Say what you will about his personal life, but Mel Gibson made

>>87118412
The best war film since Saving Private Ryan.

The personal life that you speak of is why I love him to be honest. Also he's a legendary actor and is quite a good director too.

>our time
speak for yourself

>>87119663
I don't see any reason to love an actor/director for something they do OUTSIDE of acting and directing.

I like Christian Bale in particular because he's very quiet about his personal life and it causes people to focus specifically on his acting without distraction. That's what is important about an actor - acting talent. And he's got it in spades.

Granted, so does Mel.

>>87118412
It was the best war movie of 2016.

>>87119696
Is now /ourtime/?

>>87120718
Your time is up, my time is now, You can't see me, my time is now!

>>87118412
2nd act was pointless.

It wasn't that great. There was a melodramatic tone throughout the entire movie that was totally unnecessary. The story was good enough to not need the Lifetime vibe.

>things film embryos say

Good movie, but some of the action scenes were unbelievably corny the way they were done, and from when they all go back up the ridge to the end of the movie felt very rushed. It was like a 3 minute montage and that's it.

>>87118412
i love mel, and i loved blood father, but i thought this was mediocre. garfield is a bad actor. some scenes felt more melodramatic and goofy and serious and emotional. terrible cgi. and some really, really dumb decisions like the torso shield. 6.5/10

>>87120314
Because he's edgy and hates jews.

>>87118412
Dunkirk was far better than this shit

>>87120986
i think vaughn was also a poor choice and, this is totally subjective, but i just dont think desmond doss' story was good material for a movie, regardless of how heroic he was

>>87120737
(OBNOXIOUSLY LOUD HORNS DROWN OUT YOUR POST)

>>87121111
i didnt think dunkirk was that amazing of a movie but it had the best sound ive ever heard

>>87121060
I don't see why not. Granted, the first hour isn't for everyone, but the second was pretty standard war movie fare. Lots of shooting and violence, even if the protagonist didn't do any of the shooting. I think that's exactly the kind of film people like to go and see.

the parts were he hooked up with the nurse/his future wife were extremely cringey. but the war scenes were good

>>87121149
I think you either misunderstood me or responded to the wrong post, my post was about John Cena.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiRoSLTKCfg

>>87121199
no the second half was fine, if a bit cliche war movie fare. but i didnt care about doss' life melodramatic impetus for joining the army, i didnt care about him autistically repeating "i cant carry no gun im a pacifist". I was just thinking "pick up a gun and dont shoot it during the war faggot stop causing trouble for everybody what if you need to save a comrade whos about to get shot at point blank range". maybe i just have a woman brain

>>87121260
lol yeah i thought that was in response to the dunkirk post, it would have been just as accurate

>>87120967
>and from when they all go back up the ridge to the end of the movie felt very rushed. It was like a 3 minute montage and that's it.
That was an unfortunate choice but I guess Mel had to choose what he wanted to focus on and decided that the first day made for a better story. IIRC he also said something about how if he'd shown more of the stuff that happened on the second day it would have stretched people's suspension of disbelief even though it really happened.

>>87121282
I mean, yeah, he was pretty stubborn, but like you said, it's a male pride thing. Also the movie Redbelt is about a fighter who refuses to fight for money because it would bring dishonor to his dojo, which is a similar premise, yet I don't see the same criticism leveled against it. So that's not exactly an uncommon film premise either.

It wasn't great but it was okay.
Things that were bad

>Vince vaughn was moments away from cracking a joke every scene and in general fucking sucks
>picking up a body and running with it
>the ridge - seriously Google it
>"the japs are on him! We gotta cover him boys!"

I mean it was a decent movie but wasn't close to saving private Ryan or Dunkirk

>>87121596
i really liked redbelt, but i also liked that character a lot more. maybe simply because of the actor. i do believe garfield being a charisma vacuum hurt the movie

>>87121604
vince vaughns character needed to be tom sizemore from 15 years ago

>>87122075
I heard Tom Sizemore went insane, what's that about?

>>87119553
Misspelled The Thin Red Line

>>87121604
I don't see a problem with making the ridge bigger when it made for a more dramatic movie. Mel Gibson always fudged the historical details a little bit in favor of good storytelling, it worked for Braveheart and it worked here.

I thought Mel wanted the Nazis to win.

>>87123000
Mel's racism is greatly exaggerated.

Fun movie, annoying protagonist though, both the actor and the person he portrayed. Wife was a qt though. Awful CGI, just fucking bad. Felt longer than it's running time, would watch again though all in all I did enjoy it.

>>87123170
I don't really understand the hate for Andrew Garfield, then again I've never really understood what makes a good actor or a bad actor, I've seen performances I disliked hailed as great and ones I liked criticized as awful. I kind of suspect a lot of it has to do with the actors' looks.

>>87123170
>Wife was a qt though

If I act straight they won't call me a faggot

>>87123632
Maybe is his looks I don't know but his whole holier than thou attitude and his stupid smirk annoys the shit out of me for some reason dude.

>>87123885
Well what do you expect from a guy who plays a super religious character in multiple Oscar-worthy movies, of course he's holy.

>>87122622
ego + fame + a lot of cocaine