Latest Movies

[FallingOsh]

Meh. I feel like you see more of her, and she looks better, in 'she's out of my league'.

And wayyy more in 'Crossing Over.' Good movie, too.

[HercDude]

[mp5g]

Looking forward to this movie. Hope it isn't over Hollywood-ized.

[Mark1]

Looking forward to this movie. Hope it isn't over Hollywood-ized.

It will be...however, from the 10 seconds that depict the compromise in the trailer, it's already more credible than the book's handling of the matter, so that's something.

[Creep]

It will be...however, from the 10 seconds that depict the compromise in the trailer, it's already more credible than the book's handling of the matter, so that's something.

How so? Isn't the book written by Marcus Luttrell?

I too am looking forward to this movie. My only gripe is with the fact that Mark Wahlberg is an anti-gun celeb and is perpetuating the hypocrisy of his type. Marcus Luttrell shouldn't be portrayed by a hollywood phony.

[slackline]

How so? Isn't the book written by Marcus Luttrell? Marcus Luttrell shouldn't be portrayed by a hollywood phony.

Once again, not trying to take away from Luttrell's past actions...

Have you read the book? The only people that can stand it are people that have never been around an actual SEAL. Why shouldn't a phony portray him? His book is so stuffed full of BS bravado it's laughable.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Mark1]

How so? Isn't the book written by Marcus Luttrell?

I too am looking forward to this movie. My only gripe is with the fact that Mark Wahlberg is an anti-gun celeb and is perpetuating the hypocrisy of his type. Marcus Luttrell shouldn't be portrayed by a hollywood phony.

The book was written by Luttrell with a ghostwriter. I don't know the reality of the relationship during the writing (how much liberty the ghostwriter took, or if it was straight dictation with literary inputs, etc.), but ultimately Luttrell's got to be held responsible for the content of the book, given that it's published under his name.

During the chapters that deal with the compromise Luttrell chooses to make a political point that is absurd and I can only hope is fiction. He says that he was such good friends with Murphy, and they knew each other so well, that immediately upon the compromise they had a non-verbal moment that made it clear to Luttrell that both he and Murphy understood there was only one proper solution to the problem. They had to execute the goat herders that stumbled upon them, but couldn't, because the liberal politicians back home would crucify them for making the 'tactically sound' decision.

He downplays, or fails to mention the fact, that one of the goat herders they wanted to kill silently with a knife for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time was a child.

I find it hard to believe that on top of a mountain in remote Afghanistan, on a mission that wouldn't make the press if the military didn't want it to, facing a potentially life or death decision, both Luttrell and Murphy couldn't think of anything other than what the liberal politicians in Washington would think of them if they didn't let the goat herders go. He insinuates strongly, without explicitly saying so, that Spietz, Murphy, and Axelson's blood is on the liberal politician's hands. If that account is really true, then I feel sorry for both of them having lived their lives so ruled by political division that they couldn't make a life or death decision without it's taint.

But much more likely, Luttrell chose to use one of the most significant moments of the story to make a point outside of the reality of the situation, and in doing so, put something terrible onto a dead man (Murphy) who can't speak for himself. That they both REALLY wanted to execute innocent civilians, including a child, to spare themselves but couldn't because their hands were tied. Not really the picture you'd like to have for a MOH winner...and a HUGE foul on Luttrell's part if he made it up to bolster the story or make a point. Of course at the same time he calls into question his own character, as he was the other among the group that wanted to slit a childs throat to be on the safe side. The point about overbearing ROE getting guys killed is a valid one. Have that conversation with every media outlet in the country separate from the book, or write a different book on that topic, or put it in Lone Survivor as your own opinion aside from the story, but don't do it on the back of a dead guy.

I thought it was odd after reading the book that nobody else seemed to take issue with it, instead focusing on how heroic everybody was, but since then Murphy's dad has come out to say that he didn't appreciate that portion of the book either, saying his son would never think that way.

There are plenty of other exagerrations and stretches of the truth in the book, most notably the number of enemy they faced. I've seen the debriefing materials and AAR, and there are several other stretches of the truth in the book as well, but of less significance.

It's a shame because the story speaks for itself. It was amazing in reality. It didn't need churching up, or the addition of Luttrell's agenda, and only serves to dishonor the guys who died that day.

[B52gator]

The book was written by Luttrell with a ghostwriter. I don't know the reality of the relationship during the writing (how much liberty the ghostwriter took, or if it was straight dictation with literary inputs, etc.), but ultimately Luttrell's got to be held responsible for the content of the book, given that it's published under his name.

During the chapters that deal with the compromise Luttrell chooses to make a political point that is absurd and I can only hope is fiction. He says that he was such good friends with Murphy, and they knew each other so well, that immediately upon the compromise they had a non-verbal moment that made it clear to Luttrell that both he and Murphy understood there was only one proper solution to the problem. They had to execute the goat herders that stumbled upon them, but couldn't, because the liberal politicians back home would crucify them for making the 'tactically sound' decision.

He downplays, or fails to mention the fact, that one of the goat herders they wanted to kill silently with a knife for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time was a child.

I find it hard to believe that on top of a mountain in remote Afghanistan, on a mission that wouldn't make the press if the military didn't want it to, facing a potentially life or death decision, both Luttrell and Murphy couldn't think of anything other than what the liberal politicians in Washington would think of them if they didn't let the goat herders go. He insinuates strongly, without explicitly saying so, that Spietz, Murphy, and Axelson's blood is on the liberal politician's hands. If that account is really true, then I feel sorry for both of them having lived their lives so ruled by political division that they couldn't make a life or death decision without it's taint.

But much more likely, Luttrell chose to use one of the most significant moments of the story to make a point outside of the reality of the situation, and in doing so, put something terrible onto a dead man (Murphy) who can't speak for himself. That they both REALLY wanted to execute innocent civilians, including a child, to spare themselves but couldn't because their hands were tied. Not really the picture you'd like to have for a MOH winner...and a HUGE foul on Luttrell's part if he made it up to bolster the story or make a point. Of course at the same time he calls into question his own character, as he was the other among the group that wanted to slit a childs throat to be on the safe side. The point about overbearing ROE getting guys killed is a valid one. Have that conversation with every media outlet in the country separate from the book, or write a different book on that topic, or put it in Lone Survivor as your own opinion aside from the story, but don't do it on the back of a dead guy.

I thought it was odd after reading the book that nobody else seemed to take issue with it, instead focusing on how heroic everybody was, but since then Murphy's dad has come out to say that he didn't appreciate that portion of the book either, saying his son would never think that way.

There are plenty of other exagerrations and stretches of the truth in the book, most notably the number of enemy they faced. I've seen the debriefing materials and AAR, and there are several other stretches of the truth in the book as well, but of less significance.

It's a shame because the story speaks for itself. It was amazing in reality. It didn't need churching up, or the addition of Luttrell's agenda, and only serves to dishonor the guys who died that day.

One of those deals where we will never truly know what went on. The movie has potential and hopefully it is done right...then again, it could be one of those that completely misses the mark. Not a big Wahlberg fan, but I'll give it shot.

Slight tangent: It's movies/books like this that make me feel just a little inferior to those dudes. Flying around safe and cozy (as cozy as you can be in the BUFF) at 32k eating chicken wings isn't exactly big brass balls kinda stuff.

[discus]

Slight tangent: It's movies/books like this that make me feel just a little inferior to those dudes. Flying around safe and cozy (as cozy as you can be in the BUFF) at 32k eating chicken wings isn't exactly big brass balls kinda stuff.

So my father taking a SA-2 to the left cockpit, and finishing the bomb run with his AC's head splattered all over his flight suit, the EWO getting killed in the inevitable ejection, and the tail gunner getting blown from the back of the plane and losing his legs, followed by all of them going to Hanoi as guests charged with "Littering and trespassing" isn't brass balls kinda stuff huh? Glad the BUFF guys of today totally remember their heritage, or stop to think of what they could be called on to do again...Enjoy your chicken wings. /Rant to your tangent

Edited August 1, 2013 by discus

[B52gator]

So my father taking a SA-2 to the left cockpit, and finishing the bomb run with his AC's head splattered all over his flight suit, the EWO getting killed in the inevitable ejection, and the tail gunner getting blown from the back of the plane and losing his legs, followed by all of them going to Hanoi as guests charged with "Littering and trespassing" isn't brass balls kinda stuff huh? Glad the BUFF guys of today totally remember their heritage, or stop to think of what they could be called on to do again...Enjoy your chicken wings. /Rant to your tangent

I knew that would happen and it's my own fault for not clarifying that it was a jab at current BUFF ops. No disrespect to your dad and his crew. Those guys did have big brass ones. 11 Days of Christmas gets read at least once a year and that audio of a BUFF run in Vietnam that somebody posted not too long ago is a testament to what those guys went through. BUFF (myself included) guys are well aware and proud of their heritage, those who came before, sacrifices from other crew dogs etc. No intent to offend.

Edited August 1, 2013 by b52gator

[slackline]

I knew that would happen and it's my own fault for not clarifying that it was a jab at current BUFF ops. No disrespect to your dad and his crew. Those guys did have big brass ones. 11 Days of Christmas gets read at least once a year and that audio of a BUFF run in Vietnam that somebody posted not too long ago is a testament to what those guys went through. BUFF (myself included) guys are well aware and proud of their heritage, those who came before, sacrifices from other crew dogs etc. No intent to offend.

I think your intent was pretty obvious. I think SA was pretty low and sensitivity was high on the post you just replied to.

[Creep]

Re: Slackline and Mark1:

Fair enough remarks about Marcus and his story. I've read his book, but only once and it was back in 2008 or so. Consequently, the details of the book left my noodle a long time ago. Here is to hoping that the film isn't crap.

[billy pilgrim]

I remember reading this as a kid in the 80s. Good book. Hopefully this isn't just another in a string of Hollywood turds.

I don't buy the part in the trailer where the F-35 is IOC...

[Toro]

I remember reading this as a kid in the 80s. Good book. Hopefully this isn't just another in a string of Hollywood turds.

Looks horrible.

[Stuck]

Elysium is one of the better films I've seen in a while, as well as being one of the more visually amazing films I've ever seen. Highly recommend.

[HeloDude]

Elysium is one of the better films I've seen in a while, as well as being one of the more visually amazing films I've ever seen. Highly recommend.

Did you feel that there was a socialist/progressive 'propaganda' message in the movie (ie worse than the usual that comes out in movies)? I have read from several different sources that it's pretty thick in this movie, and since I'm not a Matt Damon fan, I think I'll wait for DVD or just skip it all together.

[spaceman]

Did you feel that there was a socialist/progressive 'propaganda' message in the movie (ie worse than the usual that comes out in movies)?

Not really; too busy marveling at the spectacular cranium-explosions

[jice]

Did you feel that there was a socialist/progressive 'propaganda' message in the movie (ie worse than the usual that comes out in movies)? I have read from several different sources that it's pretty thick in this movie, and since I'm not a Matt Damon fan, I think I'll wait for DVD or just skip it all together.

Found it highly political, and it had about the same content:time ratio as ASBC/SOS (without the per diem). Special effects were neat at times, but the action scenes were pretty ho-hum. Recommend taking the kids to see one of the cartoons instead and catching the special effects on the inevitable "making of."

Edited August 12, 2013 by jice

[17D_guy]

Found it highly political, and it had about the same content:time ratio as ASBC/SOS (without the per diem). Special effects were neat at times, but the action scenes were pretty ho-hum. Recommend taking the kids to see one of the cartoons instead and catching the special effects on the inevitable "making of."

Along the lines of District 9 innuendo of apartheid/racism?

Took kids to Turbo, they thought it was great and I didn't hate it at the end.

[10percenttruth]

Planes was ok, didn't quite have the charm of Cars, but it wasn't bad.

[Butters]

During the chapters that deal with the compromise Luttrell chooses to make a political point that is absurd and I can only hope is fiction. He says that he was such good friends with Murphy, and they knew each other so well, that immediately upon the compromise they had a non-verbal moment that made it clear to Luttrell that both he and Murphy understood there was only one proper solution to the problem. They had to execute the goat herders that stumbled upon them, but couldn't, because the liberal politicians back home would crucify them for making the 'tactically sound' decision.

He downplays, or fails to mention the fact, that one of the goat herders they wanted to kill silently with a knife for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time was a child.

I find it hard to believe that on top of a mountain in remote Afghanistan, on a mission that wouldn't make the press if the military didn't want it to, facing a potentially life or death decision, both Luttrell and Murphy couldn't think of anything other than what the liberal politicians in Washington would think of them if they didn't let the goat herders go. He insinuates strongly, without explicitly saying so, that Spietz, Murphy, and Axelson's blood is on the liberal politician's hands. If that account is really true, then I feel sorry for both of them having lived their lives so ruled by political division that they couldn't make a life or death decision without it's taint.

But much more likely, Luttrell chose to use one of the most significant moments of the story to make a point outside of the reality of the situation, and in doing so, put something terrible onto a dead man (Murphy) who can't speak for himself. That they both REALLY wanted to execute innocent civilians, including a child, to spare themselves but couldn't because their hands were tied. Not really the picture you'd like to have for a MOH winner...and a HUGE foul on Luttrell's part if he made it up to bolster the story or make a point. Of course at the same time he calls into question his own character, as he was the other among the group that wanted to slit a childs throat to be on the safe side. The point about overbearing ROE getting guys killed is a valid one. Have that conversation with every media outlet in the country separate from the book, or write a different book on that topic, or put it in Lone Survivor as your own opinion aside from the story, but don't do it on the back of a dead guy.

This is not the first time a SOF unit had been comprimised. It has happen quite a few times, so many times in fact that there is an established procedure in the ROE. I am currious why they did not follow it. BTW, the ROE is not and has never been to kill them.

[Jughead]

Haven't seen it mentioned here yet, so I'll throw out a recommendation for We're the Millers. Funniest movie I've seen in years, and Jennifer Anniston as a stripper was worth the price of admission alone.... Wife loved the movie, too, FWIW.

EDIT: me no spel gud

Edited August 19, 2013 by Jughead

[brickhistory]

"The World's End"

Meh...

Same guys from Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.

Kind of a rehash of the former along with some life changes you from a beer-swilling teen-ager to a middle-aged man lessons.

Maybe a Netflix or other rental, but not full movie price.

Some moments, but not enough.

[DFRESH]

Haven't seen it mentioned here yet, so I'll throw out a recommendation for We're the Millers. Funniest movie I've seen in years, and Jennifer Anniston as a stripper was worth the price of admission alone.... Wife loved the movie, too, FWIW.

EDIT: me no spel gud

2!

[raimius]

"The World's End"

Meh...

Same guys from Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.

Kind of a rehash of the former along with some life changes you from a beer-swilling teen-ager to a middle-aged man lessons.

Maybe a Netflix or other rental, but not full movie price.

Some moments, but not enough.

I quite enjoyed it, but then I'm a big fan of British humor. I will say that the plot line wasn't very funny, but the multitude of relatively cheap laughs kept it fun.