You have nothing worth saying.
-
ribby45 — 13 years ago(November 20, 2012 03:07 PM)
Chapacv36 -
What an eloquent and beautifully-written post.
I did watch
Come and See
alone and I felt as if I'd been thrown head-first into a nightmare.
I do see it as a historical piece, because the epilogue mentions that hundreds of Russian villages were destroyed & their inhabitants murdered by the Nazis.
People need to know this. -
areader-13920 — 10 years ago(July 24, 2015 04:37 PM)
The vast majority of people (in the west and Russia) know this, but fewer know about what Japan/USSR did during their occupations, and far fewer know about the crimes Italy, Romania, France, and Croatia. The film (from what I know, as of now I've only seen parts and heard about it in documentaries and IMFDB) isn't very accurate at all. Most of the vehicles and weapons aren't used by the right nations and some of the Russian vehicles weren't made until decades after the war. The film was made to show the emotional struggle of a child partisan, and to help do this they take many artistic liberties (like showing well over a platoon of average Germans rounding up dozens of villagers and burning them in church and then proceeding to fire thousands of rounds into it). I had a similar problem in my history class where some students were laughing at scenes in "Glory" and to be honest, the film is really overrated. The choice of actors isn't good, the fighting is not shown to be nearly as brutal as it was (the only film that ever did was "Lincoln") and it's over all almost mediocre. If I was a history teacher (and I have considered actually doing that) and I had to show a film about the second world war, it would either be "Flags of Our Fathers", "Letters From Iwo Jima", "Der Undertag" (aka "Downfall"), or "The Pianist". The biggest issue I see with most "history movies" being shown in school is that they have either aged terribly (like "Glory"), are not accurate ("Come and See") or in the case of "The Sullivan Brothers", both.
-
andythecannibal — 12 years ago(April 25, 2013 06:05 PM)
I just had a similar experience during a screening at my university. The scene where the little boy is tossed back into the burning building pulled laughter out of three or four degenerates. I'd like to think that this was simply their way of dealing with what they were seeing, but I doubt it.
-
Htos_Drol — 12 years ago(January 19, 2014 02:22 PM)
Some of the scenes in this film were very well done and showed some brutal realism. But some, not so much.
The scenes that took place between the partisan party leaving Floyra behind and him making it to the island were rich with unintended humor. He and the partisan leader's girlfriend, Glasha, did act very strangely and completely illogically. One could tell that Olga Mironova was the director's muse, and he gave her ample time to chew up scenes and dazzle him with her range emotions and dancing skills. Avant garde film making to the max, or at least to the max of a freshman in film school.
Also unintentionally funny was the last bit where they show Hitler's life in reverse. -
fatpie42 — 11 years ago(June 30, 2014 12:50 PM)
I found it more frustrating.
There were points where things just did not happen in any kind of logical pattern. The boy is dealing with the discovery that his family is dead while surrounded by people in his village who somehow survived. How come they all survived while his family died?
Then the survivors start making a Nazi scarecrow using a skull. Why? We aren't told.
Then they insist on cutting the distraught boy's hair to put his hair on the scarecrow. How mean and insensitive is that???
And then there's the girl character who is completely bizarre right from the start and even randomly lies about her name.
I'm half way through the film and I see little reason to finish it. It's long, slow and I have as yet to see a character who feels like a real person. -
markfilipak — 11 years ago(September 26, 2014 04:58 PM)
I have an experiment for you: Go to that guy (or, more realistically, to the person you next observe laughing during this film) and question them afterward to ascertain how much of the film they remember. I can almost guarantee they will have remembered very little. Why? Trauma. Why laughter? Trauma. It's just how some people deal with it. They see horror, they laugh, they suppress, they feel guilt, they feel shame, they forget. Emotion can be overpowering.
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him.
-
Pregnat_asian_woman — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 01:09 AM)
I think there's quite a bit of humor in this movie intentionally. If you think it's supposed to be 100% glum you're doing it wrong. I'm not denying it's grim as hell, but there are some good laughs in this movie.
Laughter is believed to be an evolutionary response to fear. Comedy often comes from places of pain and suffering. And some people may react that way to the disturbing scenes in this film. -
SamoanJoes — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 10:20 AM)
Never, I repeat never, respect the opinions of students in college/university when it comes to films. I've experienced the same thing as you on a film about the Hiroshima bombing. They're the type of people who think "2 Fast 2 Furious" is high art.