Haha, dammit Maverick, and not even flying in support of the mission! He is such a maverick sometimes!!! But there are many things to like in this film. I feel like some of the SEAL tactics shown are real (peeling, for instance, squad advancement by fire), and the action scenes are great. But, really, they had some great dialogue in the scene and it was in the theatrical cut, but not in the extended cut...

@mechajutaro said:

I've no idea why the scenes you referred to were cut, nonetheless we're in agreement upon the action sequences being first rate, more or less making up for a highly melodramatic story that often seemed exploitative: the commander and his goons stalking our heroes are little more than one dimensional stock villains, and exploration of the complex dynamics that underlie ethnic "cleansing" in subsaharan Africa isn't found anywhere on screen during Sun's runtime. Bruce Willis is as reliable as ever in the shoes of yet another grizzled action man unsure as to how much longer he can withstand the pain(dude could pull of these roles in his sleep by now)and the solid cast of barely-names portraying his team add poignancy and gravitas to what might have otherwise been a barely tolerable nod to the Cannon films of yore. A braless, wet T-shirt clad Monica Bellucci is hardly a sight for sore eyes either...

I would hardly call the film melodramatic, especially given the subject matter. One of the actors in the film kept breaking down because of how much it reminded him of stuff he actually went through.

The directors cut also definitely did more to clarify the political situation and motivations of the villains, but if you went into it expecting an "exploration of the complex dynamics" behind genocide, well, first genocide can occur for a number of different reasons, in a number of different scenarios, and this simply isn't meant to be that kind of film.

At its core, it's about a group of soldiers finding themselves in a bad situation, and finally deciding to defy orders and do the right thing. What America and the rest of the UN should have done in Rwanda. It's a cathartic film, and speaking for myself personally as someone who has extensively studied genocide for years, I usually end up watching it after rabbit-holing, just to help pull myself back into a reasonable emotional state.

It might also be worth noting that in an earlier script, they were supposed to have been army rangers who had been in Mogadishu, but pulled out after the Black Hawk incident. I do believe that should have been left in, to provide a more emotional core, but I still really like the film we got.

I presume that the actor who kept breaking down wasn't either Willis or one of his men. If any of these well-heeled Westerners was claiming that he'd been through something comparable to Rwanda....well, we need a word stronger than audacity with which to take him to task with.

Completely agreed. No, it was an actor portraying one of the Nigerians. Several of the cast were genocide survivors, and there are several interviews with them telling their stories that can be found on the DVD.

During it's theatrical run, there were no doubt lots of folks decrying it for being "generic" and "just another Bruce Willis movie".

Yeah, even with the theatrical cut I would disagree with them on that, bu I very strongly suggest you check out the Director's cut, if you have not already. It certainly expands more of the story, and provides a little more commentary on some of the political aspects of the genocide, including a scene in the beginning with the general responsible for the coup talks to the president before assassinating him and his family. It also features some brief dialogue from the main antagonist in the film, pretty effectively establishing his motivation, albeit briefly.

As for the rest, we are absolutely on the same wavelength sir.

@mechajutaro said:

As for the rest, we are absolutely on the same wavelength sir.

Not sure what you mean by "the rest", though I'm delighted to read that we're on the same wavelength

Mostly in regards to the dire state of film-making these days. Genuinely good films are ignored in favor of overly-streamlined actions films, most dealing with superheroes that have little deeper meaning, and follow a formula that has been beaten to death by this point. I don't mind a superhero film if it actually has personality and something interesting to say, but most don't. They just throw around shallow imagery that provides the illusion of deeper meaning.

@mechajutaro said:

@Tsavo said:

@mechajutaro said:

As for the rest, we are absolutely on the same wavelength sir.

Not sure what you mean by "the rest", though I'm delighted to read that we're on the same wavelength

Mostly in regards to the dire state of film-making these days. Genuinely good films are ignored in favor of overly-streamlined actions films, most dealing with superheroes that have little deeper meaning, and follow a formula that has been beaten to death by this point. I don't mind a superhero film if it actually has personality and something interesting to say, but most don't. They just throw around shallow imagery that provides the illusion of deeper meaning.

I don't think anyone minds superhero movies or even the megabudget camp that Joel Silver was turning out back in the 80s, or that Mike Bay has been turning out since the 90s,provided that's not the only thing on the marquee. Today though superhero movies have a stranglehold on the mainstream market, similar to the one Westerns had during the 40s and 50s

I agree. On their own, superhero films are fine. My primary issue with them is, as you said, the stranglehold they have on the industry. I'm also not a fan of the effect they're having on other non-superhero blockbusters that are starting to copy the same formula. My preferred comparison is Independence Day and Indepependence Day: Resurgence.