[adam]

Okay, so, I just watched this movie for the first time last night, and I was looking for some discussion on it, because my feelings about it are complicated.

The negative: The russian roulette angle is contrived. Wikipedia, which is definitely and obviously not the authoritative source, says that they were no substantiated accounts of people being forced to play RR in the Vietnam war. Assuming that to be correct, ånd extending the lack of substantiated accounts to mean that it might not have happened whatsoever, I find this device, as used in the movie, to be kind of lame. There are plenty of horrible, awful situations of violence in war that can be used in this sense that actually occur. Coming up with a fake one seems false, unnecessary, and, to be honest, the scenes struck me as a little silly. Unfortunately, this plot element is crucial to the whole story, and, as such, my having a problem with it is fairly substantial.

The neutral: I'm not sure how I felt about the pacing at certain points. I think the wedding scene was possibly overly drawn out, and, as a specific example, I think scenes like the bit where they're on their way hunting and they drive off on the one guy while he's taking a piss, and then drive back, and then roar off again, were somewhat to totally unnecessary. That is, while I was watching them, I was thinking, "I'm not that interested in watching drunken idiots act like drunken idiots." Now, of course, it goes to establish character, contrast with the mood of the more serious bits, and all that so I can't argue against them wholeheartedly, but clocking in at nearly three hours I think it is worth pointing out. Now, it's not that I have a short attention span, and I recognize that the movie is epic and the kind of trimming I'm suggesting would make it considerably less so, so that's why I've put this is the neutral category. I feel ambivalent towards it, at present. However, I am aware that often movies which I think have pacing issues watch considerably better the second time around, when I expect the pacing that they have.

The good: The performances. The contrast between the religious ceremonies and the hunting scenes. The epic scope which seems to capture something of a past era. I'm not entirely sure how accurate that something captured is, because it seemed to me in the first act that some of the characters (mostly minor characters) seemed a little bit caricaturish. I suspect this was nearly deliberate, to emphasize the mood of that act against those to come, but I think it might have been pushed a little far. Setting aside my reservations about the russian roulette elements, they were moving and thematically useful. Despite that, though, I can't quite set aside those reservations. Christopher Walken.

Is that at all realistic that Nicky didn't recognize Mike at the end? I've heard the explanation is his heroin use, but that seems false - if he's able to walk and navigate and converse would he really not recognize his life-long friend?