Talk:Mine (2016 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Italian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Spanish cinema task force.

Synopsis[edit]

“Stevens botches the assassination attempt when he hesitates to shoot and kill the target due to his son being in the way.” This is not only ambiguous (it reads that the son is Mike’s, when I think it is meant to indicate the target’s son) it doesn’t reflect the movie that I saw. It is clear that Mike is unable to shoot because he can’t confirm that the designated target is actually present: the SUV the target has been pin-pointed in is black, and the vehicle which arrives at their location is grey; there was no indication that their target had a son, let alone that this was going to be a wedding; the target is not reported to have a beard, and the man at the wedding is bearded. Their superior on the radio is pressing them to act, and Tommy is prepared to fudge the identification just to get them out of there, but Mike is unable to shoot, even when he has a bead on the bearded man, because of the chance that these are just guests at an unrelated wedding. The synopsis also neglects that he spends much of the time while standing on the mine hallucinating - events from his childhood and incidents in his life are woven in and out, so that at times he sees paint on his hands, which related to a memory of painting at home; his family home rises out of the sand, etc. With this in mind, the statement “Stevens, is later attacked by the enemy, who had traced him to his current location, but is able to single-handedly fight them off” misses the fact that the incident is in his mind: he is shot more than once in the course of the “fight”, as he defends himself from his knees - yet when he comes round at the end of the conflict, he is standing, and doesn’t have stomach and shoulder wounds. Jock123 (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intro and Plot[edit]

In this article, at least 3 (N1, N2 and N5) pieces of the text are lies, false information. (In the context of the plot of the movie)

1] "who steps on a land mine"

2] "Mike steps on another land mine"

3] I'm not fully sure that this statement is false: "but realizes he has done so" (in another words: but realizes he has stepped on another land mine)

4] I'm not fully sure that this statement is false: "urges Mike to step off the mine"

5] "He steps off the mine"

Well, I understand that it's a huge spoiler for readers if we just simply write the correct information like this:

'He stepped on a tin can and he cannot see what is under his foot, so he is afraid that it may be another land mine'

Or, even if we hide the truth like this:

'he stepped on something which is most likely another land mine'

It is still a half spoiler, right? Many people will easily guess that it's not an explosive, and therefore the enigmatic/amazing reading experience will be lost.

I understand these issues, but I cannot tolerate false information. Maybe we can find some kind of a solution here? Please share your opinions. Leodevbro (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My solution is like this: "A US Marine is walking on an unmapped minefield during a botched mission when after many steps his heart sinks as he hears a click underfoot" Thanks to bedlamite-knight from this Reddit post: Is it possible to write a short intriguing (but non-spoiler) textual trailer (description) of a landmine movie where the character steps on something which he is sure to be a landmine but at the end of the movie it turns out it's not a landmine? Leodevbro (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]