Viggen 644 Posted January 28, 2014 Anyone else seen it? What did those of you who have, think of it? I found it really good, and I'm not just saying that because of the gratuitous amounts of Chinook and AC-130 porn. Genuinely one of the best movies I've seen in a while. Fun fact: The Chinooks in the movie are CH-47Fs. But, the cockpits shown are from CH-47Ds, which is correct because they are portraying MH-47Ds. The cabin shots reveal a Fox model cabin. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SFP1Ace 33 Posted January 28, 2014 Like Maher said, "You don't give up the movie's ending in the effin' TITLE!" XD 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nesher 628 Posted January 28, 2014 can't wait to see this one.. looks good! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icarus999 70 Posted January 28, 2014 Great movie, and a rarity in that the events were changed from the real story in a way that actually downplays the ordeal that the single man that survived went through. In reality he crawled on his belly with a broken back for miles through the mountains before he reached safety The seal in question did not want the movie to glorify himself at the expense of the memory of his team mates. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
macelena 1,070 Posted January 28, 2014 maybe the title thing is not as important since annyways, it is a known story. Just like Captain Phillips (has anone else noticed the number of films portraying USN SEALs?) When i went watch it, i was shocked. I expected it to be worse, not such a big deal or something, considering the actors and director, i didn´t think it would be good enough to stand up next to, say, Black Hawk Down. Also, there are several things about both wich are eerly similar. Both are about a mission to get on/several senior enemy VIPs, in wich the forces sent face unexpected trouble, get overwhelmed, loose a lot of people as the helos coming to support them are hit, some events are watered down because real life was too hardcore for film, in the end some ally wich wasn´t expected to be there provides with invaluable help...both films were based on the accounts of survivors and made 8 years after the events portrayed, showing details about the life of the men who fought and died there... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+CrazyhorseB34 937 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Would not waste my money on someone who profits from his war experience. Caveat Emptor. I am not going to witness this garbage. Lutrrell's version of his story has been debunked so many times that the only people who listen to it are the turds at NRA conventions ( Which he is a frequent speaker at). I know the real story without having to see this bullshit ass movie. So he says......... Goes to show you that a perfect example of "American" culture is that a man was shot to death for texting his three year olds babysitter on opening day in Florida. Makes you wonder what kind of people get off on this shit. Mostly people who don't have the guts to do it themselves. Edited January 28, 2014 by CrazyhorseB34 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
macelena 1,070 Posted January 28, 2014 Would not waste my money on someone who profits from his war experience. Caveat Emptor. I am not going to witness this garbage. Lutrrell's version of his story has been debunked so many times that the only people who listen to it are the turds at NRA conventions ( Which he is a frequent speaker at). I know the real story without having to see this bullshit ass movie. So he says......... Goes to show you that a perfect example of "American" culture is that a man was shot to death for texting his three year olds babysitter on opening day in Florida. Makes you wonder what kind of people get off on this shit. Mostly people who don't have the guts to do it themselves. I was about to say this is not related to the film, but then i took this outrage to the knee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shotdown 8 Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) and a rarity in that the events were changed from the real story in a way that actually downplays the ordeal that the single man that survived went through. I think this is more usual then people thinks. I've read "A bridge too far" and there were several facts that weren't seen in the movie and would make moviegoers think Hollywood people were laughing at them (of course, there was the "don't make the movie too long" thing too). And I think that's happened too in movies like "Black hawk down" or "The longest day" Edited January 28, 2014 by shotdown Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+CrazyhorseB34 937 Posted January 28, 2014 Nobody calls an M-9 a "Berretta." Sheesh. Others may be inclined, but I am sitting this one out. Sorry if anyone disagrees. We need more rom coms with Paul Rudd than dubious Markey Mark shoot em ups. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted January 29, 2014 I guess I'm an NRA turd then since I am a member. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jug 99 Posted January 31, 2014 I'm with you, Dave. CrazyHorseB34, give it a rest.......... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+CrazyhorseB34 937 Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) Enjoy your film. Edited February 2, 2014 by CrazyhorseB34 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FalconC45 162 Posted February 1, 2014 I guess I'm an NRA turd then since I am a member. guess i'm a turd for supporting NRA. Falcon 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+CrazyhorseB34 937 Posted February 2, 2014 I guess I should have said "supporters" instead of turds. We all have a couple of pounds of turd in us anyway! Interesting fact: There are more citizens without health insurance in Texas than total NRA members nationwide............... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ironroad 218 Posted February 3, 2014 The spouse-unit took me to see it.... All I can say is... GREAT MUTHA #@$(!NG MOVIE! Lone Survivor is probably one of the better movies that have come in about a decade or so. If I had to compare it to one of the "classics" I would say that its like 84 Charlie MoPIC met Black Hawk Down and made a beautiful curl-haired love child. Forget about the common issues that normally crop-up in most media/Hollywood military-war adaptions such as: -Uniforms, patches, medals, etc. out of order -Wrong acronyms, code-names, designators, etc. -Western military and intelligence forces that have broad law-enforcement powers, responsibilities, and authorities (and vice-versa). -Infinite ammo belts, fire support, and napalm like explosions assigned to every weapon that is 20mm or larger (with no concussions or shrapnel) -Attack aircraft/helicopters that use A/A ordnance to attack ground targets, have infinite gatling-gun rounds, and or only use napalm to attack everything. -Matrix-style fight scenes that are in sync to "Dubstep" music. On its merits as a movie (not war/military) Lone Survivor tells a good story. The movie sticks to a single storyline and it does not devolve into multiple weak stories for the purpose of being politically correct or trying to please "everyone". Nor is the storyline over the top in giving god-like powers/abilities to the main characters for the purpose of making another "gun-porn" flick. The acting is decent. There are some recognizable faces mixed in with just regular extras. "Markie Mark, and his harsh New England accent play a good ole boy from Texas?" However, unlike most recent war/military movies the celebrities are shoehorned in to either appeal to the female and/or non US demographic, the characters don't feel manufactured, the dialog isn't forced, the acting seem natural. I became attached to the characters and even though I knew that the outcome of the movie was going to be, I still had hope that the guys would make it out. Me being, reserved by nature, at one point became "that guy" in the theater by shouting "OH SH!T, THEY'RE SETTING UP A PKM!" The cinematography is excellent. Whomever was the filming/technical director for this film needs to be given the key to Fort Knox and told that they are allowed to come and go as they please. They also should have a live puppy sacrificed in their honor. First, and foremost there was no over molestation/abuse of CGI. Some of the CGI was obvious, but a lot of it synced up well with the actual live film. Second, the camera angles were very well done and captured everything from facial expressions to heavy breathing. I have not seen a movie in recent times that can compare to Lone Survivor's special effects and music score. I honestly haven't. Shrapnel, rock, and earth spray/debris from explosions, noise from rounds hitting the camber. The sounds and effects really made the action come alive on screen. There were some technical inaccuracies, but they got a lot of things right (or as close as they could). Yes, the Nightstalkers do not operate CH-47Fs with 1st Cavalry Patches painted on them. The rocket pods on the AH-64s were empty. The USAF CSAR HH-60s did not have the correct insert blank. From a technical and tactics perspective there are probably lots of things that current and former military as well as enthusiast/rivet counters can harp on. But for what is public has access to, I believe this movie did a great job in the technical department. This is a movie which is meant to entertain (and somewhat inform) the masses, be it a retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. or group of kids/adolescents out on a date. I my opinion Lone Survivor is a great freakin movie. It was a nice departure from the super-hero remakes chick/teenie-bopper dramas, and the over-the-top super FBI/CIA agent assassin movies. Can understand how it could have rubbed someone the wrong way, especially those who wear the uniform everyday. However, I left the theater with an even deeper appreciation for those who have served, fought, and died (and some probably fighting as I type this) for the freedom of others. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ianh755 196 Posted February 4, 2014 If, and it's a big "IF", this film hadn't used the line "Based on a True Story" then I'd have rated it much higher because the action is very well done, the stunts are genuinely bone breaking (1 stuntman bust 3 ribs and a lung) and the "made-up" story would have been more credible. However, because they did say "based on a true story" then my problem with the film is the fake "Hollywood" ending they gave it with the Taliban and villagers fighting and Marky Mark knife fighting someone with a broken back because neither of these things actually happened and, if they decided to fake these bits for a better story, then what other bits they fake. If the original "true" story isn't good enough for Hollywood and they decide to change it to make it exciting then they should also remove "Based on a true Story" from it, as it no longer is one, and change the characters names from the real life people involved as a mark of respect because you are no longer telling the truth about them, just some made up "but it looks better on screen" story which is a lie. I'd be surprised if Luttrell, who was there during filming, didn't say anything about the ending as people who don't know the real story will actually think that he did all those things when he knows himself that it's a lie, and that he'll have to explain to these people that none of it was real, which has got to be extremely embarrassing for him. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Piecemeal 450 Posted February 5, 2014 Can't remember the last time I was at the flicks. In my opinion the quality of entertainment on the big screen over the past five or six years has gone waaaaaaaaaaay down. So many rehashes; so many script writers who couldn't write a one line limerick..... While I'm not doubting the hardship that Luttrell endured, but from watching the trailer I can't help but think that this is one more story of bravery hijacked by Hollywood for financial gain. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted February 5, 2014 Every film is made for financial gain. It's a business, not a charity. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ironroad 218 Posted February 7, 2014 Every film is made for financial gain. It's a business, not a charity. Ditto! The same goes for just about every book, newsletter, or piece of media. Even if the creator chooses to do "do it for free" (or a charity) palms need to be greased along the way in order to "make it happen". From a strict profit and mass audience motive, I see no difference between this movie and a memoir published by (enter your favorite war hero or politician). Usually both have the same underlying motives; to tell a story and make some money. The only major difference is the medium used... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+CrazyhorseB34 937 Posted February 7, 2014 That's why you never read books written by the guy who "did it." Black Hawk Down...... Mark Bowden told the story of other's deeds not his own. Thunder Run.......David Zucchino told the story of other's deeds not his own. These are the good truthful accounts. They have been trying to make the Thunder Run movie for about five years now. Problem is it costs a lot of money, prop wise, to make a movie about an armored brigade. If they can secure the same backing the Army gave BHD then it will be a go. Problem is the Army RARELY supports the film industry. Unlike the Department of the Navy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+pcpilot 181 Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Sounds like a great movie; looking forward to seeing it with a couple pals. I aint never seen the perfectly accurate "history" movie. I do enjoy watching them anyway without all the analizing over relatively minor details. This movie still tells an important story about 3 men who didn't make it home and one who did. Good enough. Guess Im a turd too; pro NRA, member Montana rifle and pistol association, and gun owning redneck. 1791 Dec. 23. (to Archibald Stuart) "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."[ Thomas Jefferson Edited February 7, 2014 by pcpilot 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
macelena 1,070 Posted February 7, 2014 It has been one of the most popular films around here, specially for a war movie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FalconC45 162 Posted February 7, 2014 Sounds like a great movie; looking forward to seeing it with a couple pals. I aint never seen the perfectly accurate "history" movie. I do enjoy watching them anyway without all the analizing over relatively minor details. This movie still tells an important story about 3 men who didn't make it home and one who did. Good enough. Guess Im a turd too; pro NRA, member Montana rifle and pistol association, and gun owning redneck. rifle1.jpg 1791 Dec. 23. (to Archibald Stuart) "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."[ Thomas Jefferson Nice FAL rifle. Always wanted one. Falcon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+pcpilot 181 Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Your kinda close; its sorta easy to make the wrong guess. That is actually a heckler and Koch HK93, the .223 caliber civilian version of the HK43. This is a FAL... Edited February 7, 2014 by pcpilot Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fubar512 1,350 Posted February 9, 2014 Saw it last night. Definitely kept me on the edge of my seat throughout most of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
