New war movies....

[Kanon Fodder]

Hear, Hear!

I saw it with my 19-year-old daughter.

I also got the DVD for Christmas (have yet to watch it!)
It will probably be one of the few "war movies" I can get my wife to watch.

Parts of it were OK, but I couldn't help thinking that those were X-wings and not Zeroes making the attack ...

The killer for me was that they had to include not only the Battle of Britain but the Doolittle raid in a movie supposedly about Pearl Habour. I guesss we should feel lucky that the Doolittle raid wasn't part of "Pearl Harbour: The Reprisal" (part 2 of a 9-part series)

[KG Erwin]

...is "Thirteen Days", the dramatization of the Cuban Missile Crisis that proved that great historical movies don't need to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The only Hollywood aspect was casting Kevin Costner as the fictional special assistant to President Kennedy, excellently played by Bruce Greenwood. (I was really impressed by Greenwood's portrayal of JFK . He was totally believable, as well as the guy who played Robert Kennedy). However, without O'Donnell's (Costner's) presence, much of the President's thought processes during that time would be impossible to articulate, so his inclusion in the script has some validation. I'll also add that brother Robert Kennedy, the Attorney General, played a vital role in resolving the crisis . ( Had he lived, I think he would've made a great president, but that's my personal opinion. ) I'll say right now that this movie could be shown in classrooms around the US to show how close we were to a nuclear war in 1962. It's also an instructional piece in our democratic process of the relationship between the President, the Congress, and the Military. I think this is a triumph of historical storytelling, and sets a standard that Hollywood has too often diluted by its narrow-mindedness towards presenting a straight-forward historical story, without some fabricated romantic twist. Maybe, in this case, the Kennedys were considered untouchable. Nevertheless, this movie is highly recommended for students of history, and for students of drama. If you haven't seen it, I recommend you do so.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

62, Bay of Pigs, hmm oh and Sarge came into the world?
Man what a lousy year eh

Ya know all things considered, I will probably not back pedal on Pearl, but if a woman wanted to see it with me, odds are I wouldn't complain at all at the time.

That said, the main problem with the world today, is war has lost its fearful dread aspect.

Yes I know where this will go, but just as watching rape scenes, brutal murders and hearing nothing but swearing will in time dull your senses (and trust me guys, saying your intellect and morals shields, you is a bunch of crap), watching war turned into a First Person Shooter experience, eventually takes some of the horror out of war.

As I have been want to say lately, if 1000 people tell me the world is flat, and point to a book for back up, the fact is, the world is still round. Consensus does not alter reality.

Our youth are getting very few real examples of real history taught to them, and it shows.

[dtx]

I have no problem with war movies that try to appeal to larger audience, the problem is when they twist history to do so. Since many are ignorant about history, these movies become their historical knowledge. For ex. Pearl Harbor repeats the simplist idea that the US caused the by cutting off Jap oil (the world generally loves anti-american stuff). It wouldn't have hurt the movie to include a reference to the fact that the oil cutoff was the culmination of years of US diplomatic efforts to stop the Jap invasion of China.

The problem with PH view of the war is that it also supports Japanese history revisionists. Japan just opened a museum that takes this view of the war one step further - for example, rather than mentioning the 100,000 civilians slaughtered by the Japs at Nanking, the museum states that after the city surrendered, citizens were allowed to go back to daily life (as if being used as a live target for bayonet practice was part of "daily life" for the average citizen).

The Thin Red line also used a PC view of history by showing surrendering, weaping Japanese soldiers, rather than as the incredibly brave and fanatical "fight to death" soldiers they were.

[Frank W.]

i´m shure that not ALL japanese fight till death.

of course there was a (of course smaller) amount of
prisoners,too.

we should not look too much into stereotypes.

Originally posted by dtx
IThe Thin Red line also used a PC view of history by showing surrendering, weaping Japanese soldiers, rather than as the incredibly brave and fanatical "fight to death" soldiers they were.

[Brigz]

Originally posted by Frank W.
i´m shure that not ALL japanese fight till death.

of course there was a (of course smaller) amount of
prisoners,too.

we should not look too much into stereotypes.

While a few Japanese soldiers in the Pacific War did surrender, it was a very few compared to those that didn't. This is not a stereotype. It was considered extremely dishonourable for a Japanese soldier to surrender, and (speaking of stereotypes), they were told that US soldiers would torture and then eat them. There are even extreme cases where Japanese soldiers didn't surrender till nearly forty years after the war ended. The code of Bushido stressed the importance of dying for the Emperor. And those that did surrender usually did so out of site of thier officers or they would have been shot on the spot.

Remember the quote by (who else), George S. Patton, "No dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country." (Well, something to that effect.)

[BomBeer]

Originally posted by Dave Briggs


While a few Japanese soldiers in the Pacific War did surrender, it was a very few compared to those that didn't. This is not a stereotype. It was considered extremely dishonourable for a Japanese soldier to surrender, and (speaking of stereotypes), they were told that US soldiers would torture and then eat them. There are even extreme cases where Japanese soldiers didn't surrender till nearly forty years after the war ended. The code of Bushido stressed the importance of dying for the Emperor. And those that did surrender usually did so out of site of thier officers or they would have been shot on the spot.

Remember the quote by (who else), George S. Patton, "No dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country." (Well, something to that effect.)

I don't know about torture or being eaten, but the GI's would kill surrendering Japanese. Atleast tell a Officer showed up to put a stop to it. Sounds like a **** good reason not to surrender to me. I guess the Japanese did the same. That's what the Vets said on a documentary I watched.

[Frank W.]

there are so much cases in war in which surrendering soldiers are killed. same for the hole east front in russia, or even in parts of the ardennes offensive did both sides wrong things. esp. peiper the leader of a german ss-kampfgruppe said something like: we will have not the time to take prisoners..... it looks like subordinate ss-officers interpreted this in killing US-soldiers and not just send them back in direction east.......

but i read that the desert war in africa was a quite fair fight between british + germans.

Originally posted by BomBeer


I don't know about torture or being eaten, but the GI's would kill surrendering Japanese. Atleast tell a Officer showed up to put a stop to it. Sounds like a **** good reason not to surrender to me. I guess the Japanese did the same. That's what the Vets said on a documentary I watched.

[Frank W.]

i know all these things, but

1. i think there were for shure enough japanese who didn´t believe really in this bushido things

and 2. had the japs some troops fighting for them that were no japanese, but from other asian regions. perhaps the surrendering soldiers in "thin red line" were just such troops.
so this is no point to call this section of the movie "unrealistic"

and you forgot part of pattons saying: " the others should die for their country" he added. how true!

Originally posted by Dave Briggs


While a few Japanese soldiers in the Pacific War did surrender, it was a very few compared to those that didn't. This is not a stereotype. It was considered extremely dishonourable for a Japanese soldier to surrender, and (speaking of stereotypes), they were told that US soldiers would torture and then eat them. There are even extreme cases where Japanese soldiers didn't surrender till nearly forty years after the war ended. The code of Bushido stressed the importance of dying for the Emperor. And those that did surrender usually did so out of site of thier officers or they would have been shot on the spot.

Remember the quote by (who else), George S. Patton, "No dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country." (Well, something to that effect.)

[Sam-I-am]

who here has NOT fired a battlefield assault rifle yet?

I was watching the tube the other day just killing a lil time, saw "invaders from Mars" (the re-make) cheesy, but there was this scene where the soldiers were in the martian ship, while launching a DRAGON the soldier looked back and yelled "back blast area clear" that impressed me.

One movie that impresses me the most is "Hamburger Hill".

Very realistic to hear the distant thuds of outgoing artillery rounds then the pause before they hit there target.


The most FU scene I have ever seen was in that Academy award winning documentry "Rambo, first blood"

Launching that LAW from INSIDE the copter without killing everyone inside, tops my list.



The full auto, never ending ammo clipped assault rifles and gasoline loaded grenades ruines war movies for me also:(

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Originally posted by Dave Briggs


Although I think we "US people" might have a good reason to be thin skinned these days, that has nothing to do with what I was trying to say. I also figured, based on your initial post, that you might reply with such a remark. I'm sorry you didn't choose to explain your original question, as I was asking you to do. Instead you chose to toss in another veiled remark.

I don't very often hear people talk about movies with a national attachment to the conversation. Movies are truely international. No one makes movies for a particular nationality. All movies today are made for international release or at least that's what the producers hope for. When most people talk about a movie they have seen or are reviewing they usually talk about the director or producer or the actors. I very rarely hear someone bring the country the movie was made in into question. But your reply does seem to give me an indication of your initial intent. Let me try to explain my reasons for my comments.

When I first saw "Das Boot" for example, I knew when I bought my ticket that it was a movie made in Germany and was directed by a German and had a German cast and it was in the German language with English subtitles. But after the movie was over, I didn't think, "Gee, what a great job those Germans did with that movie." Instead I thought, "What a great movie." The nationality of the producer, director and cast didn't even enter my mind. It was a fabulous movie, period. The same goes for Kurasawa movies, one of my favorite directors. I don't see his movies and think, "What a great Japanese movie." His movies are wonderful and his nationality is no factor in the appeal of his work. If I see a movie I don't like, I don't say, "What were those Australians thinking?" I think, "What a crummy movie." You might find this hard to believe, but if you would have been talking about a French movie and had said "what's with French movie makers", I would have responded the same way.

I'm not angry with you or think any less of you, and I respect your opionion. I just wanted to clarify what you were asking. I honestly couldn't figure out if you actually wanted to know what's with with American movie makers or what's with the directors of the two movies you mentioned.

Don't take this too seriously, Frank. I'm just someone who is bold and forward enough to ask someone a direct question and take them to task for what they say or appear to say. Isn't that what forums are all about?

Well, that is a great but seldom opinion.....

most people see a movie and don´t think at all (this is why many "good" movies aren´t succsessfull, but others, really stupid movies are huge succsesses...)

some peole only look a movie from their "political/national" perspective, they never would respect a movie from the "wrong" side...


I don´t see war movies with stupid actings (like U 571), because i want historical details, realism and the historical truth as much as possible.... because i think, so many interesting things happened in so many wars, that we don´t need to much lying nonsense....

best example is pearl harbor, here we have a hero who shot down more german planes as the germans lost in the whole war, who is the superhero (i name such heroes minibonds), a lovestory, many lies (like fighterpilots who fly bombers in the tokio raid)... that i´m not interested in that movie to see more than once (and even this was to often)...

this is the fact, why the movies tora tora tora and midway were so good, they had nearly no such parts in it, just the try to make a movie about the things happened....

Das Boot, as good as the movie was, is sadly a similar example... for political and moralic aspects the movie was changed (compared to the book and the history), the spain adventure showed the typical nazis (because so they hoped to got more acceptance), the boot had to be destroyed at the end (no happy end for the evil krauts) and many more such aspects... esp. in the mini-6 parter for TV, the movie is much better....

spr is also a movie with good and bad parts... the beginning sequence was great, because it showed the real war feeling, the end was hollywood at it´s best (you know, one men against 100 and the one survive because he is the hero....) and this makes the movie really bad... but the audience wants such parts, esp. the american audience.. could you imagine how much sccsess had the movie, if the heros had been killed in the attemp to kill that mg-nest ???

I would wish, that the realistic effect of the beginning from spr would be in a war movie completly, from the beginning to the end, without herotic or moralistic finger tip, just as hard as it could be, maybe with retroperspectives to learn something about some characters, but mostly a bloodbath, without a chance to survive, just simple luck, this mixed with fear, hate and cruelty and i think we would have a great war movie... but nobody in the usa would want to see such movie, because no heroes to love, no wimen to amaze, no sex.... just simple brutallity, evil scenes with no moral aspects, no feeling, just killing... you would need great actors (because it is difficult to "play" realistic battle blindness) and great special effects, and if someone acts like a hero you have no introduction of his motives, his feelings, how important it is for him to save his camerades, etc., just the doing, and probably (if it is realistic) the dead body of him.... i would be very interested in such a movie, esp. about ww1 (we could learn all about the horror of war)

Another interesting project would be war movies about the bombing raids, like Schweinfurt, Hamburg (with more historical touch), or Dresden....

Also, a movie with the sense of schindlers liste, but for war, not the holocaust, would be great so some war morongers start to think about their belivings.....

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Adnan what you want are called "documentaries" dull dry boring videos of the real thing that only a history type will watch for entertainment.

I have hundreds of those myself.

But if I said make me a movie, here's some cash, and you have to make it into the top three releases minimum or you are fired, I can assure you, that during the film, you will do things you would rather not wish to do.

Because Joe schmuck doesn't give a hoot about historical accuracy. They want the movie to be fun.

It's the same reason if you want to get rich making computer games, forget trying to get there with just wargames (of any sort).

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Adnan what you want are called "documentaries" dull dry boring videos of the real thing that only a history type will watch for entertainment.

I have hundreds of those myself.

But if I said make me a movie, here's some cash, and you have to make it into the top three releases minimum or you are fired, I can assure you, that during the film, you will do things you would rather not wish to do.

Because Joe schmuck doesn't give a hoot about historical accuracy. They want the movie to be fun.

It's the same reason if you want to get rich making computer games, forget trying to get there with just wargames (of any sort).

Sarge, true, but i think that even with the "problems" of the money, they could it make more realistic, like in spr the germans are only 30 people, not 300.000 (okay okay, say 3000...) or that in pearl harbor the bob/doolitle raid isn´t in the movie or such stuff with the gasoline grenades or the easy mgs, fired from the hip killing 1000 enemies.... i fired a lighter mg as a 0.50 er, a MG 3 (a la MG 42) from the hip (just for fun, we had such an officer who allowed it to fanatic freaks like me) and after the third round i shot in the nice blue sky, maybe GI Joe can fire 10 rounds in one direction, but 100 ? Impossible, even the new arnold clone couldn´t do this.... and i think that such stupid scenes could be removed for more reallity.... that was my attempt about it....

and here, i must blame the american film industry, because hollywood is the only large movie maker and they ignore such easy facts... some other nations try to avoid such mistakes (like Stalingrad, the movie isn´t good (because, typical for german movies, the moralistic aspect is streched too much), but you see, that in a battle you see nothing (similar to spr start sequence)), and i dream of such tries of realism combinied with modern techniques and the money of big movie companies.... but if they do such a movie, a second U 571 will come out....

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

It is sad though.

I have had to endure people claiming some movies had value when clearly the value was dubious.

Accuracy is nice, not normally realistic when sales are condsidered. But just once I would like to see a movie made where I was impressed by the accuracy, not annoyed at how my intelligence was being insulted.

I just wish Joe nobody would get annoyed at how his own lack of knowledge was getting so badly taken for granted.

Every time they do something grossly inaccurate in a film, they are really just saying, "well Joe movie goer wouldn't know the difference, and this looks more fun".

I wish the non military public would tell the movie makers "hey stop assuming I am stupid, and therefore it doesn't matter".

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
It is sad though.

I have had to endure people claiming some movies had value when clearly the value was dubious.

Accuracy is nice, not normally realistic when sales are condsidered. But just once I would like to see a movie made where I was impressed by the accuracy, not annoyed at how my intelligence was being insulted.

I just wish Joe nobody would get annoyed at how his own lack of knowledge was getting so badly taken for granted.

Every time they do something grossly inaccurate in a film, they are really just saying, "well Joe movie goer wouldn't know the difference, and this looks more fun".

I wish the non military public would tell the movie makers "hey stop assuming I am stupid, and therefore it doesn't matter".

beer, whiskey, cognac.....

[Drongo]

Posted by Les the Sarge 9-1

Accuracy is nice, not normally realistic when sales are condsidered. But just once I would like to see a movie made where I was impressed by the accuracy, not annoyed at how my intelligence was being insulted.

What about "Gettysburg" or "Long Day's Dying"? Both made a huge effort with authenticity and both achieved some level of mainstream success. They do make them, you just have to learn to avoid war films that are made to be "block busters".

Personally, I find that I get more enjoyment out of military sci-fi films. You can't normally fault them on authenticity. :p

[Frank W.]

Originally posted by KG Erwin
...is "Thirteen Days", the dramatization of the Cuban Missile Crisis that proved that great historical movies don't need to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

hello !

i second you opinion on "thirteen days"!
saw it some days ago on video tape and
think it was pretty good.

even k.costner played a good role.......

[Muzrub]

What about Sven Hassels "Wheels of terror"..........Its almost like watching a documentry:D

[Gryphon]

Originally posted by Frank W.


hello !

i second you opinion on "thirteen days"!
saw it some days ago on video tape and
think it was pretty good.

even k.costner played a good role.......

Good movie, but costner's overdone Boston accent was grating.

[Frank W.]

Originally posted by Gryphon



Good movie, but costner's overdone Boston accent was grating.

uhm, i didn´t notice much in the german translation