What program/film/documentary are you watching now?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Subject change: Who has seen Kingsmen II: The Golden Circle? It opened here yesterday.

warspite1

No but I hear the reviews are very good.

And I heard not so good reviews. [:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Subject change: Who has seen Kingsmen II: The Golden Circle? It opened here yesterday.

warspite1

No but I hear the reviews are very good.

And I heard not so good reviews. [:D]

warspite1

It only gets a slightly less positive rating than the original overall, but yes, the reviews are mixed.

[Ranger33]

I'm watching the Ken Burns Vietnam series as well. Up to about halfway through episode 4. From my point of view, it seems to be pretty even handed. Soldiers of all sides are given their due and many voices are heard. The politics are of course covered extensively as well. I found especially interesting the shots in the first episode of the French troops walking around rice paddies wearing American WW2 gear. A bit surreal to think about how WW2 had just wrapped up, with France liberated from foreign invaders by soldiers wearing equipment exactly like that, and here they are violently imposing their will on someone else. The human condition, eh?

Politics aside, if one is primarily interested in the combat side of things, you won't be disappointed. There are many, many clips and images that I had never seen before, just in the first few episodes. Also many interviews with veterans from the time and years later, from both sides. That's really the most valuable thing about these documentaries.

[Orm]

The Frogs & The Lobster.

[VPaulus]

Regarding the Ken Burns Vietnam, I've just watched the fourth episode and I can tell that I'm really "enjoying" so far the documentary series. I think it's quite balanced for both sides, and I don't see any specific bias. Taking into consideration that this was/is such a polarizing event, I find it quite remarkable.

The only thing that I can think that the documentary is lacking, is the mention of the historical and cultural background of the Vietnamese peoples. The documentary just starts with the French colonial occupation and it's like if there's no history before that. I believe that's something important that would also really help to understand better the Vietnamese's "resolve". I was fortunate to have read a few chapters of the "Fire in the Lake" book regarding that part (I've never finished reading the book, don't know why) of the Vietnam history, so at least, I have some information regarding this.

Apart from this issue, it's really a Ken Burns top documentary seires, on par with The Civil War and The War.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: VPaulus

The only thing that I can think that the documentary is lacking, is the mention of the historical and cultural background of the Vietnamese peoples. The documentary just starts with the French colonial occupation and it's like if there's no history before that. I believe that's something important that would also really help to understand better the Vietnamese's "resolve".

warspite1

I've just watched the first episode and I agree with this. It would only have taken up a portion of one episode. How are the Vietnamese split? Religion? Ethnic grouping? i.e. to what extent are they a unified group?

But also, why did the French - seemingly from nowhere - decide to invade in the mid 1800's? What was that all about?

That aside, this is a very watchable documentary so far.

[VPaulus]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

That aside, this is a very watchable documentary so far.

And I'm liking it even more with each new episode.

I wonder what they have cut in the International version... an 8 hours cut...
Maybe it's to entice the selling of the DVD version.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Ranger33

I found especially interesting the shots in the first episode of the French troops walking around rice paddies wearing American WW2 gear. A bit surreal to think about how WW2 had just wrapped up, with France liberated from foreign invaders by soldiers wearing equipment exactly like that, and here they are violently imposing their will on someone else. The human condition, eh?

warspite1

Yes indeed. And you have the US paying 80% of the cost of the French bill for keeping their colonial possession against the will of the people - after all they had stated (and still stated) about colonialism.

The French wanted to maintain their empire, the US wanted the spread of Communism checked. Looking at both with a 2017 lens makes one want to throw something at the TV - but at the time the actions made sense to those involved.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Not sure how long I will continue with Tin Star. Is no one else watching this?

Episode 2 was a real mish-mash of well worn cliche scenes and some strange goings on with a gang of baddies that was really poorly scripted [:(]

Not quirky - just all a bit poor really [:(]

warspite1

Well I've given up on that... very disappointing. Fantastic Canadian scenery aside, the whole story line is preposterous. So far only maybe two characters are even vaguely worth rooting for, and when the lead characters aren't either of those then that's a problem. And as for the bad guys - what the hell are they all about? Huge oil company employs evil looking bald European (German?) henchman as their chief of security plus there's a gang of keystone hired assassins doing whatever - who knows, who cares? If you like your drama with F*** as every other word then that helps too, but frankly it just grates after a time..... "Hey Tim you can swear in this program". "**** me, that's ****ing great, I'll ****ing remember to ****ing do that in every ****ing line I get ****ing given [>:]

[Orm]

No, I am not watching Tin Star. I had not even heard of the show until you mentioned it.

I am currently re-watching the Horblower movies. [&o] Have now reached Loyalty and the fun is almost over. To bad that they couldn't make more than three of the books into movies. [:(]

[berto]

After slogging through watching the full 18-hour cut of the Burns/Novick documentary The Vietnam War, I can say ...

It was fairly even handed, a bit slanted, but closer to 50-50 than to 60-40 or worse. Except for one sainted politician (no, I don't mean JFK, who got his share of criticism, albeit with punches pulled), the virtues and faults of all participants, all sides were on display. There was, inescapably, an asymmetry of treatment, because on one side you had open, free societies (with a free press, freedom to protest, etc.) and on the other totalitarian societies (with absolute control of the media, having the ability and will to incarcerate dissidents, etc.). So although the sins of one side were covered at great length in commentary, film, still pictures, and music, the faults of the other side were usually mentioned briefly, in words, in passing only. (Several North Vietnamese said they might yet get in trouble for speaking so freely about their bad stuff.) Still, those faults were mentioned, if not dwelled upon. Give the documentary makers credit for that.

(About the 10-hour international cut, I expect they left out footage and details about U.S. domestic politics, and many of the talking head commentaries.)

Unavoidably, lots of politics of course, but more air time was given to the conflict and the experiences of the ordinary fighting men and women and their leaders.

Well worth a watch. Engrossing. Highly recommended.

[durangokid]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Tin Star


Well I've given up on that... very disappointing.

Thanks for this. I have several episodes saved up and now I can bin them.

[wings7]

ORIGINAL: berto


After slogging through watching the full 18-hour cut of the Burns/Novick documentary The Vietnam War, I can say ...

It was fairly even handed, a bit slanted, but closer to 50-50 than to 60-40 or worse. Except for one sainted politician (no, I don't mean JFK, who got his share of criticism, albeit with punches pulled), the virtues and faults of all participants, all sides were on display. There was, inescapably, an asymmetry of treatment, because on one side you had open, free societies (with a free press, freedom to protest, etc.) and on the other totalitarian societies (with absolute control of the media, having the ability and will to incarcerate dissidents, etc.). So although the sins of one side were covered at great length in commentary, film, still pictures, and music, the faults of the other side were usually mentioned briefly, in words, in passing only. (Several North Vietnamese said they might yet get in trouble for speaking so freely about their bad stuff.) Still, those faults were mentioned, if not dwelled upon. Give the documentary makers credit for that.

(About the 10-hour international cut, I expect they left out footage and details about U.S. domestic politics, and many of the talking head commentaries.)

Unavoidably, lots of politics of course, but more air time was given to the conflict and the experiences of the ordinary fighting men and women and their leaders.

Well worth a watch. Engrossing. Highly recommended.

A bit slanted to what? [&:] A must watch for me! [:)]

[berto]

The politics of the documentary makers are well known. It was evident who they most closely identified with -- the war protesters. The protesters were the clear heroes here.

[wings7]

ORIGINAL: berto


The politics of the documentary makers are well known. It was evident who they most closely identified with -- the war protesters. The protesters were the clear heroes here.

I respectfully disagree, Ken Burns is a Centrist. I look forward to viewing it. [:)]

[VPaulus]

ORIGINAL: berto

(About the 10-hour international cut, I expect they left out footage and details about U.S. domestic politics, and many of the talking head commentaries.)

Well, then it looses a lot of important details. It's a shame.

ORIGINAL: berto
The politics of the documentary makers are well known. It was evident who they most closely identified with -- the war protesters. The protesters were the clear heroes here.

I've finished watching the sixth episode so my opinion may still change, but so far the perception I get is if there are any heroes at all, these are the soldiers, of both sides.
It's possible that the war protestors play a bigger role in the final episodes, after 1968.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: berto


After slogging through watching the full 18-hour cut of the Burns/Novick documentary The Vietnam War, I can say ...

It was fairly even handed, a bit slanted, but closer to 50-50 than to 60-40 or worse. Except for one sainted politician (no, I don't mean JFK, who got his share of criticism, albeit with punches pulled), the virtues and faults of all participants, all sides were on display. There was, inescapably, an asymmetry of treatment, because on one side you had open, free societies (with a free press, freedom to protest, etc.) and on the other totalitarian societies (with absolute control of the media, having the ability and will to incarcerate dissidents, etc.). So although the sins of one side were covered at great length in commentary, film, still pictures, and music, the faults of the other side were usually mentioned briefly, in words, in passing only. (Several North Vietnamese said they might yet get in trouble for speaking so freely about their bad stuff.) Still, those faults were mentioned, if not dwelled upon. Give the documentary makers credit for that.

(About the 10-hour international cut, I expect they left out footage and details about U.S. domestic politics, and many of the talking head commentaries.)

Unavoidably, lots of politics of course, but more air time was given to the conflict and the experiences of the ordinary fighting men and women and their leaders.

Well worth a watch. Engrossing. Highly recommended.

Berto,

Thank you for coming back to this forum with your complete review. Upon your recommendation I will watch this series. I appreciate your perspective and your feedback.

Cheers mate.

[Goodmongo]

So I watched all of Ken Burn's Vietnam series. I give it a grade of B-. Here's why. First off I felt he covered most of the facts correctly. I think he only got things wrong on number of draftees vs. volunteers (claiming at one point the whole force in Vietnam was draftees) and being very misleading on number of blacks killed in the war. he used statistics that left out officers and prefaced it by saying "enlisted men".

The other thing he did that was unfair in my opinion is the time spent on various subjects. For example when it came to US atrocities he would spend 20-30 minutes on it but as soon as it was switched to the Weathermen or NLF atrocities there was a 1-2 minute segment that basically mention it but never got into the details he did for US stuff.

It was also clear that he sided with the war protesters point of view. He would have 3 or 4 people comment on it from the anti-war side then maybe one vet saying how badly they were treated. Or take for example the various marches on DC against the war. There would be long segments on how many people showed up etc. But then there would be 1-2 sentences on how polling viewed the data where the majority of the US population did not agree with the anti-war folks, especially their tactics.

At a B- it is worth watching. But it also does have an agenda and that is to say the anti-war folks were the "good" Americans.

[Goodmongo]

ORIGINAL: wings7

ORIGINAL: berto


The politics of the documentary makers are well known. It was evident who they most closely identified with -- the war protesters. The protesters were the clear heroes here.

I respectfully disagree, Ken Burns is a Centrist. I look forward to viewing it. [:)]

As you said you haven't watched it yet. But Berto is 100% correct. It was VERY clear who the heroes in the documentary were. Basically Burns elevated the anti-war demonstrators to the same level as the people doing the actual fighting. He even played up Kent State to be on par where they had sacrificed for the country same as the vets. I have no idea if Burns is a centrist as that term is defined differently for each and every person alive today. But the documentary does indeed elevate the anti-war folks to hero status.

One more example. The show shows Kerry's speech and basically goes to some effort to say a large number of the vet's committed atrocities. He painted the vet's with a very large brush. But when it came to the anti-war folks the show tried very hard to say it was a small faction (Weathermen and a couple other groups) that were responsible. Even the standard of violent protests (breaking windows, throwing rocks etc.) was portrayed as "the crazies" (term actually used) to separate it from the anti-war marches.

[wings7]

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo

ORIGINAL: wings7

ORIGINAL: berto


The politics of the documentary makers are well known. It was evident who they most closely identified with -- the war protesters. The protesters were the clear heroes here.

I respectfully disagree, Ken Burns is a Centrist. I look forward to viewing it. [:)]

As you said you haven't watched it yet. But Berto is 100% correct. It was VERY clear who the heroes in the documentary were. Basically Burns elevated the anti-war demonstrators to the same level as the people doing the actual fighting. He even played up Kent State to be on par where they had sacrificed for the country same as the vets. I have no idea if Burns is a centrist as that term is defined differently for each and every person alive today. But the documentary does indeed elevate the anti-war folks to hero status.

One more example. The show shows Kerry's speech and basically goes to some effort to say a large number of the vet's committed atrocities. He painted the vet's with a very large brush. But when it came to the anti-war folks the show tried very hard to say it was a small faction (Weathermen and a couple other groups) that were responsible. Even the standard of violent protests (breaking windows, throwing rocks etc.) was portrayed as "the crazies" (term actually used) to separate it from the anti-war marches.

Political debates are not done on the Matrix boards, let's end it here please. [:)]