What is your favourite war movie? And the worst?

Legbreaker · Post by **Legbreaker** » Fri Jul 04, 2003 5:13 am

Another all time great war movies would have to be Sahara with Humphrey Bogart - This film was made in the first year that the US was involved in the war and while it does lean toward propaganda, it is still a great story. Make a pretty good SP scenario I think.

Maliki · Post by **Maliki** » Fri Jul 04, 2003 5:37 am

I think theres been several versions made,but i would like to add Beau Geste to the favorites listThe one i'm thinking about was probably made in the thirties.

Raverdave · Post by **Raverdave** » Fri Jul 04, 2003 4:51 pm

Originally posted by Ian Packham
Riverdave, I like your signature. Hope you dont mind if I borrow it.

Take whatever you need...........

MarkFroio · Post by **MarkFroio** » Fri Jul 04, 2003 8:01 pm

The worst is "The Thin Red Line." How long can you look at grass blowing in the wind? John Travolta? Give me a break. I really think I hate this movie because the book was so good and the movie was so terrible.

My favorites in no particular order:

The Longest Day
Band of Brothers
Cross of Iron
All Quiet on the Western Front
Full Metal Jacket
Paths of Glory
Kelly's Heros

tmac · Post by **tmac** » Fri Jul 04, 2003 8:14 pm

Originally posted by Legbreaker
Another all time great war movies would have to be Sahara with Humphrey Bogart - This film was made in the first year that the US was involved in the war and while it does lean toward propaganda, it is still a great story. Make a pretty good SP scenario I think.

I agree, this is a great movie...love the Grant in it.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Fri Jul 04, 2003 8:25 pm

Recently been replacing a lot of my vhs with dvd.

One of the latest being The Bridge at Remagen.

I must say, for a film made in 1969, it can completely outdo some of the supposedly good films of recent years.

Not sure if the unit using Chaffees was correct, but hmm the Chaffee was at least a tank that was currently in usage. And the German halftracks looked fairly genuine. Or at least the running gear looked correct, and running gear seems to be the first place that gives away phoneys.

I enjoyed watching it yet again. I will enjoy watching it another time too of course.

But ya know, if you gave me a copy of Pearl Harbour or Thin Red Line on dvd, I would give it away if I could not make even a buck off the sale. And I would not even bother to watch them once before ditching them.

Jim1954 · Post by **Jim1954** » Fri Jul 04, 2003 8:44 pm

Cross of Iron, Von Ryan's Express, Run Silent , Run Deep are probably the ones I liked best.

dwesolick · Post by **dwesolick** » Fri Jul 04, 2003 9:07 pm

I have to second the motion of THIN RED LINE being a generally crummy movie. I saw it not long after reading the book and it pales in comparison. I remember being especially disappointed (I saw it in the theater) when there was no air attack while the troops were disembarking at the Canal...as in the book. It could have been a spectacular scene, with all the CGI available today. It also seemed to be more of a movie about Vietnam than WWII (in its general theme).

By the way, I have a copy of the Panzerlied (MP3). Can anyone tell me how to post it to the forum...or whether it's possible?

Raverdave · Post by **Raverdave** » Sat Jul 05, 2003 4:23 am

Well now....I never read the book "The Thin Red Line" and I found the movie to be OK. Sure the first 15 minutes were somewhat mind numbing but the rest of the movie was ok.

Ian Packham · Post by **Ian Packham** » Sat Jul 05, 2003 8:50 am

Originally posted by Raverdave
Well now....I never read the book "The Thin Red Line" and I found the movie to be OK. Sure the first 15 minutes were somewhat mind numbing but the rest of the movie was ok.

Have to agree with you. Its not a great movie - and its anti-war stance becomes a bit grating after a while, those bits you can understand. But the fight sequences were fair enough, not the usual Hollywood nonsense. My big raspberry goes to Pearl Harbor for the same reasons you guys have already stated.

Now let me drum up a little controversy. Why did the film need to show the Doolittle bombing raid on Japan?

I know from the Hollywood point of view, they wanted a "happy" ending where the USA gets its own back on Japan. Was this really necessary, we all already know what the outcome of WWII was. The film came across as excessively patriotic.

The other thing about the Doolittle raid was, and please correct me here if I am wrong, many of the bombs missed their intended military targets and killed civilians instead.

Mad Cow · Post by **Mad Cow** » Sat Jul 05, 2003 2:28 pm

favorites (in no order):

Gettysburg
Glory
The first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan
Blackhawk Down
Band of Brothers
Apocalypse Now (my dad was in Vietnam and he said that this one was the most realistic)
Full Metal Jacket
The Deer Hunter
(edit) forgot Stalag 17

worst:
The rest of Saving Private Ryan
Braveheart (I actually like the movie as a whole, but they run all over history and the battle scenes are certainly no-where near authentic)
Enemy at the Gates
(edit) Hart's War
The Patriot
Pearl Harbor really sucked

-----
Also, they ar not really war movies, but Schindler's List and Casablanca are my two favorite films of all time, but they both draw heavily on the war to drive their plots.

Frank W. · Post by **Frank W.** » Sat Jul 05, 2003 2:39 pm

Originally posted by Raverdave
Well now....I never read the book "The Thin Red Line" and I found the movie to be OK. Sure the first 15 minutes were somewhat mind numbing but the rest of the movie was ok.

one of the best movies ever made with a war theme!

some ppl. simply do not understand, that it is not
a typical war movie at all. the war is only a kind of "scenario"
to show much more deeper stuff as the usual war movie.

also sound (!!) und most filming work was great !

also most actors were good ( n.nolte, s. penn etc... )

not as good as apocalypse now , the longest day or das boot but still much better than newer films as ryan ( exc. the first 15 - 20 min ) , windtalkers or we were soldiers for example...

yesterday i rent the tigerland dvd. not very good, too sadly...

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Sat Jul 05, 2003 2:43 pm

As far as I know, and my knowledge of the Doolittle raid is not extensive, the B-25s launched from carriers with lightened loads.

They bombed targets within cities made ultimately of entirely burnable construction. This was done early in the war long before the US had their act together where bombing was concerned. And I highly doubt the raid was intended to be more than a morale based action.

As for intended targets, hmmm, a light loaded B-25 flying over Tokyo is more a show of defiance, than a particularly accurate or efficient means of strategic bombing.
I think they would have picked military targets, but hmm do you reeeeeeally think the US forces of the time had the slightest concern that some "innocent" casualties might ensue?

For those wishing to further examine history from a proper perspective, you might wish to locate the Why We Fight series done by Frank Capra specifically for the US public during the war. I just recently picked it up (it's sold as 2 separate dvd purchases and is a 7 volume set) to replace my vhs set.

In WW2 we didn't have CNN, peace protesters acting as human shields and all the current assortment of hand wringing over killing some civilians that just happened to be in a country that was at war. Not to say no one cared at all, but no one was crying over civilian dead during the Doolittle Raid.

dwesolick · Post by **dwesolick** » Sat Jul 05, 2003 5:39 pm

Originally posted by Ian Packham

The other thing about the Doolittle raid was, and please correct me here if I am wrong, many of the bombs missed their intended military targets and killed civilians instead.

I don't believe the bombing accomplished much in the way of civilian or military damage. As pointed out, it was designed mainly as a (sorely needed) morale booster and a way to hit back (however lightly) at Japan. The real civilian casualties start piling up in ETO from Hamburg on, then of course the firebombing of Japanese cities in 45.

I also don't think the Japanese (to say nothing of the Germans!)had a great concern for civilian lives; they preferred to kill their civilians up close and personal, at the point of a bayonet: Nanking (37), Manila (44), etc...

jnier · Post by **jnier** » Sat Jul 05, 2003 7:06 pm

Originally posted by Max VonLoben
The worst is "The Thin Red Line." How long can you look at grass blowing in the wind? John Travolta? Give me a break. I really think I hate this movie because the book was so good and the movie was so terrible.

Couldn't disagree more. Thin Red Line is one of my all-time favorite movies. A thoughtful move. I read the book also (after I saw the movie) and didn't think too much of the book.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Sat Jul 05, 2003 7:10 pm

Well the world would suck if everyone liked what I liked hehe.

I hated TRL, but can accept others might like it.

When I consider what I have encountered that others like and I don't, people are in some cases just plain different is all.

Frank W. · Post by **Frank W.** » Sat Jul 05, 2003 7:47 pm

Originally posted by jnier
Couldn't disagree more. Thin Red Line is one of my all-time favorite movies. A thoughtful move. I read the book also (after I saw the movie) and didn't think too much of the book.

mhh... is the book recommended ?

who is the author ?

MarkFroio · Post by **MarkFroio** » Sat Jul 05, 2003 8:34 pm

Originally posted by Frank W.
mhh... is the book recommended ?

who is the author ?

I really liked the book. It was written by James Jones. You can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 42-3204715

I understand the point the movie is trying to make. Maybe if I had seen the movie first and then read the book, I would think differently. The book is pretty much anti-war also. I just liked the way Jones gets his point across.

For example, in the book, I think the natives of Guadalcanal are mentioned once or twice, if at all. In the movie, they have a large role. Now I understand the symbolism that Malick used with the natives in the movie, but this wasn't a theme that Jones focused on in the book. Jones wrote about the horrors of war, and as you read his book, I think you can feel what he's writing about. I know Malick was trying to show us the horrors of war also. It's just that I feel Jones did a much better job with the book. I believe that Malick made his own movie with his own vision, and it had very little to do with Jones' classic book.

Frank W. · Post by **Frank W.** » Sat Jul 05, 2003 9:10 pm

thx.

i think the natives scenes were a bit too much this is true.

despite that i like the film.

Kevinugly · Post by **Kevinugly** » Sat Jul 05, 2003 9:28 pm

Worst war film ever has to be 'Raid on Rommel'. Apart from a dreadful script and lousy acting it's also cheap - leftover footage from 'Tobruk' (long shots of George Peppard & Co.) with Richard Burton in the new close-ups.

My fave would be 'Zulu' - I just find it utterly inspiring!