Hey all, make sure to watch Taking Chance on HBO.  If you don't know what it is, follow the link:

http://www.hbo.com/films/takingchance/

Very well done, from the story itself to the production and acting.  It's heavy, so don't expect a moto-flick or something funny.  Very real and authentic.  Makes a good statement about not only the military, but Americans itself.  (Personally, the stereotype of Americans as not giving a shit about the military gets old).  I think it does a good job of showing the military to the public at large, as well as those in the military to the society it protects.

Anyways, let me know what you think once you've seen it.

I watched it last night and I thought Kevin Bacon did a good job and I like any message that makes people remember the sacrifices our fallen have made. My thoughts on this movie have nothing to do with sacrifices of those much greater than myself.

As for the movie, however, I wasn't impressed...I thought they could have a done a much better job. Maybe my expectations were too high. Or maybe I didn't like the idea of a Lt Col in the Marines that apparently didn't do much of anything (at least that is how he is portrayed in the movie...I have no idea in real life) and yet still gets promoted to Lt Col during two wars and then places himself as a, not the, centerpiece in a movie about a real hero. Two wars going on and he all but admits he pussed out and didn't take part (understandably on one level) but then he is moved to make a movie where he's in a starring role? Just seems odd to me.

I haven't done any research on the actual Lt Col...just going off what the movie portrays. Maybe he was a real combat hero in Desert Storm and they just left that out of the movie.

Glad to see anything that gets people to recognize the heroism of guys like Chance...just wish this movie had done more than it did to do that. Just my 2 cents.

I thought it was good because it provided a unique window on the war - or one not often portrayed - the detail of how remains are returned and the solemnity of everyone involved in the process along the way. The fact that we don't know until quite late in the film how Chance died or what he did is good; we appreciate that he has given his life and respect him for that before we know anything else. I don't question Lt Col Strobl's motives; from what the movie shows us, he felt guilty because he did not deploy and wanted to do something to honor the fallen. I don't think he was motivated by a desire to be received warmly along the way as a hero, but instead he was moved by the experience and thought it was worth sharing with the nation. It doesn't matter to me that he was or wasn't a hero in Desert Storm; I don't think the movie portrayed him as a hero and I don't think he was trying to win accolades or praise. If anything, he was portrayed as uncomfortable when people thanked him for his service.

As a cinematic endeavor, I did think it was overwrought at times; that is, the repeated flashbacks of the cleaning of the body seem designed to drag an emotion out of you where the simple facts as depicted the first time would suffice. But that is just a comment on the craft of movie-making rather than on the substance of the film.

Now that I've had time to digest the movie and rethink it, yeah, there were some problems with it that I agree on.

Ryno, I did notice that he bowed out of fighting in the wars, and it reminded me of the thread where the discussion on how the family is the biggest contributor to careerism. That said, after a little research, the movie was just based on the essay/story he wrote, and I don't think he had much to do with the script of this movie. He WAS the military consultant though, and played a large part in its making. Just not the script beyond his first essay. I guess he could've said 'Don't make me the main character', but whatever I have no idea about exactly how this thing was made. Plus, hell, Kevin Bacon's playing YOU. Hard to pass up haha.. And I guess I'm with Skyclops and didn't see him as a hero (and went somewhat out of the way to point that out), but more as the observer. Just the witness.

Skyclops, I also enjoyed how you found out about him little-by-little throughout the movie too. There were times where I felt like they were just rubbing the "HEY! THIS IS REALLY SAD" to the point where it was getting to be melodramatic. Yeah, its a sad story, but those flashback did seem to try and drag and emotion out of you.

That said, I kind of liked the sociological aspects of how military members interact with the public at large. Since the AVF, the general public doesn't have the exposure to the military as they did back in the 'day', and get many misconceptions about the military. Ex. I had to tell my friends I'm not in uniform constantly while on base. So this movie I think brings up a dialogue with the public with the truths about how the military treats its own, especially in circumstances like that. That's why I enjoyed the authenticity of the movie. The dialogue is 2-ways, too, since we see that the public actually cares about military members, even if they may not know much about the institution beyond Michael Bay films. Their ignorance isn't apathy, they just don't get the exposure. But they do care about those in uniform and their service.

All right I've been doing too much critical thinking this weekend for a class and its starting to carry over. I need a beer/life.

Definitely a good movie. I feel that it is a anti-war promotion stating all of the people who die every day. Definitely very touching if your a female anti-war lover. However it did portray how the airmen, soldiers, marines, seamen are heroes to our country!

Posted By fa10det145 on 27 Mar 2009 11:55 AM
Definitely a good movie. I feel that it is a anti-war promotion stating all of the people who die every day. Definitely very touching if your a female anti-war lover. However it did portray how the airmen, soldiers, marines, seamen are heroes to our country!

Touching if you are a female anti-war lover?  Why the need to specify this group of people?

And it's YOU'RE not YOUR ("you are" contracted is "you're" ).  I realize some may think spelling and grammar checking on a forum is silly but it's fair game as far as I'm concerned.  If you are, or want to be, in the Air Force you should know how to read and write properly.

I didn't realize the situation I will be more professional next time.

Just watched the movie. It was really good (though maybe not such a good Saturday night with the g/f choice). It was interesting watching it with my g/f since she is a civilian and obviously dating someone in the military. She was upset much like anyone else, military or civilian, would be expected to be throughout the movie. Then at the end when they showed the tribute and she realized he was 20 years old she lost it. We had an interesting discussion afterwards about the vast % of causalities being of young men and women between the ages of 18-24. We recruit young and send our youngest (i.e. lower ranking enlisted marines, soldiers, airman, and seaman) in the largest numbers to the front lines. I think that is a tough concept to understand for a lot of civilians and I found myself struggling a little to explain why this is the norm. Why the young ones? A bunch of fallen 20 somethings for a less than popular war is a tough pill for a civilian to swallow...even those who support the military. Thoughts on why we send the youngest? Or is that just what seems to be happening?

The age of the troops has nothing to do with it -- it's about the rank structure which our infantry battaions are composed of. An E-2 is an E-2 regardless of how old they are.