Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jim A.

Are there any great films about freedom these days?

6 posts in this topic

There's a new movie out, which I'm sure you've all heard of, called Last Ounce of Courage. It's tag-line is something about "family, faith and freedom". What are these, the "three F's"? (Which of these things has nothing to do with the others? They should ask that on Sesame Street.) I've heard that the main crux of this movie is something like a Vietnam veteran, who lost his son in Iraq or Afghanistan, fighting his "greatest battle" trying to get Christ "back into Christmas". Not only is that a lousy plot premise, but it surely does not present the essence of what a fight for freedom would mean in today's era.

Anyone else out there not inspired to see this movie?

Most importantly, is there any great recent film out there in theaters or on DVD that shows what freedom is really about--and what is required to keep it?

P.S. Some might say the first third of the Atlas Shrugged movie that hasn't been finished yet (Atlas Shrugged: Part I). I bought the DVD. I watched it. I threw it away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a new movie out, which I'm sure you've all heard of, called Last Ounce of Courage. It's tag-line is something about "family, faith and freedom". What are these, the "three F's"? (Which of these things has nothing to do with the others? They should ask that on Sesame Street.) I've heard that the main crux of this movie is something like a Vietnam veteran, who lost his son in Iraq or Afghanistan, fighting his "greatest battle" trying to get Christ "back into Christmas". Not only is that a lousy plot premise, but it surely does not present the essence of what a fight for freedom would mean in today's era.

Anyone else out there not inspired to see this movie?

Most importantly, is there any great recent film out there in theaters or on DVD that shows what freedom is really about--and what is required to keep it?

P.S. Some might say the first third of the Atlas Shrugged movie that hasn't been finished yet (Atlas Shrugged: Part I). I bought the DVD. I watched it. I threw it away.

Unfortunately the movie is a dog. A proper -Atlas Shrugged- move would have to run between 10 and 20 hours. This is simply not going to happen.

The producers of the movie made a "Franken-Film"* out of -Atlas Shrugged-, in somewhat the same way the Peter Jackson did with -Lord of the Rings-. Jackson produced an abomination. Tolkien is probably rolling over in his grave.

ruveyn

*Franken-Movie: pieces taken out of the underlying novel and sewn together this way and that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that a film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged should run between 10 and 20 hours. I think it should be about three or four hours (four at the most). Gone with the Wind, after all, was four hours long. Now would a three-to-four hour film of Atlas contain everything that is in the book? Of course not. But a good screenwriter, like Sidney Howard (Gone with the Wind) or Stirling Siliphant (In the Heat of the Night, and co-screenwriter of the 1960 version of Village of the Damned) could take the essentials of a novel's plot and ideas and make them "filmable". And you need a good director (see my post, #31, in the "Movie Ratings and Reviews" thread on Atlas Shrugged: Part 1).

I also disagree that The Lord of the Rings films were an abomination. I enjoyed them--once I fully recognized the fact that they were fantasy, and in saga form--although I should say that I've never read the novels. But those novels were published as separate, though maybe interdependent, works, so it doesn't bother me that The Lord of the Rings is three separate films. And incidentally, since this thread is about the theme of freedom in recent movies, The Two Towers contains the most recent (to my knowledge, and in my opinion) great statement of freedom I've encountered on the screen (with the possible exception of 300). It is when Aragorn finds Eowyn, the "daughter of kings", engaging in a moment of practice with her sword. I don't remember the exact words exchanged, but they went something like:

Aragorn: You seem to have some skill with a blade.

Eowyn: The women of our land learned long ago that those without swords can still die upon them. I fear neither death nor pain.

Aragorn: What do you fear, my lady?

Eowyn: A cage. To live behind bars until use and old age accept them, and valor has gone beyond all recall or desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also disagree that The Lord of the Rings films were an abomination. I enjoyed them--once I fully recognized the fact that they were fantasy, and in saga form--although I should say that I've never read the novels. But those novels were published as separate, though maybe interdependent, works, so it doesn't bother me that The Lord of the Rings is three separate films. And incidentally, since this thread is about the theme of freedom in recent movies, The Two Towers contains the most recent (to my knowledge, and in my opinion) great statement of freedom I've encountered on the screen (with the possible exception of 300). It is when Aragorn finds Eowyn, the "daughter of kings", engaging in a moment of practice with her sword. I don't remember the exact words exchanged, but they went something like:

Aragorn: You seem to have some skill with a blade.

Eowyn: The women of our land learned long ago that those without swords can still die upon them. I fear neither death nor pain.

Aragorn: What do you fear, my lady?

Eowyn: A cage. To live behind bars until use and old age accept them, and valor has gone beyond all recall or desire.

You really should read it! LoTR is really one novel of three parts, two books per part. The movies did a wonderful job capturing the novel, but of course reading it is still the full experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really should read it! LoTR is really one novel of three parts, two books per part. The movies did a wonderful job capturing the novel, but of course reading it is still the full experience.

I disagree. The movie was a botch job. It was a Franken Film.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really should read it! LoTR is really one novel of three parts, two books per part. The movies did a wonderful job capturing the novel, but of course reading it is still the full experience.

I disagree. The movie was a botch job. It was a Franken Film.

ruveyn

I disagree. The movie was exceptional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0