Relentlessly negative, cynical, & not at all an effective anti-war film
-
sfrmiw — 9 years ago(October 19, 2016 03:24 PM)
Fair enough, I did go full Trump.
Let's step back and review: I post a negative review of the film. No personal attacks, just a negative review. Let's review the responses:
Craig: "you have to be a grown-up with a sense of humor" to like it.
Cruff: called me an beep and prick
You: called me poindexter
Spooky: brought my mom and dad into the discussion
Me: went full Trump.
Yes, of course I am the problem. I went full Trump after being personally attacked by a bunch of strangers for merely posting a negative review of a film. Sure, I'll sign off on that. I am the immature one. Responding to movie reviews with personal attacks: the definition of maturity. Thanks! -
roch-19121 — 9 years ago(November 17, 2016 03:19 PM)
The thing that failed to make this film anti-war and ,,change my mind'' is fact that the film is set in Korean War. Which was one of (If not the most) the most moral and just interventions in history. (Like II World War Korean War was also started by totalitarian dictatorship which must have been stopped by any means)
,,There is not a single pro-war person'' thats right. I seriosly doubt whether there is really a person who is ,,pro-war''. Everybody is anti war, but some wars are just sad but necesseary duty (Korean War was one of them) -
shieldsdraeger — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 04:17 PM)
The thing that failed to make this film anti-war is (the) fact that the film is set
in (the) Korean War.Altman's original intention was that the film be about the Vietnam War, as much as a film shot in the southern California desert can be. It was the studio who made him add the crawl at the beginning setting it in Korea.
Any work that deals honestly with war is inherently "anti-war" and no-one who thinks
seriously about war is "pro-war". Some wars are justified, some not so much. -
HSauer — 9 years ago(November 20, 2016 09:21 PM)
There is not a single pro-war person who had their mind changed by this film.
I have never heard of a serious film maker deliberately setting out to make an "anti-war" film, so I think your claim that MASH does not succeed as an anti-war film is a good one!
Likewise, writers don't effectively sit down to write "anti-war books." It's only the people who seek to classify things who adhere to the silly concept of anti-war books & films. -
GoBroncos42 — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 11:30 AM)
I'd say it's probably more anti-authority than anti-war. The TV series was probably technically more "anti-war," by definition. It had more humanity to it.
This movie was based off Richard Hornberger's novel, "MASH," which was pretty good. But the novel wasn't anti-war at all. Maybe a little bit anti-authority. In the novel the charactersincluding Hawkeye and Trapperare politically incorrect, say sexist and racist things and they have a "My countrywrong or right!" attitude. They have no profound statements to make against the war, just like how they don't in the movie. But still the movie was released at a time when people were angry about Vietnam so an irreverent movie about another war was a breath of fresh air for many people.
