I just saw The Water Diviner (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3007512/?ref_=shtt_ov_tt) which stars Russell Crowe. In the movie Crowe makes friends with an adorable little 10 year old Turkish boy. Crowe visits the boy the evening after he's been cir'ed and the kid asks him with a big grin, "Would you like to see the scar?" Would a kid in that situation really be so eager to show off his penis to a man who he's only known for a matter of a few weeks?

I also thought it interesting that Russell Crowe didn't congratulate the boy for becoming a man. Crowe seemed to disapprove of the boy's circumcision.

What did you think of the movie as a whole? Is it worth seeing in a theater or waiting for home video? Is it enjoyable or entertaining?

Dave (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:42 am What did you think of the movie as a whole? Is it worth seeing in a theater or waiting for home video? Is it enjoyable or entertaining?

Ditto Dave's post and question, this movie seems to be one that I would like, but then again, there have been several movies that seemed to be good, then I watched them and OMG what a disappointment (e.g. "Snowflower And The Secret Fan," or "Iron Sky" <--total TRASH movies with very big media hype and good trailers). I would really appreciate candid and honest opinions from REAL people, NOT movie critics, do please note, most professional "movie critics" thought the comedy film "Borat" was a GREAT movie, most REAL PEOPLE, not movie critics, though Borat was mediocre at best, and I personally thought it was an incredible waste of my time and a stupid ego trip on film for Sasha Baron Cohen. Other films that professional movie critics think are "GREAT" are often the personal ego trip trash put out by M. Knight Shamalamalamalaman (e.g. "Lady In The Water") seems to me that a lot of egocentric idiots can rent a movie camera and sucker some investors into paying for production, then they squander the budget on their own personal ego trips.

We went to see the movie last night. The answer to your question comes on a lot of levels. It is not one of those movies that you go see and then stop for a glass of wine and chat. It was more like "Bonnie and Clyde" where you leave deep in your own thoughts.

To me the general theme was that we all bleed red. When they could get over everything that goes with being enemies in war, the older men of both sides had the same feelings about the death of comrades, etc. and could understand those feelings in the other guys. Kind of like Americans and Japanese arriving at a peace with each other after WW II.

The photography was great. The acting was great. The technique of inserting battle scenes during the development of the movie was disconcerting to me, but that was because of the squalor, violence, fear, brutality and all that goes with hand to hand combat which I can not watch without emotions. I felt dragged back and forth between the emotions that go with a father looking for his sons (bodies) and combat.

The development of the relationships between the Australian, Her Majesty's army and the Turkish characters to me seemed realistic and interesting (Mind you, I would love to but have never worked in Turkey. That said, there are always cute kids you easily become friends with and other individuals whom you think you will like but don't as you get to know them better and individuals you get to like as you know them better and different cultures and languages are only a complication but do not change that).

The movie ended with action scenes which to me were a bit formulaic.

It is one of those movies which you do not "enjoy" as in hardeeharhar or anything like that, but I am glad I went. It was not boring.

Thanks. It will probably be on my home view list.

BTW - - the best WW2 movie I've seen recently about the War in the Pacific was "Letter from Iwo Jima" which ranks up there with my thoughts on "Bridge on the River Kwai" . . . I left those two movies deep in thought and pensive.