second Civil War in the United States. But liberal California has
joined forces with Texas.
So audiences find out quickly that this movie was not ripped from
today's headlines. Fine. It shows the devastation a civil war causes;
it's hard to travel across the country, and gasoline is expensive.
And worse. So is it a non-political call for people to step back,
settle their differences peacefully, and not walk over the cliff?
Audiences are likely to think so, at least for a while.
But by the time the movie ends, the audience finally learns what kind
of movie they were watching: it waa about the movie's main characters
and their personal development. Some more than others.
Which means that audience members who were looking for a different
kind of movie will feel they've wasted the price of admission, which
is a shame, because it's not a _bad_ movie. It's actually quite a good
movie, of the kind of movie that it was. But if it had been advertised >honestly... it perhaps wouldn't have had such a big opening weekend.
A friend of mine took me to see the movie "The Birth of a
Photojournalist", which was the sequel to the infamous D. W. Griffith
film with a similar title.
Oh, what's that, that wasn't the title of the movie?
As some reviews will point out, this movie is not what audiences are expecting.
From its title, I was expecting a historical drama about the War
Between the States in the 1860s, and I was expecting to dislike it
because, in order to have mass appeal to U.S. audiences, it made it
seem like there were two sides to the conflict.
Instead of treating the South like the bad guys in a World War II
movie.
But it wasn't a movie about how bad Trump and the January 6 crowd
were. Modern politics does not rear its head. The President of the
United States is portrayed as looking a bit like Trump, but that's it.
Florida and Texas, states strongly supporting Trump and the Republican
Party, are two of the states leading the secession faction in this
second Civil War in the United States. But liberal California has
joined forces with Texas.
So audiences find out quickly that this movie was not ripped from
today's headlines. Fine. It shows the devastation a civil war causes;
it's hard to travel across the country, and gasoline is expensive.
And worse. So is it a non-political call for people to step back,
settle their differences peacefully, and not walk over the cliff?
Audiences are likely to think so, at least for a while.
But by the time the movie ends, the audience finally learns what kind
of movie they were watching: it waa about the movie's main characters
and their personal development. Some more than others.
Which means that audience members who were looking for a different
kind of movie will feel they've wasted the price of admission, which
is a shame, because it's not a _bad_ movie. It's actually quite a good
movie, of the kind of movie that it was. But if it had been advertised honestly... it perhaps wouldn't have had such a big opening weekend.
John Savard
On 4/17/2024 6:04 PM, John Savard wrote:
A friend of mine took me to see the movie "The Birth of a
Photojournalist", which was the sequel to the infamous D. W. Griffith
film with a similar title.
=20
Oh, what's that, that wasn't the title of the movie?
=20
As some reviews will point out, this movie is not what audiences are
expecting.
=20
From its title, I was expecting a historical drama about the War
Between the States in the 1860s, and I was expecting to dislike it
because, in order to have mass appeal to U.S. audiences, it made it
seem like there were two sides to the conflict.
=20
Instead of treating the South like the bad guys in a World War II
movie.
=20
But it wasn't a movie about how bad Trump and the January 6 crowd
were. Modern politics does not rear its head. The President of the
United States is portrayed as looking a bit like Trump, but that's it.
=20
Florida and Texas, states strongly supporting Trump and the Republican
Party, are two of the states leading the secession faction in this
second Civil War in the United States. But liberal California has
joined forces with Texas.
=20
So audiences find out quickly that this movie was not ripped from
today's headlines. Fine. It shows the devastation a civil war causes;
it's hard to travel across the country, and gasoline is expensive.
And worse. So is it a non-political call for people to step back,
settle their differences peacefully, and not walk over the cliff?
=20
Audiences are likely to think so, at least for a while.
=20
But by the time the movie ends, the audience finally learns what kind
of movie they were watching: it waa about the movie's main characters
and their personal development. Some more than others.
=20
Which means that audience members who were looking for a different
kind of movie will feel they've wasted the price of admission, which
is a shame, because it's not a _bad_ movie. It's actually quite a good
movie, of the kind of movie that it was. But if it had been advertised
honestly... it perhaps wouldn't have had such a big opening weekend.
=20
John Savard
I am going to see this tomorrow with my 85 year old father in Victoria,=20 >Texas. Should be interesting.
A friend of mine took me to see the movie "The Birth of a....
Photojournalist", which was the sequel to the infamous D. W. Griffith
film with a similar title.
Oh, what's that, that wasn't the title of the movie?
As some reviews will point out, this movie is not what audiences are expecting.
On 4/17/2024 6:04 PM, John Savard wrote:
A friend of mine took me to see the movie "The Birth of a...
Photojournalist", which was the sequel to the infamous D. W. Griffith
film with a similar title.
Oh, what's that, that wasn't the title of the movie?
As some reviews will point out, this movie is not what audiences are
expecting.
The “Civil War” movie was awesome. Me and Dad just sat there and
watched the USA being destroyed. The mass graves were incredibly
disturbing. The settling of old scores was predictable. The street
fighting in DC was incredibly realistic.
We are living in the good old days right now.
Lynn
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 00:55:52 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/17/2024 6:04 PM, John Savard wrote:
A friend of mine took me to see the movie "The Birth of a...
Photojournalist", which was the sequel to the infamous D. W. Griffith
film with a similar title.
Oh, what's that, that wasn't the title of the movie?
As some reviews will point out, this movie is not what audiences are
expecting.
The “Civil War” movie was awesome. Me and Dad just sat there and
watched the USA being destroyed. The mass graves were incredibly
disturbing. The settling of old scores was predictable. The street
fighting in DC was incredibly realistic.
We are living in the good old days right now.
Lynn
What's the image shown during the end credits? A New York Times
columnist refers to an "Abu Ghraib-style photo that slowly
develops in the closing credits." After that scandal made the news
in 2004 I collected all the published images and put them on a web page http://cpacker.org/iraqprison
Is the image in question one of those? A quick scroll through
the page of their thumbnails listing them by source http://cpacker.org/iraqprison/source.html
would be enough to determine that.
On 4/22/2024 2:46 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
What's the image shown during the end credits? A New York Times
columnist refers to an "Abu Ghraib-style photo that slowly develops in
the closing credits." After that scandal made the news in 2004 I
collected all the published images and put them on a web page
http://cpacker.org/iraqprison Is the image in question one of those? A
quick scroll through the page of their thumbnails listing them by
source http://cpacker.org/iraqprison/source.html would be enough to
determine that.
The image being shown during the end credits was the Oval Office ???
with the WF troops standing around the murdered President of the USA.
Plus the two journalists.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:44:59 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:in
On 4/22/2024 2:46 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
=20
What's the image shown during the end credits? A New York Times
columnist refers to an "Abu Ghraib-style photo that slowly develops =
Athe closing credits." After that scandal made the news in 2004 I
collected all the published images and put them on a web page
http://cpacker.org/iraqprison Is the image in question one of those? =
quick scroll through the page of their thumbnails listing them by=20
source http://cpacker.org/iraqprison/source.html would be enough to
determine that.
The image being shown during the end credits was the Oval Office ???
with the WF troops standing around the murdered President of the USA.
Plus the two journalists.
=20
Hmm. Maybe only a journalist can decode what "Abu Ghraib-style" means...
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 8 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 54:33:21 |
| Calls: | 47 |
| Files: | 21,492 |
| Messages: | 63,669 |