1917

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Rafe heard there was a little contretemps between Germany and Englandsville. He thought he'd pop over to get that sorted before porking some nurse or other... or was it Danny? Who knows?

Are you suggesting, dear Sir, that Rafe may have been porking Danny?

warspite1

You may think that Matty.... I couldn't possibly comment

[CaptBeefheart]

The best bank heist movie ever made, "Kelly's Heroes," happens to be set in a war zone. But it's not a war movie. I haven't seen "Dunkirk" or "1917," but I can accept that they aren't war movies based on the above comments.

My Sarc-O-Meter is pegging out on Warspite's TMTSNBN comment.

Cheers,
CB

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: CaptBeefheart

I haven't seen "Dunkirk" or "1917," but I can accept that they aren't war movies based on the above comments.

warspite1

Well it's personal opinion so if you don't think these two movies are war movies then fine.

But out of curiosity I would be interested to know what category you place them.

Note: the below is written in order not to give any spoilers

1917

This is a story, set in the trenches of World War I, and is about two men sent on a mission to save two battalions of infantry from making an attack (as its a trap). We follow the two soldiers through their own trenches, no-man's land, the abandoned enemy trenches (all with the gory back drop one can expect of the WWI landscape) and an enemy held town, with some fighting along the way.

Dunkirk

Set in World War II as Allied forces fall back on Dunkirk. It specifically follows one airman, two civilians in their 'little ship' and a handful of retreating soldiers, with a fourth group - centred on Kenneth Branagh's naval officer - on the mole. The airman is involved in action against German bombers, the 'little ship' is attacked by German aircraft, we follow the troops being chased by the Germans into Dunkirk, being attacked on the beach, attacked in the ships and (for some) getting home.

So what categor(ies) would you personally put them in?

[Simulacra53]

I’d put Dunkirk in the forgettable category, like most modern pretentious big scale dramas...artistic imagery over matter, with the occasional fake “small” act. Drama without substance.

...1917 will probably be same, but I still have to see it, so all assumption for now.

[>:]

[Simulacra53]

...[&o] - double post

[wodin]

Original yes. So we are going back here.

I'd say Birdsong has been the best yet in recent times but that was a two part serial.

I love Aces High.

Paths of Glory is excellent but again going back here.

I was more thinking of recent years films.


Want Peter Jackson to do something.


So much excellent material out there to make something amazing.

Many facets to War so I see Dunkirk and 1917 war films.

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: wodin

Though still waiting on a WW1 classic to be made.

All quiet on the Western Front

[Jestre]

Was very disappointed in 1917, just another Hollywood artsy film masquerading as a war film. If you went into this movie knowing nothing of WWI you came out still knowing nothing of WWI.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: Simulacra53

I’d put Dunkirk in the forgettable category, like most modern pretentious big scale dramas...

Well, Dunkirk is anything but "big scale". It is actually quite an intimate movie, with few key characters on screen in every scene - and with the soldiers massed in the general evacuation area used only as background.

artistic imagery over matter

The "matter" of Dunkirk is to place the viewer on the spot along with the characters, like "a fly on the wall". There is no "hero", so anything can happen to anyone. Pretty anguishing.

with the occasional fake “small” act. Drama without substance.

From the young seaman death (and how it came to be) to the soldiers swimming alongside the mole while the ship is about to crush them against it, there is a lot of substantial drama in the movie. But to each one his own, I guess.

Dunkirk is not a perfect movie, but it is a damn good one. You can see the craft that went into its making.

[balto]

The "craft".., hahaha. Come on, Man.

[RangerJoe]

Don't be insulting, please. I have not seen it but it is probably a better movie than a navy cook and a stripper rescuing the crew of a Naval ship. I mean, a cook being dangerous outside of the kitchen? [&:]

[ezzler]

What is odd about Dunkirk, is that for all the accuracy, there are loads of inaccuracies. the cranes on the docks are modern. The skyline hasn't been fully eradicated to make 1940 loo like 1940 not 2015. The train in the end scene is a 1970s train. The soldiers says, 'is this Woking?' and the boy says yes. But the landscape is utterly unlike Woking, then or now.

{though, having been on that train, I know how it happened. The yeovil restored train company runs two historic trains. one is a 1930s steam train. The other is a 1970s British rail diesel. I expect, the production team booked a historic train for a scene and didn't know, until too late, they had booked a 1970/80s train by mistake.]

its not that these mistakes are critical. Its just that, take a movie like Once upon a time in America. A bendy bus doesn't suddenly drive down the street. Or a Japanese car. And yet that was made without cgi. As were thousands of other films, that don't have the same issues.

For a 'must see director' his vision of 'must see' and mine are different. I believe he only wants the film to be 'close enough.' Knowing that most people neither know, nor care, that the type of paint on the fences and doors, in the opening scene of Dunkirk, is a very modern, gloss shade. To me, it looks out of place, as it is. As does the speech. Because the actors talk like modern actors. They don't sound authentic at all.
To my wife, she never noticed any of those things. So the director is right. And the critics didn't mention them either. So he is doubly right not to bother with them just to please a few history nerds.

{Spielberg, on the other hand..He wants to get it right. Matter of pride, i shouldn't wonder.]

[balto]

Under Siege was an awesome movie, not a war movie. Sorry to insult, I was unaware how sensitive, or whatever you call it, that you are.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: balto

Under Siege was an awesome movie

At least you got that right

[Challerain]

"The Goddamn cook's a SEAL?" - Doumer

[warspite1]

In no way (imo) can Under Siege by described as a war film.

Personally I really enjoyed the film. Steven Segal, and his movies, aren't my cup of tea, but I was interested in seeing USS Missouri. But the main characters were excellently cast - Tommy Lee Jones "Four minutes ahead of schedule, damn I'm good".

Gary Busey "Do I look like I need a psychological evaluation?"
Jones "Not at all"




...and of course.... although I can't condone this sort of behaviour from a health and safety perspective. I mean, people have to eat that cake....

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Challerain

"The Goddamn cook's a SEAL?" - Doumer

I think that his specialty was raw fish for sushi.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe mean, a cook being dangerous outside of the kitchen? [&:]

Sure. "An army marches on its stomach" (Napoleon).

Either that, or "You can be Nimitz - still you don't want to piss off the people who cook your meal". [;)]

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe mean, a cook being dangerous outside of the kitchen? [&:]

Sure. "An army marches on its stomach" (Napoleon).

Either that, or "You can be Nimitz - still you don't want to piss off the people who cook your meal". [;)]

Don't piss off the clerks either. I heard of one group of new MPs that donated a couple of months pay to the Boy Scouts after they irritated the clerks.

[mark dolby]

WW1
Anyone for 'The Blue Max'
It even has a 5 minute interlude to make a cuppa....You don't get that these days.

[Simulacra53]

ORIGINAL: mark dolby

WW1
Anyone for 'The Blue Max'
It even has a 5 minute interlude to make a cuppa....You don't get that these days.

One of those rare occasions where the movie is better than the book, IMO.
Really dislike the book, good (sixties) movie.