Rape scene in Brad Pitt's Fury

[packman]

Well, that will stop me from spending money watching that film. Uncomfortable on too many levels.

http://theconversation.com/the-rape-scene-in-brad-pitts-fury-no-one-is-talking-about-33638

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Yuck.

Bad enough that they had to throw rape in, but if the review is accurate, to portray it as somehow consensual? Serious ick, and major thumbs down to anyone who didn't try to get that scene changed to at least be realistic enough to show it as the non-consensual brutal act it would have been.

[Dawgs]

12. "Bad enough that they had to throw rape in"

The whole movie was about how people become heartless during war. It was the entire fucking point.

Showing rape and cold blooded murder of a surrendering enemy was necessary for this movie.

And the "rape" scene was uncomfortable, but it wasn't creepy or brutal. It was done about as well as possible considering the scene and context.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

16. It's interesting that that's the 'entire fucking point', when every single trailer

doesn't even hint at that. So they're portraying the flick in the adverts as something completely different than it is? Thanks for the warning that it's bait and switch.

[Dawgs]

21. Do the adverts portray it as something other than a war movie?

Because if they didn't, things like this happen during war.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

24. All of the ones I saw portrayed it as

'a war movie' with humorous parts.

I was thinking it was going to be a more violent, tarentino-ish version of something like Kelly's Heroes, a movie completely lacking in rape, as far as I can recall. Not all war movies are created equal.

[Dawgs]

27. I don't know what to tell you. I actually saw the movie and the "rape scene" is not what you think.

The build up to when the girl takes the boy to the bedroom is uncomfortable, but that's it.

I can describe more, but I don't want to ruin a really good movie for others that want to see it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

29. Nod, I won't be seeing it anyway,

I haven't been able to afford to spend money on movies in the last decade or so, and even then, I'm not really into the war movie genre.

[Dawgs]

33. Fair enough. Look at the responses (25 & 30) to see what actually happened in that scene. n/t

[Brigid]

90. "Wasn't creepy or brutal"?

Really?

Giving this OP a rec because I appreciate the warning.

[Dawgs]

92. So you didn't see the movie and you're telling me really?

Nice.

[Brigid]

93. Violence against women isn't entertainment.

There's nothing "sweet" about it. I really don't think it should surprise you that some women don't care to see it.

[Dawgs]

96. I agree. And, that's also why you shouldn't comment without seeing the movie.

There was no violence against women in that scene.

[jeepers]

2. Seen the movie twiceand think it quite a stretch to consider that a rape scene.

There is no force, no groping, no flesh, no sex. Beyond two very innocent kids finding each other in a horrible situation there is nothing ugly about that scene. Maybe that's why nobody is talking about it.

[seabeyond]

3. did he hand a girl to a man to be fucked? did she have a choice? interesting.

i have not seen the movie. first hearing about it now. so basically just sitting back and listening. i read the imbh? or whatever

[el_bryanto]

4. I haven't seen it either - and kind of wish I had.

I have some issues with the article, but can't really argue with it without having seen the movie.

But it's a long movie so haven't worked up the energy to go - movies should be, for the most part, 90-110 minutes long - longer than that and many movies can't sustain it no matter how brilliant the director is.

Bryant

[jeepers]

5. There is one really important line in that scene

When the battle hardened Sargent Pitt stops the older woman from interfering he says some thing to the effect of , "They're alive."
You have to see the rest for yourself.
Movie had a lot of similarity to Saving pvt Ryan. Good story better watch.

[seabeyond]

31. you did not answer my question. i do not like military, killing movies, so no, i will not watch. nt

[DonCoquixote]

81. I can understand why you will not see it

and i respect that, however, there is another danger that needs to be accounted for.

If war movies are nto honest about war, then they risk adding to the misconceptions about war. War IS ugly, and people shouyld know that rapes, killings, tortures and other things do happen. If not, they will think it is all John Wayne crap.

[TransitJohn]

94. Cool.

I'm going to start pontificating loudly about a bunch of shit I haven't seen and know next to nothing about, too.

[seabeyond]

95. pontificating, asking questions cause i have not seen? what a stupid ass post. i admit i have not

watched, so i ask for clarification and information from a person that has watched the movie.

and you have an issue with that?

ya

cool

[Orrex]

6. Sure as hell sounds like a rape scene to me.

If they'd walked in and helped themselves to the family's money--under implied threat of force--it would certainly be theft.

In the context of the scene, I don't see how it can be construed as a consensual act.

[cali]

7. I haven't seen the movie but is the review at the link correct in quoting

Pitt's character telling Lehrman's character take the girl to her bedroom, that she's a clean girl and if the younger character doesn't take her into the bedroom, he will? Because if that is correct no matter how tender and sweet the encounter may look, it's rape. period. Do you really need someone to explain that unarmed women in a war zone, captured by armed soldiers and told to sexually accommodate those soldiers is rape? Really?

[jeepers]

18. Don't judge me or the scene until you have seen it.

I would tell you that as misguided as you may think I am that scene and that action was by far the a sweetest thing in the movie and it happens at the same time that all the horror that you can imagine happening to these two women fills your mind.

I can see how some might think of it as rape from the written transcript but words exist without dimension or depth and I think the scene expresses something much much more than what is written on the page.

[Dawgs]

19. Agree. n/t

[cali]

39. Is the quote accurate or not? What is describe is rape. period.

It may be portrayed "sweetly", but it's rape.

[gollygee]

57. The description is clearly rape

and the fact that something that is clearly rape is made to appear tender, sweet, and consensual is the precise complaint.

Scenes and story lines the blur the line between consensual sex and rape are a big part of rape culture. If it is clearly rape by definition, but the people making the movie make it appear consensual for the story or scene, that can create confusion about rape and consensual sex.

[Jamastiene]

83. I have to honestly say that is the first time I have ever heard rape described as "sweet." n/t

[Dawgs]

84. Did you see the movie? n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

28. Any criticism of any art that starts with 'I have not seen it' is a waste of space.

I have not seen the film, so I have no opinion on it. The article posted is not a review, and I have read it and I do have a few criticisms of it. First off, the editorial is focused on Brad Pitt, and even calls the film Brad Pitt's 'Fury'. This in an incorrect attribution of credit. The film is written and directed, authored by David Ayer who is barely mentioned at all. On the other hand, Angelina Jolie is criticized in a piece about a film which she is not in, which she did not write nor direct. Her husband is in it. Are wives accountable for their husband's work? No. And yet this writer includes video of Jolie, no less. Not a review at all.
I read this piece and I think it is exploitative. There is very little discussion of the film itself and almost no mention of the artist who wrote it and directed it. If the scene is offensive, it is Ayers who offended. The fault or the credit for the film belongs to him but he is a non entity in the story. A story about Pitt and Jolie being hypocrites. Which is sexier than an actual criticism of a film by David Ayers.
Bringing Jolie into it really lost me. Particularly if we are to call this a 'review' of the film. She's not in it. Her husband is. Is she somehow his property, or is he somehow hers? And what of the other male, the one who actually wrote and directed the material being discussed?
Focus on Jolie and Pitt is done not to communicate about the film or the scene, but to benefit the 'critic' by having famous names to drop. This writer is exploiting Jolie for the writer's own benefit. Because she's married to someone in the film. She's got nothing to do with making the film. But she is used in the criticism of the film. Don't care for that at all.
But the film? Have not seen it. So who knows? Not me.

[cali]

40. I am not criticizing it. I am simply saying that what is described is undoubtedly an act of rape

for all I know, it's brilliantly done and integral to the film. I am not critiquing art. I am stating that what was described is rape.

[Dreamer Tatum]

44. "I'm not CRITIQUING it."

....I'm just attaching a powderkeg word to something I know almost nothing about."

[Bluenorthwest]

47. Here's the thing. The film is the description, the 'review' is a description of the film.

I heard a bit on the radio yesterday about 'The Shining' in which the man said he thought Kubrick's film is about the genocide of the Native Americans, based in part on the recurring use of a can of baking soda as a prop, 'Calumet' Brand. Calumet, he said means peace pipe, and this is the central meaning of the film. He did describe what he sees in the film, but it is not what Kubrick meant. It's not actually there, this theme the man sees. Or we could say it is there for him. But he described it. Kurbrick described it differently, but the man did describe many scenes as he sees them. Did he describe them as they are? Maybe. Baking Soda.

[RedstDem]

56. yep, that's rape.

I don't have to see the scene to know that.

[Brickbat]

8. Sounds like a pretty big power differential to me.

[Blue_Adept]

11. At the extreme least, it's a power imbalance issue

You watch it and you have to realize that the women have no choice, even if the two that go in at first are "good" guys in a sense. And even calling them that is a hell of a stretch considering how brutalized they are themselves by the war and what they've seen.

It's an important scene on a lot of levels. It's another of the aspects of war that often doesn't get talked about or gets a footnote. Here, it's made into a powerful moment that a lot won't really realize.

I thoroughly loved the way the movie was put together and all that went into it. And that scene was in a way the hardest one of the film to watch, particularly at first, because you don't know what Pitt's character is truly capable of. We only know him as the hardened soldier. Just how dark is his soul? How far will he go? What will our young naive soldier do in this situation?

It's uncomfortable. It's supposed to be. And those moments are important for helping shape our thoughts and opinions on things. Because if it's glossy or slick, you don't really grasp the seriousness of it all.

It wasn't gratuitous. It wasn't played for sexy-time appeal to the largely male audience that went to it. It was done to show just how fucked up everyone is in that situation and that even those that are trying to do it in the way Pitt's character does is still awful.

[Dawgs]

13. Agree, the whole point of the movie was to show how war can make a person do unthinkable things.

It was never meant to be a flowerly, PG-13, feel good type of movie.

[Blue_Adept]

23. Indeed

The movie is the farthest thing from it. It even felt in some ways like it made Saving Private Ryan feel tame, which was a surprise.

I took my 14 year old daughter to see the film when it came out and she was the youngest and just one of a handful of women there. it was an older crowd, not a teenagers yucking it up as body parts fly movie, but she came away declaring it to be her favorite movie of the year and wanting her own copy on Blu-ray when it comes out. It made an impact on her. She's a history buff, and of Europe in particular, and this revealed new layers of things to her. I was surprised she got into it as much as she did.

[seabeyond]

37. It wasn't played for sexy-time appeal to the largely male audience that went to it.

this is what i see too often. this is what i was considering in reading this thread and learning about the scene. and.... immediately, i was getting the impression this is not what happened. so that is at least good.

i am tired, bothered and angry that our media uses rape to entertain men....

thank you for pointing that out.

i think we can call it what it is, and recognize the truth of it. in the use of women. for the man reasons.

and recognize that the movie did not use it for purely make entertainment, which i feel we need ot call out.

thank you for this (what i see) balanced critique.

[hedgehog]

46. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I think you are correct -

by introducing some moral complexity into the actions of the soldiers fighting "the Good War", the movie becomes much more powerful.

[stevenleser]

64. I think your opinion is well thought out but I disagree...

As you can see from some of the comments here, there are two problems with the scene

#1 - The movie seemed to intentionally seek to make a coercive sex scene seem less bad and in fact confuse people about the idea of coercive sex in general. This is a bad idea considering the problems that almost all countries in the world have with rape.

#2 - It has the potential to confuse people into thinking that coercive sex can turn out where both people are happy with what took place. In fact that's what happened. Both young adults seem pretty happy with how it turned out. That is such a bad message to give to folks who may have issues understanding how wrong and harmful rape is.

Its a really bad scene. It's not the Accused or Irreversible, but in some ways that makes it worse. We know from watching the Accused and Irreversible that what happened there is wrong. Here is glorifies it.

That was my 2 cents and it was what I was thinking during watching the scene.

[stevenleser]

59. I saw it. It was rape, and of both folks who had sex and I thought so as I saw it.

It's possible that under different circumstances, Emma would have slept with who she slept with (the young soldier). She clearly liked the young soldier. And the young soldier clearly liked the girl.

But anytime you have an element of coercion it's rape. It's particularly clear-cut here because neither individual expressed a desire to have sex before the comment by Pitt's character. The girl had to do it or face rape by someone to whom she wasn't attracted. The young soldier had to do it to save her from that fate.

Add the fact that the soldiers were armed and there is no question in terms of the girl, and no question in terms of the position in which it put the young soldier.

"Have sex or else X,Y,Z negative consequences" is rape.

[Logical]

88. I felt like she really had no choice. Afraid of them. nt

[LittleBlue]

9. It was one of those rape scenes where

she ended up enjoying it in the end, like Gone with the Wind and numerous westerns. Their brief love story was cringeworthy.

(spoilers)



She was a ridiculously ham-handed character development tool. Like the newbie soldier guy was just fine with the Nazis while they were cutting down his fellow countrymen. But have sex once, and he's completely in love, so when she dies 5 minutes later he's obsessed with killing Nazis. Even adds the obligatory "fuck you" before every reference to them.

I was dragged to see this movie btw

[bemildred]

10. Sort of like "Game of thrones" then, but with a modern setting. nt

[Bragi]

14. Question for those who have seen the film?

Do you recall any indicators as to when this rape scene appears in the movie? I ask because I'd like to see the film, but I can't handle rape scenes. They leave frightening, ugly impressions in my mind, and I have a lifetime's worth of these already, and don't need more.

Same is true for me with torture scenes. My inability to watch scenes with rape and torture started happening seriously maybe in the last 10 years or so. I used to be able to just look away, but now I find even the audio of such scenes to be disturbing.

I'm not sure why this has happened. It might have to do with aging, and/or just too much empathizing with victims on my part.

[LittleBlue]

17. Early. It's when they

(spoilers)




secure the first town. First half of the movie, roughly 30 minutes to 1hr in.

Honestly there is nothing particularly brutal about it. The sex isn't even shown. Just some cheesy scene where he's reading the lines in her hand. You'll have plenty of warning as it's basically Brad Pitt forcing his young subordinate to "take her to the back room".

[el_bryanto]

20. Does the woman seem coerced? That's my issue

It's WW2 - the Americans were often looked at as liberators. It's hard perhaps to remember a time when the American Army had a reputation for being goodguys - but WW2 was one of those times.

Bryant

[LittleBlue]

25. She is unquestionably coerced

(spoiler)





Brad Pitt (can't remember the line exactly) says in a Southern-ish accent "she's young and clean. If you don't take her to the back room (bedroom), I will". So Norman, the young proper lad from WASPland USA, takes the virginal German girl to the "back room". He reads her palm to make her less nervous. Nothing is shown. Then they walk out, both wearing exaggerated grins of satisfaction. The theater started laughing as I looked to my watch.


This was the first WW2 movie I've seen done in the style of a Vietnam movie. Young Norman was clearly Charlie Sheen's Taylor from Platoon. Wardaddy was like Barnes, except he never betrayed his underlings.

[Dawgs]

30. Actually, you got one part of it wrong and you left out another important part.

(Spoiler)

1) SHE TAKES HIM to the back room while giving a pissy look to Pitt's character.

2) They kissed passionately after he makes her feel better, and she grabs his head giving the impression that it was consensual.

[Sheepshank]

62. He was an 18 year old naive virgin in sex and killing **spoler alert**

and he cared for her, as seen by the way he reacted when her building was blown up.

Thanks for the reminder to add the spoiler alert, Dawg!!

[Dawgs]

63. Add **spoiler** to your post.

Not everyone has seen it.

[el_bryanto]

41. That does imply coercion provide it's clear that she doesn't want to have sex with either of them

On the other hand if she does want to have sex with the soldiers who liberated her town - if that's the mind set she is in - than it isn't coercive necessarily. Or to put it another way if she implies, more or less, "I'll have sex with either one of you" and Brad Pitt says "OK - i'll have sex with her if you won't" than it's not coercive.

But I havent' seen it.

Bryant

[stevenleser]

61. I saw it. Here is the key, neither character expressed a desire to have sex before Pitt's character

made the coercive comment. That is rape and of both of them.

[Bragi]

67. Thanks /nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

52. You should avoid the film, and indeed most films. nt

[Bragi]

66. Why?

I can handle depictions of violence in general, just not rape or torture, which bother me enormously.

Most films, thankfully, do not feature rape and torture.

[Sheldon Cooper]

76. Avoid most films? Why?

What a bizarre comment.

[Jamastiene]

82. What a shitty thing to say. n/t

[B Calm]

15. You never seen Jennifer Aniston in Derailed?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

26. with Clive Owen, yes. refresh my memory, please because I am not getting the connection here.

[B Calm]

36. She went to the hotel room with the guy she was going to have an affair

with, when the rapist broke into the room beat up the guy and forced him to watch as he brutally raped her. He then blackmailed him out of thousands of dollars.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

42. derp. that's right. I was thinking Jen seduced him and then blackmailed him. been a while. thanks.

this sounds weird but, since that was her boyfriend ... I guess that was "pretend rape" ugh.

[B Calm]

54. It was truly on the edge of your seat thriller. I read the book,

listened to the audio book and then the movie. The audio book was awesome.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

55. I only saw the movie but, I think it is some of Jen's best work. I wish she would take on more of

that type of role but, maybe she doesn't get those offers.

[Shankapotomus]

22. It's a historic film

How do you want them to depict it? You want them to pretend that men in the 40's were mostly sensitive to women's issues? That would be historically inaccurate. They weren't.

By that logic they should remove all the other violence depicted as well. War is wrong too but I don't see anybody questioning its depiction in film or video games.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. Shakespeare on what dramatic arts exist to do:

"The purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is to hold, as ’twere, the mirror up to nature, to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure."

[Eleanors38]

38. Now, we have the Innertubes, but it's still the world stage.

[Shankapotomus]

43. Sylvia Plath on how mirrors work:

"I am silver and exact. I have no preconceptions.
What ever you see I swallow immediately
Just as it is, unmisted by love or dislike.
I am not cruel, only truthful---"

[Bluenorthwest]

51. The cross era conversation of the poets.....

such a great companion quote, either one to the other.

[Dreamer Tatum]

32. Waiiiit a minute here. Hold the phone.

There was an oblique reference to a potential rape in a war movie?

A rape? During a war?

That is an OUTRAGE.

Couldn't they have just made oblique references to a few thousand more Jews being murdered? Jeez.

[Shankapotomus]

45. And the soldiers were insensitive and cold about it too...

Since when are soldiers like that?

[GeorgeGist]

49. I think the point is ...

RAPE AINT SWEET.

So fuck Brad Pitt and his attempt to portray it as such.

[Dreamer Tatum]

50. I think you mean fuck his character

It would be lunacy to say fuck Brad Pitt over something a character says.

[Blue_Adept]

53. It's not portrayed as sweet.

There's a lot of nuance and underlying things that go on here. It's not a black and white sequence.

[EX500rider]

73. "So fuck Brad Pitt and his attempt to portray it as such"

Unless he wrote his own lines in the movie which I doubt i think you meant "fuck the director and writers"

[LanternWaste]

58. The rational mind asks if the scene added depth to either character or plot (it did not).

The rational mind asks if the scene added depth to either character or plot (it did not).

The irrational mind in its desire to appear clever, merely mocks those who may disagree.

Jeez, indeed.




(Write something clever... you could use the self-validation)

[Dreamer Tatum]

60. I thought it added depth to character and plot.

Oh, but only YOU can be rational, I suppose. And you have spoken.

I guess Brad Pitt's character was also a nasty evil cisgenderblahblahblah for
taking out the eggs and making the other of the two women cook them, too.

It is a lazy screenwriter indeed who doesn't even bother to consider the sensibilities
of the average Buzzfeed reader when constructing a scene for a movie that depicts
the horrors of war.

I think the scene would have been a lot more effective had he gone in there and said
words to the effect of, "I realize that as a member of a foreign army that has invaded
your country that I should kneel down and choke out apologies between sobs, but on the
other hand, I have several pictures of puppehs and kittehs to show you."

[Eleanors38]

35. Well, you knew it in "In Harm's Way." Not so much in

"All Quiet on the Western Front."

[hedgehog]

48. One aspect off this I haven't seen mentioned -

many German women expected to be raped by soldiers, and some opted to do their best to make the experience as quick and painless as possible. Apparent compliance was a method to avoid a beating or worse.

[deaniac21]

68. Not if it was a Russian.

[hedgehog]

77. trigger warning - from an account of the Fall of Berlin -

"Many women found themselves forced to "concede" to one soldier in the hope that he would protect them from others."

.....

"If anyone attempted to defend a woman against a Soviet attacker it was either a father trying to defend a daughter or a young son trying to protect his mother. "The 13-year old Dieter Sahl," neighbours wrote in a letter shortly after the event, "threw himself with flailing fists at a Russian who was raping his mother in front of him. He did not succeed in anything except getting himself shot."

After the second stage of women offering themselves to one soldier to save themselves from others,"

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/may/01/news.features11


This pretty much corresponds to other accounts I have read.

[Glassunion]

69. From what I've read in these threads, and the reviews at the linked sites, I have a few questions.

If you've seen the movie, would you say that the scene made Pitt's character look evil or dark? If so, do you feel that was the director's intent?

[Blue_Adept]

70. I'm hard pressed to say evil.

Or dark. I mean, it's a horrible thing, I'm not saying that.

His character does not come across as a good guy in the classic sense throughout the film, but rather a character that has seen such horrors and perpetrated them himself to survive that it's beyond good or evil. It simply is.

[Glassunion]

71. So more of a tainted soul?

[Dreamer Tatum]

72. His character seemed to be made dark by the war.

The scene in the house was odd and tense, mostly because of the behavior of the other soldiers, not Pitt's character or the other kid. The scene at the table was far more nerve-wracking than the putative rape scene, which was not a scene at all.

[Glassunion]

74. What I'm trying to figure out (without spoiling) is if the scene fit and was apropriate to the film.

If the director and characters were attempting to portray the taint that war puts on a person's soul through an uncomfortable or unsettling scene. Then I feel that it would be an appropriate way of doing so. But I cannot say, as I have yet to see the film.

[Dawgs]

97. Scene fit and was very appropriate for the film. n/t

[Marrah_G]

75. He was a very flawed character

But I think that in war most soldiers become flawed. I felt that the director was trying to show that.

[lovuian]

78. Fury doesn't glamorize war

It's one of the first movies that portrays US soldiers in a darker light.

Torture, rape, and pillage

One thing resonates the love for their fellow soldiers and the sacrifice made to save them

Zero Dark Thirty explicit torture scenes also showed the ugly side

The reality is human beings spiritually despise war and for good reason.

Why do we have more US soldiers dead from suicide in Iraq War rather than deaths from military campaigns?

The soul after facing the death of others wants to die.

[whatchamacallit]

79. Oh yay, the good kind of rape!

Fuck that noise!

[Warpy]

80. Oh, goody, romanticized rape, just what we needed in the movies.

I know that's one movie I won't bother with.

The only rape during war scenes that had any validity at all were in "Two Women," for which Sophia Loren won a well deserved Oscar. The most harrowing scene in the film is not the rape itself, it's when the two lead women get picked up by a trucker after the rape, the daughter singing a pop song along with the driver and Loren looking away, the horror of the rape perfectly reflected in her face.

There is no seduction with an armed enemy soldier, nor can it be romantic in any way.

Rape is not sexy in any way. It's a horrific act against a hated enemy, usually women in general.

[Dawgs]

85. So, you read the article but hadn't seen the movie? n/t

[Blue_Adept]

86. It is ~far~ from romanticized.

In a lot of ways, it's probably the most tense moment of the movie in how it unfolds because you aren't sure if it will go in that direction.

IT IS NOT PORTRAYED AS SEXY IN THE SLIGHTEST.

[packman]

91. Amazing

that movie popped into my mind also - I can never forget the scene as mother and daughter were being simultaneously raped and the look on the mother's face as she was being raped, the concentration she had focused on her daughter. Indeed, Oscar worthy.

But, back to war movies- the first one I can recall seeing was Audie Murphy's bio film TO HELL AND BACK.

[KurtNYC]

87. Saw the movie three weeks ago. And told my friends after the movie that

the rape scene really stood out for being so casual and problematic.

Tthey movie DOES glorify war, specifically how wonderful it is to die inside of a tank when the war is 2 weeks away from being over. It is right there in the trailer -- the crew can leave Brad Pitt or stay and die and they choose to stay and die. It is 'death before dishonor' and all that. In the opening of "Patton" they call that bullshit ("make the other die for HIS country...&quot but this film comes from a very pro-war mindset. "Fury" loves war and it loves itself.

A town in Germany is being over run in the middle of winter and what does this girl choose to wear that day? A short summer dress. A bizarre ill-conceived scene in a movie that is so in love with itself that it thinks it can do no wrong.

Overall, many great action sequences between clunky, awkward dialog scenes. Not a great film. Would have been better if they used all that costume, setting and CGI to tell the true Creighton Abrams' story.


At :52 the palm reading is part of the rape sequence ("you will have one true love in your life" ):

[Nye Bevan]

89. Make sure to never watch the Sopranos episode "Employee of the Month"

which includes a very disturbing rape scene. It was, however, a very compelling episode.

[raccoon]

98. I don't plan to see that one. Thanks for the heads up. nt