OT - Best WWII movie?

[rkr1958]

There are several that I like, but this mini-series is in German, with subtitles, I watched all 3 episodes back to back. I highly recommend it, assuming subtitles don't bother your or you speak German.

Generation War: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1883092/combined

Another one, in German with subtitles, that I highly recommend is Downfall: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/

Though, I generally prefer movies that I can watch without subtitles. My favorites are: Band of Brothers, The Pacific, 12 O'clock high

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

"Thin Red Line" (1998), "Das Boot" (1981), "A Bridge Too Far" (?).

A Bridge too far? As a Dutch citizens, I have to say that the director didn't pay much attention to the surroundings he was shooting in. I know the bridge at Deventer where the shooting took place for the movie (since the one in Arnhem couldn't be used for that, since the city had been totally rebuild after the war) but to have the modern 1970's traffic signs in the picture, was a huge error IMHO. And there are a couple of those...

The devil is in the details and for me, that rated this movie into the "nice try" department. It just isn't the Netherlands in the 1940's, I'm afraid...

[bo]

My favorite all time war movie happened to be in WW1 it was called the Light Horsemen made by Australians, it was about the British Army facing a military disaster at Bathsheba Turkey, trying to capture the water wells at Bathsheba,
40,000 British infantry could not take it in the previous week and in another day the British forces would be without water for 48 hours.

The British colonel who was the commander of the Light Horsemen who were actually mounted infantry not Calvary, suggested to the commanding British General to be allowed to do a mounted charge with his 800 Light Horsemen against the artillery and fixed machine guns entrenched before the town. One General said you propose a mounted attack against a position that 60,000 British infantry failed to do, and the answer was what other alternatives are there sir. And the attack became history and an Australian legend.

Watch the movie on "you tube" the acting was brilliant and it was one of the few war movies that actually looked real and that you were there with them. The whole movie was excellent but if you would like to skip the start go to the last 25 minutes.

The charge was one for the centuries.

Bo

[Dabrion]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

"Thin Red Line" (1998), "Das Boot" (1981), "A Bridge Too Far" (?).

A Bridge too far? As a Dutch citizens, I have to say that the director didn't pay much attention to the surroundings he was shooting in. I know the bridge at Deventer where the shooting took place for the movie (since the one in Arnhem couldn't be used for that, since the city had been totally rebuild after the war) but to have the modern 1970's traffic signs in the picture, was a huge error IMHO. And there are a couple of those...

The devil is in the details and for me, that rated this movie into the "nice try" department. It just isn't the Netherlands in the 1940's, I'm afraid...

Yea I get that, same for me with movies that play in Germany. Or even better, American actors trying to speak German

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Anyone seen Fury yet?

I thought I was pointed that way tonight, but it is running another week here. Soon, though.

Warspite1

Not seen it but there are threads in the WITP-AE and General Disussion forums on this you may find useful.

[danlongman]

Battle of San Pietro is a John Houston documentary of a battle
made at San Pietro Infini right in the middle of the war. Music is by Dmitri Tiomkin.
The cast is original and the dead are really dead and the town
(not CGI) gets wrecked. Some consider it a work of art.
It is certainly unique in many ways.
In Passchendaele the battle scenes are pretty good and the production values
are excellent but the story is almost as bad as that one where Kate Beckinsale
is boning those two American pilots for some reason and those ships get blown up
becuase of it. Or in spite of it or something.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Anyone seen Fury yet?

I thought I was pointed that way tonight, but it is running another week here. Soon, though.

Warspite1

Not seen it but there are threads in the WITP-AE and General Disussion forums on this you may find useful.

Saw it with my grandson and son, did not like it, they were just soso about it
and they love war films, Brad Pitt was alright but the other actors in the tank looked like they came off the streets of Mexico not the US. And if we had two more tanks like this tank we would have won the war in September 1944. I thought the movie was Hollywood bullcrap IMHO.

The only redeeming factor to me was they were using one of the rare moveable German Tiger tanks left from WW2 instead of an American tank with the Iron cross on it, but even that was a hazy picture of the tank, not real clear. For sure this movie was no Private Ryan [;)]

Bo

[brian brian]

So, just home from Fury. Thanks Warspite, I hadn't planned to venture elsewhere for thoughts on it but now I think I will.

I liked it a great deal. I think through-out the 21st Century, war movies will only improve. And that is a good thing, because it is always best to remember the Robert E. Lee quote "It is good that war is so terrible, else we would grow too fond of it." As a war gamer, I seek out these movies to keep at least a little perspective when the Heavy Machine Gun takes out two squads with a "KIA" roll of snake-eyes and you just take two counters off the board.

This movie has two obvious contrasting films. One is the recent Inglorious Basterds, which also starred Brad Pitt. I didn't like that one at all, because I am not always fan of Tarantino. I don't think it is cool to make comedy out of violence….well, that can be done and it is fine and can be funny, but Tarantino makes violence into porn by simply keeping the camera on the blood for far too long. Right at the beginning of Fury is some up-close and personal violence (it has been remarked on in most reviews); if Tarantino had made this movie, the climax of that scene would have lasted at least 60 seconds longer, for little gain to the film. In my opinion. this film has plenty of violence, of the distant see-the-machine-gun-drop-those-German-helmets-in-the distance type, and the up-close and personal exploding tank type. There is no need to linger on each act of violence, and this movie doesn't.

The other reference point is Saving Private Ryan &/or the Band of Brothers series perhaps (same sets, etc.), which was the last time Hollywood took a look at WWII American GIs in direct combat. I saw Pvt Ryan in a theater and I knew there were real WWII veterans in there with me, though I didn't walk in personally with any. It was an experience I will never forget.

Fury doesn't have quite the epic-ness level of action that Pvt Ryan had, but was still quite good. The actors were good, the realism was there, the symbolism was kept succinct. Watch for the horse's hooves right at the end. No, I don't know what they mean, just pay attention to what color they are. The ending, well, you decide. It was April, 1945 after all.

The technical notes we are all interested in:

This movie uses the last working Tiger tank in the world. An excellent scene. Richochets are well done throughout the movie. I now want to give highly detailed, computer video gaming of tank combat a try. Multiple tanks with teams using radios as in real WWII would be a fascinating gaming experience. Perhaps the computer could play the poor Russian tanks with no radio…you hope they do something smart to help your side. Or, you play in a tank with no radio. Good luck. I have no idea if such a game exists, but it should.

I played a lot of Squad Leader (really Cross of Iron, a whole lot) back in the day, though I ultimately tired of I-Go-You-Go tactical AFV combat. I never did punch out the counters for GI:Anvil of Victory. But I can't recall if any tanks had two machine guns on the turret. Bow and turret, yes. Also in Squad Leader I never thought of firing smoke rounds at an enemy tank….I hope that is a possibility in ASL.

Other things I appreciated - the CGI shot of an Allied LND-4 armada overhead. With a half dozen smoke plumes rising in opposition to try and stop the six dozen plumes advancing into Germany. A short shot, but telling.

I don't think I've ever seen as many Panzerfausts in a movie as this one.

The Germans were not really part of the dialogue, etc., as in some war movies. This was about American soldiers, and that is a good approach. Nevertheless, the writers gave the Germans some good lines, for example when they are opening a crate of what I first thought might be Panzerschrecks someone says "Make these count. They are all we have now." A nice reminder that it is April, 1945 after all. A German officer also gives a short pep talk that helps keep the perspective on this being a war, not a video game.

I also liked how the movie dealt with what militaries report to be the single most difficult thing to train a soldier to do: to kill another human being. They estimate that only 1/4 of soldiers in WWII actually aimed at the enemy, while most simply fired in their general direction. This movie tackles that subject directly.

One thing I thought a little off was a text note on-screen at the beginning "In April 1945, the Allies fought deep in Germany. They faced more fanatical resistance than ever before." This is true but only somewhat. The odds an American unit met a German unit with high morale were low, I believe. Of course, there were still SS units fighting. But they were somewhat few and far between I think. In Hollywood though, the GIs always fight the SS.

The last WWII book I read was earlier this year, a new one called "The End" by Ian Kershaw. It examined why the Germans kept fighting in 1945, as this movie ponders out loud at points. Despite reading a book length treatise on the subject, much of which I was already familiar with in a general sense, I still can't wrap my thoughts around that existential question very much. I'll probably re-read "The End" again some day, and I will watch this movie a couple more times in a year or so. And I think I will still not understand such a deep historical tragedy.

[Neilster]

I've recently read "The End" as well, and have just finished "Victory in Europe" by Charles B. MacDonald, which goes into great detail about American operations in Germany in 1945. After the crossing of the Rhine in late March, the overwhelming impression is that the opposition is the remains of shattered units, training cadres, and assorted barrel scrapings. Most armour consists of penny-packets, often from nearby repair depots etc.

Of course there were a few SS units still around and some fanatical resistance but after the Rhine, it was all over in six weeks.

Cheers, Neilster

[brian brian]

I think all the thinking about 1945, Germany, and Why?, misses a certain point - sure there were fanatical Nazis, but they were a minority. That book "The End" did go a long way towards explaining how a minority could control the majority. But the perhaps unanswerable question, and the probably eternal focus on that minority will still be Why?

My answer is something that is still alive in the world today - the absolute power of propaganda to motivate human action. Hitler and Goebbels always claimed their opponents were guilty of the "Big Lie." Yet I think any rational person will still always ask Why, Why you Fools?

I thought it was a little unfortunate in that book that he didn't go a little deeper into any other comparisons to "Last Stand" societies, though he pointed out that there have indeed been very few examples of such in history. Perhaps a subject that could still be explored. Fury only scratched the surface, simply having the characters ask the "Why?" (and then not quite directly). Perhaps Fury could use a "Letters From Iwo Jima" companion piece, which, come to think of it, IS an exploration of this same topic.

[Extraneous]

Yesterday I watched "Courage Under Fire" again. I like a good laugh once and a while.
 
Courage Under Fire - 1996 staring Denzel Washington and Meg Ryan directed by Edward Zwick.
 
 
This movie is about a fictional first female helicopter pilot recommended for the Congressional Medal of Honor for valor in combat.
 
While the storyline is interesting a small detail was overlooked. The female helicopter pilot is a war criminal. She violates the Geneva Convention by flying an ARMED medavac helicopter and using it to attack ground troops.
 
 

Effects of Geneva Conventions on Medical Evacuation
The mounting of offensive weapons on dedicated medical evacuation vehicles and aircraft jeopardizes the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions.
 
These offensive weapons can include, but are not limited to:
(1) Machine guns
(2) Grenade launchers
(3) Hand grenades
(4) Light antitank weapons
 
Medical personnel are only permitted to fire in their personal defense and for the protection of the wounded and sick in their charge against marauders and other persons violating the law of war.
 

 
 
 

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous


Yesterday I watched "Courage Under Fire" again. I like a good laugh once and a while.

Courage Under Fire - 1996 staring Denzel Washington and Meg Ryan directed by Edward Zwick.


This movie is about a fictional first female helicopter pilot recommended for the Congressional Medal of Honor for valor in combat.

While the storyline is interesting a small detail was overlooked. The female helicopter pilot is a war criminal. She violates the Geneva Convention by flying an ARMED medavac helicopter and using it to attack ground troops.

Effects of Geneva Conventions on Medical Evacuation
The mounting of offensive weapons on dedicated medical evacuation vehicles and aircraft jeopardizes the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions.

These offensive weapons can include, but are not limited to:
(1) Machine guns
(2) Grenade launchers
(3) Hand grenades
(4) Light antitank weapons

Medical personnel are only permitted to fire in their personal defense and for the protection of the wounded and sick in their charge against marauders and other persons violating the law of war.

warspite1

I always knew Meg Ryan was a wrong'un. Naughty girl! [:-]

[Dabrion]

Watched "Fury".. did not really thrill me. If you like John Wayne style movies you will like it..

There is also a low budget Film this year, similar setting and story. "Saints and Soldiers: The Void" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1270114/
Similarly inaccurate and ahistorical, but enjoyed that one more.

[brian brian]

Fury is still sinking in with me a little. I realized the American characters are in a dualistic plot situation with the German characters in the final main battle scene. For example, one character on each side uses the word "home", or a synonym for it, though the linkage to the GI using the concept is a little weak. But they are each fighting a "Last Stand"

I played a little of a solitaire WiF game last night. The tactical situation at the end of the movie illustrates something about war, that is applicable to WiF I have always thought. Sometimes in war, what you have to fight for is actually Time itself. The tank crew knew it could not prevail in it's situation … so Why? Because they could gain time for other soldiers in their army, and cost the enemy time. Which still begs the question for the fanatical Nazis - Why? Fighting for time until the Secret Weapons could come on-line and change the battlefield results is one of the answers as well.

I regularly see World in Flames players fail to grasp that concept. In each half of the game, each side is on the defensive. When on the defense, you have to risk military assets simply to cost the other side time. You are not likely to win that risk, i.e. you are going to lose those military assets. The question you constantly have to ask is whether the assets you risk are worth the time you gain, and whether those assets can be replaced. The Axis win quite handily when the Allies fold up shop too easily. "There was no way I could hold that hex, so I retreated." But of course in a game made of cardboard (or pixels) that calculus is completely different than when considering the lives of soldiers.

I would just add though that the more I think about it, the New Guy character in Fury can either be looked at as an unoriginal use of the same script device used in Saving Private Ryan, or more charitably, a small homage to it (both New Guys = typists). Ultimately though, both movies do a good job of exploring and illustrating the Why? for at least American GIs.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think all the thinking about 1945, Germany, and Why?, misses a certain point - sure there were fanatical Nazis, but they were a minority. That book "The End" did go a long way towards explaining how a minority could control the majority. But the perhaps unanswerable question, and the probably eternal focus on that minority will still be Why?

My answer is something that is still alive in the world today - the absolute power of propaganda to motivate human action. Hitler and Goebbels always claimed their opponents were guilty of the "Big Lie." Yet I think any rational person will still always ask Why, Why you Fools?

I thought it was a little unfortunate in that book that he didn't go a little deeper into any other comparisons to "Last Stand" societies, though he pointed out that there have indeed been very few examples of such in history. Perhaps a subject that could still be explored. Fury only scratched the surface, simply having the characters ask the "Why?" (and then not quite directly). Perhaps Fury could use a "Letters From Iwo Jima" companion piece, which, come to think of it, IS an exploration of this same topic.

There are several reasons the Germans kept fighting to the end, especially on the Eastern Front. Off the top of my head...

1. It was a totalitarian state and the Nazi hold lasted until their dying gasp. It was better to take your chances at the front than swinging from a lamp-post with a placard around your neck. The "Golden Pheasants" of the Nazi Party were always fanatical with everybody else's lives. They themselves usually got out of Dodge with the cash, gold and luxuries at the last minute.

2. German soldiers knew full well the rapacious nature of the Red Army and they were trying to protect their women. The Western and Italian Fronts were held in part to support the Eastern Front. Also, German propaganda had it that in defeat, everybody would be either killed or carted off to Siberia. There was a feeling that there was nothing to lose, so you might as well keep fighting. And they did, although after the crossing of the Rhine, there was only patchy resistance in the West, and a huge increase in surrenders. Many soldiers decided it was better to survive in a Wallie POW camp than be captured by the Russians or die for a lost cause.

3. There was a belief that somehow Hitler would pull it out of the fire. Whether wunderwaffen, Roosevelt's death, the Alliance falling apart or Adolf luring them into an elaborate trap. The idea that somehow it would all work out was common and persistent.

4. After 12 years of National Socialism, many people couldn't imagine any other kind of Deutschland. Additionally, the Western Allies advertised their plans to dismember Germany and Austria. More "nothing to lose".

I'm sure there are more but it's late. In general the German people were forced to transition very quickly from thinking they had this thing won in the Autumn of 1942 to a grim total war in very short order. The propaganda tried to cover up Stalingrad as best they could but it was impossible. After that the German people knew they were in a death match.

Cheers, Neilster

[brian brian]

Yes, the Doom of the Eastern Front hung over them all.

I also think the Nazis used one of the oldest, saddest routes to political power in human history. Got a problem in your life? Why, let's simply blame it on those Other people. In doing so, they somewhat fed people what they already want to hear. It's not Your fault or even Our fault, it's Theirs. Still quite common in the world today, perhaps always will be.

[Centuur]

I mentioned once the diary my uncle has written. He wrote down things at the end of the war which gave some insight into this.

The political and economic situation of Germany (and Austria) between the two wars was the main reason why the common German soldier kept fighting against the Western Allies. What was there to lose? The peace treaty of WW I put both Germany and Austria into deep poverty which caused food shortages (hunger) in parts of both countries. Hyper inflations due to reparation payments, widespread unemployment and such things only made things worse.

The Western Allies had a the "roaring 20's". Germany and Austria were in deep poverty (to be seen as in third world countries nowadays) in those years. The depression made things even worse...

The Allied propaganda machine did nothing to promise the Germans and Austrians a better life if they would stop fighting. So why stop fighting?

It wasn't the love of the nazi regime, or even the nazi's political ideas which were the reason for this at all. It was the fact, that everything else was better, than again get to a situation where people are starving, prices go skyhigh (hyperinflation), no jobs and no prospect to a better way of life. Don't forget, in the late 1930 things were very good in the Reich if you look at it from an economic point of view...

So the average German soldier and citizen hoped (against better knowledge) for a miracle in the last months of the war. It was the believe of my uncle, that the Wallies didn't promise the Germans a better life after Hitler would be gone. They didn't, so the soldiers kept fighting, even if when they fought against the Wallies, they were sooner to surrender than if they fought the Russians. Allied propaganda said only one thing: "unconditional surrender". That was unacceptable for almost everyone in Germany, until it became clear that there wasn't anything left anymore...

[brian brian]

A great perspective Peter, thanks. It helped me realize something not mentioned in that book "The End" at all, but the movie was leading me to thinking - there is a lot of hubris in that question "Why did they keep fighting?" And that is because the Americans in particular, when asking this question, can't understand the other side. The Americans were in the war for noble purposes - how could anyone oppose that? Couldn't the Germans see what was the right thing to do? The USA is always doing the right thing, right? Why don't they just quit fighting and sign up with Uncle Sam? Such hubris can be found in many other historical questions of the 20th century.

[micheljq]

I did enjoy Fury a lot, especially the fight with the Tiger tank, the fight where the shermans tank attack a defensive line and you see the tracing bullets.

But the final fight is just so stupid and non-sense.

Michel.

[captskillet]

Porkchop Hill.