Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Swamp Fox was only one of the relevant historical precedences for the Mel "character" in The Patriot. I have also heard some guys named Sumter and Pickens mentions as influences.

Next you are going to tell me U-571, Robin Hood, and Braveheart didn't just make stuff up too because it was close enough.

U-571 was based on an actual occurrence but it was the RN that did it, not the USN.

Robin Hood is all made up and always has been. We know there was a King Richard and a King John but that is about as historical as it gets. It is only removed from sword and sorcery fantasy by the fact there is no sorcery involved.

Notice I didn't say that? Just that The Patriot did have traces of actual historical content.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Notice I didn't say that? Just that The Patriot did have traces of actual historical content.

Quite a lot of 'historical' films have traces of historical fact, but thats usually all they are. Braveheart couldn't even be arsed to use appropriately dressed Scots and instead prefered to use some mish mash of picts and groundskeeper willie.

Traces are just not good enough if the aim is to make a 'historical' film.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

It isn't just cinema that takes liberties with history, we as a species have been doing it since we started telling stories. Looking to storytelling for historical accuracy has been a fools errand for millenia.

 Palindrome wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Notice I didn't say that? Just that The Patriot did have traces of actual historical content.

Quite a lot of 'historical' films have traces of historical fact, but thats usually all they are. Braveheart couldn't even be arsed to use appropriately dressed Scots and instead prefered to use some mish mash of picts and groundskeeper willie.

Traces are just not good enough if the aim is to make a 'historical' film.

No gak? I was just pointing out there were traces in The Patriot, which was being set up as 100% fiction. Much as I enjoy the movie Braveheart I've written a fething paper on it's various historical inaccuracies. (My goddess in the Folkvangr that was a long list of gak that was downright wrong)

 Ahtman wrote:
"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

It isn't just cinema that takes liberties with history, we as a species have been doing it since we started telling stories. Looking to storytelling for historical accuracy has been a fools errand for millenia.

That said, you can tell a story and make it exciting as well as historically accurate -- e.g. The Longest Day, or A Bridge Too Far.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

It isn't just cinema that takes liberties with history, we as a species have been doing it since we started telling stories. Looking to storytelling for historical accuracy has been a fools errand for millenia.

That said, you can tell a story and make it exciting as well as historically accurate -- e.g. The Longest Day, or A Bridge Too Far.

Certainly, but that never has been the criteria for a good story. You can tell a story that is 100% accurate that is unengaging and tells people absolutely nothing about the world around them, and you can tell a story that is 100% fictional that engages people and really speaks to the human experience.

I also don't think Sean Connery or John Wayne were at D-Day, so I can't call The Longest Day historically accurate.

Are you not familiar with the concept of actors?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Are you not familiar with the concept of actors?

You disappoint and sadden me.

Finally saw it tonight. Had low expectations.

Was delighted by the movie. I thought it was great. Lots of weird ass monsters, a good story, crackling action. Best performance was probably Rinko Kikuchi, who as one reviewer said well "knew what kind of movie she was in", and acted accordingly. Hiroyuki Sanada was a very strong leading role, as well - as was already mentioned in this thread, Keanu really isn't the star of the movie.

Rinko Kikuchi is super talented. It's a pity that in the west she has only appeared in one good film (Babel).

I like these bad action movies and Americanised Japanese mythology with daemon samurais and gak like that so I'm getting strange urges to see this film..

Tell you the truth, i disliked it as soon as i saw the posters. And the trailer has yet to persuade me otherwise.

I finally got a chance to see it, and I'm happy I did. I'll go into detail, but first:

TLDR: I enjoyed it a lot, but I would call it a "fun" movie rather than a "good" movie.

Anyway, I'm not enough of a film critic to talk about what works or what doesn't, at least not at this level of sobriety. I can only tell you what worked and failed for me, and you can decide if you would feel the same way.

What I Liked:

-The Production Values. They were the real star of this movie. Everything from the costumes to the props to the wardrobe department to the make-up to the costumes were amazing. And the scenery was glorious, from Japanese New Zealand to Japanese Lothlorian to Dutch-Japanese Laketown. The CGI looked like CGI, but when doesn't it? As one reviewer wrote, you can see every dollar of the budget on the screen.

-The action was quite enjoyable to watch. The fight choreography was consistently at or above the level of Willow/LOTR/Big Trouble in Little China.

-The raid on the enemy fortress scene was well put-together. There were a lot of clever little moments throughout the movie.

-The comic relief. There wasn't very much of it, but what was there was actually funny.

-The Fantasy elements. They made the movie.

-Everyone except Keanu Reeves.

-Did I mention the costumes?

What Failed Me:

-Keanu Reeves. While I have nothing against the actor, and generally like his work, he is not the guy you want to give all the exposition. That was his role in the film, as well as an unconvincing romance plot. His character felt written in, like a Tauriel for white people. I can't wait for the fan edit that pretty much removes him from the film.

-The direction. It wasn't a total train-wreck or anything, but there were definitely scenes that could have been directed better. It was almost random which 'big scenes' would have the right emotional weight and which wouldn't. Hiroyuki Sanada could pull everything off with panache, but the director's inexperience was more obvious when working with other actors. *cough Keanu cough*

-The script. It was decent, excepting the Kai character, but that was it. For every great character moment or clever stunt, there was a tacked-on scene or poorly-done character moment that felt blandly Peter Jacksonian. Also, I can't believe they threw in the awesome-looking Darth Shredder with Boba Fett levels of implied badassery that we never saw on screen and then killed him off like Boba Fett a chump. The witch could have used a bit more payoff, too. Rinko Kikuchi was the most lively performer in the movie and it felt like they couldn't think of much for her to do in the climax. Granted, turning into a sort-of dragon is cool, but it was nowhere near vampy enough for her character.

Worth the Price of Admission:

-Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa as the Shogun! Now, that's stunt casting done right!

-Gedde "You're so stupid!" Watanabe as...well, it's good to see him acting again.

-Rinko Kikuchi hamming it up.

-The hunt at the beginning. I could watch three hours of gorgeously-armored Samurai hunting mythical beasts. So awesome.

-A Leong. How the hell is Al Leong not in this? He couldn't have taken an arrow to the throat or something?

-LOTR, Japanese style. ( I'm such an Oientalist, apparently!)

Observations From My Wife:

-Keanu Reeves's bare chest is depressing.

-This is a rare blue-vs-red movie where red is the good team.

-God, they really shouldn't have used Keanu Reeves.

-

Spoiler:

Mass suicide makes for a terribly down ending.

In regards to the source material, this movie follows the path of 300 almost exactly. Magic! Monsters! Historicalicity...? Never heard of it. The opening narration (which should be dropped) states that this occurs in a fantasy world, and then states it is integral to the history of Japan. Yeah.... I don't think it works that way.

Overall, I would say this movie hit exactly the note I was hoping for. It was an awesome bad movie, the kind I would have watched a hundred times between the ages of 8 and 15. Heck, if I didn't have so many responsibilities, I'd see it again in the theater at least one more time. I am definitely going to watch this movie with my sone when he is old enough, assuming he gets into fantasy or action movies--and then we are going to paint the living shizz out of some WGF Samurai! Damn do I need more Samurai right now.

I really hope the movie does well so that the studios won't consider non-European settings unprofitable.

I still need to see the movie, but as far as Keanu -




covers pretty much everything I've ever felt about Keanu Reeves in a succinct manner. It sounds like in this movie they wanted an actual actor to belt out exposition, which is a poor choice for Keanu.

Far better...

I didn't want to see it. These bad reviews mean I will rent ths stupid thing on Netflix.

 kronk wrote:
I didn't want to see it. These bad reviews mean I will rent ths stupid thing on Netflix.

I think I might do this too.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Rinko Kikuchi is super talented. It's a pity that in the west she has only appeared in one good film (Babel).

You accidentally forgot Pacific Rim. Or else.

 Ouze wrote:

I'm not especially averse to Keanu Reeves. Truth be told, I sort of like him. He's always struck me as an average actor with a comfortable understanding and acceptance of his own averageness. Maybe it's a BS persona but if so I bought into it.

I agree with that assessment. The problem is that the role as written required more than that. Actually, the real problem is that every time the focus shifted to Keanu's character, especially at the end, it felt like the movie was stealing from Sanada, which is a crime in some jurisdictions. Sanada could probably pass my Kurt Russel Test* with somber dignity.



The more I think about this movie, the more I think it would have been a very good movie (as well as a very fun movie) if more of the screen time was devoted to Oichi and the witch. He is the hero of the story and she is the villain. Lord Kira was more of a giant douche than an epic villain, which is probably why Oishi's vengeance, while well done, is not entirely satisfying. Oishi and Kikuchi's character deserved more face time.

I do have to say that the movie isn't afraid to take risks, and manages to avoid the kind of 'safe' feeling most action movies have these days.



*The Kurt Russel Test: An actor passes this test if there is a scene composed solely of said actor eating a sandwich, and his or her sandwich eating scene is still better than 90% of the rest of the movie,


EDIT: One more comment from my wife: The movie would have worked just as well with Klingons. Perhaps better.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


EDIT: One more comment from my wife: The movie would have worked just as well with Klingons. Perhaps better.

Are you suggesting the sequel to be titled "47 redshirts"?