Aqui vai uma pequena sugestão de um filme que apesar de eu ter expectativas baixas, surpreendeu na positiva.
Comments
No comments yet — be the first.
Title · no scrobbles indexed yet
Machine Gun Preacher
The first scrobble for this title is still propagating, but a community review is already indexed below.
Reviews
Longform community posts about this title
1 more review
›"Machine Gun Preacher" by Marc Forster - movie review@godflesh2891d
"Machine Gun Preacherr" was created on the real story of Sam Childers, an outrageous rocker, criminal, and addict who after "discovering God" went to South Sudan to help rebuild the homes destroyed by the civil war there. Devastated by the indescribable horrors of the local population of the so-called God's Resistance Army, he creates an orphanage at the hottest point of "events" and leads a "crusade" against GRA , against the world that makes the problem does not exist, and against its own demons.
Though, in general, the story of Sam Childers is true - there is such a person and what he has done is a fact - much of what has happened (as always in "real cases") is more dramatic and more important , part of the more gray (not to say black) cuts from the Child's image are tinted and painted in pink. In general, the only more critical point of condemning him as a mercenary, actively involved in shooting and killing people without remorse, rather than behaving as a humanitarian and seeking a solution to the problem of peaceful means (even refusing to attend to address the issue together with the leader of GRA , is a female doctor who throws his replies twice, and so, incidentally, and at the end is even rescued by the aggressive methods of Childder. But these are not the problems of the Preacher with a machine gun - it is not the first time to make a film in which the story is presented unilaterally in order to attract people's attention to an undoubtedly good cause, and the end result is more than satisfactory. The problem is that it is incoherent, at times elementary manipulative (it is clear that by displaying corrupted bodies and crippled children we will cause reactions), does not address adequately enough complex ethnic and political themes and also contradicts the issue of religion that makes Childers is a new person, but at the same time preaches ideas that at least, in his opinion, prevent "work being done". In fact, the whole religious aspect is so sloppy and elementary that if they had missed it, the quality of the film would have gone up by at least two units.
Oh, I do not want to talk badly against the movie. I just do not feel right. It is true that he has a number of shortcomings and, as it has already become clear, if I want to dump him properly, I will not be very difficult. The problem is that he has a lot of qualities. I dare to say that with a few exceptions, such as the above-mentioned insights, the directing of Mark Forster (who enjoyed the great "Finding Neverland") Is stable, confident and emotional and a huge part of the problems of the film come from the script. The performance of Gerard Butler, who makes one of his best roles, especially against the backdrop of the romantic bosses he had recently given himself, is also robust. And based on the real footage at the end of the movie and the interviews I was watching, I can say that he brings a lot more classes, psychological depth and beauty if you want than Sam Childers deserves. With the exception of Michelle Monahan, as usual, the other actors are also on top, and Michael Shannon just has nothing to say. This man is iron.
Besides, unlike a large part of Hollywood productions lately, the film has something to say. He draws public attention to an extremely serious problem and introduces us to an interesting person who, despite his shortcomings (who has none), does something really remarkable. It's easy to spit by eating popcorn and drinking and later in front of the monitor in a safe home, but if we have to do a bit of the things that Sam Childers did, 300 children live in the orphanage he built, how many of us will do so? I guess after such a review it's hard to judge what my opinion about the movie is. Honestly, at least until I look at it for the second time, I can not decide whether it's "good" or "bad" - I know it's far from Bloody Diamond or the unique Eternal Gardener, but I know it's not totally tragedy - that's why I'm letting a leap of popular physics and I say that for me, the "Machine Gun Preacher" is a film Schrodinger - until you "open the box" at the same moment the film is both nice and blunt. Watch and Judge.