OT: Greyhound movie (2020)

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

If Hitler hadn't invaded the Soviet Union ...

warspite1

Then Hitler wouldn't have been Hitler and there would have been no WWII.

[fcooke]

Geez - that would have been a good outcome......

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

If Hitler hadn't invaded the Soviet Union ...

warspite1

Then Hitler wouldn't have been Hitler and there would have been no WWII.

I doubt that.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

If Hitler hadn't invaded the Soviet Union ...

warspite1

Then Hitler wouldn't have been Hitler and there would have been no WWII.

I doubt that.

This deserves a Downfall parody - Hitler finds out he didn't attack Russia.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Lol, no? I have seen the trailer and those 2 min show the sinking of at least 2 (or 3?) Uboats AND both one Uboat and a destroyer firing at each other like 18th century lineships.

In the trailer that scene doesn't make sense, I agree. However, let's say that in the movie there is a reason for that scene to happen. I don't know if something like that actually happened for real at least once during WWII, but the U-Boat Captain in the movie had a very real reason (and the opportunity) for trying that stunt.

And, no, Tom Hanks doesn't win the war alone - much less this specific convoy run.

[Podolano]

ORIGINAL: Alamander

For you JFBs, I recommend Isoroku Yamamoto, released a few years back by a Japanese studio. It is a sympathetic biography of Yamamoto with very good acting and some well-done CGI battle scenes. This is really a top-rate film, in my opinion, though several scenes are highly derivative of Tora Tora Tora and Midway.

I also recommend the movie Zero Pilot about a few young Japanese who interview squadron mates of their grandfather and learn of his career and life as a Zero pilot. It is also well-done, well-acted, and with some very nice CGI battle scenes. It is fictional.

Finally there is Yamato a fictional account (though accurate with respect to naval actions of the BB) of the life of several crewmembers aboard the dreadnought. It is derivative of Titanic and Zero Pilot with a young Japanese woman going out to the wreckage to learn of the life of the man who adopted her. It is a rather genuine depiction, however, of life aboard a Japanese ship of war during this period, though not quite so good as the previous two, in my opinion.

Along those lines, I’d recommend The Eternal Zero, a movie based on a manga series of the same name.
It portraits an interesting Zero fighter pilot character through some of the major battles in the Pacific, with competent CGI depicting some aerial battles and carrier groups (Akagi is very well illustrated in the movie).

Regards,

Felipe

[Alpha77]

I do not care about the movie, alone for the fact Hanks is in it... he just is not a good enough actor in my view [:'(] Same with Pitt.... and yes, the fact they are leading roles in movies with propaganda thrown in and not very historical makes me not like em more..

OT, but I recently found some Dirty Harry scenes on YT which reminded me these films must have been pretty cool - need to re-watch [:)]

Not only the action and his famous one liners but there is more. Check this here, a scene where they evaluate proposed promotion of officers. Note the looks on the faces of the actors too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=9rcIJIWqYmo

[Chickenboy]

Saw Greyhound last week on a short-term trial of Apple TV+. I noticed the STS taunting and thought it unnecessary, but not ruinous for the movie. Otherwise, it was very enjoyable. Recommended.

[mind_messing]

I'd love AE forum denizens to write a film script. The product that would result would be both hilarious and impossible to film.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I'd love AE forum denizens to write a film script. The product that would result would be both hilarious and impossible to film.

Is that because you are incapable of doing so? [8|]

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I'd love AE forum denizens to write a film script. The product that would result would be both hilarious and impossible to film.

Is that because you are incapable of doing so? [8|]

Yes.

I know the limits of my competence

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I'd love AE forum denizens to write a film script. The product that would result would be both hilarious and impossible to film.

Is that because you are incapable of doing so? [8|]

Yes.

I know the limits of my competence

Then one way to do so would be to have a group effort. People from various locales to give the vernacular of the people from that area. You could also have people who have had experience on whatever systems that the ships, aircraft, weapons, and/or vehicle equipment used. Some of the stories in some of the AARs seemed to be done quite well.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




Is that because you are incapable of doing so? [8|]

Yes.

I know the limits of my competence

Then one way to do so would be to have a group effort. People from various locales to give the vernacular of the people from that area. You could also have people who have had experience on whatever systems that the ships, aircraft, weapons, and/or vehicle equipment used. Some of the stories in some of the AARs seemed to be done quite well.

The problem with writing-by-committee is the need to cleave closely to a common artistic vision, both in terms of the story and in terms of characterisation. I'm not sure the AE community could agree on a consistent characterisation of MacArthur (for example) without a significant level of dissent from some members.

The ships, weapons etc are nice and all, but they are things. It's people (or more accurately, characters) that draw people in.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




Yes.

I know the limits of my competence

Then one way to do so would be to have a group effort. People from various locales to give the vernacular of the people from that area. You could also have people who have had experience on whatever systems that the ships, aircraft, weapons, and/or vehicle equipment used. Some of the stories in some of the AARs seemed to be done quite well.

The problem with writing-by-committee is the need to cleave closely to a common artistic vision, both in terms of the story and in terms of characterisation. I'm not sure the AE community could agree on a consistent characterisation of MacArthur (for example) without a significant level of dissent from some members.

The ships, weapons etc are nice and all, but they are things. It's people (or more accurately, characters) that draw people in.

True. But if I tried to write about a service member from Scotland I would have to do a lot of research and probably not get it correct. Although a drunken American saying something about a man wearing a kilt . . . [8|]

But using a name other than kilt . . . [:-]

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

SPOILER ALERT FOR GREYHOUND

I watched Greyhound.

I was expecting a lot from it – being a fan of Tom Hanks since Volunteers and Splash! – and really enjoying Band of Brothers.

It didn’t quite live up to expectations, but I would say I enjoyed it and was glad I saw it. The positives outweighed the negatives definitely.

Positives
- The greyness of the Atlantic was well borne out
- The action scenes were generally good (although they overplayed the close encounters on the surface which did happen but were hardly standard German tactics)
- The death of Cleveland was a shocker – a very likeable character
- Stephen Graham appears to be an honorary American now
- CGI was pretty good (unlike so many aircraft portrayals) – the Fletcher-class and the Flower-class corvette, looked to be sufficiently accurate
- Good to see the RN and the RCN were included as well as reference to merchant sailors from other allied nations (through the Greek merchant)

Negatives
- Of all the names they could have used (Harry was pretty cool) why did they call a British destroyer Eagle?? No!!!!!!
- The movement inside the ship didn’t seem to match what the destroyer was doing, battling against the waves, and the sailors should have been battling the elements more – cold, wet and being thrown about
- Elisabeth Shue’s part really wasn’t worth turning up for. I mean give her a bit more to do or just decide to do away with her “character” altogether. A waste of 5 minutes or whatever she was on for.
- The taunting of the crew by the U-boat commanders….. mmm that was the only bit that really grated. Just no. As far as I know there was no incidence of this and it was all a bit hammy.

I just finished watching the movie, and I must confess I was pleasantly surprised, as I had kept my expectations low enough, given Hollywood’s track record... and seeing a Fletcher in April 42 was a bad omen at start.

I agree on most of Warspite’s comments, albeit I think the Eagle was a Polish destroyer, not British. And as a non-American, I salute the effort to mention the other co-belligerents, and not a lone token.

The taunting by radio is the only thing which really irritated me.
The inclusion of Elisabeth Shue was not too invasive, it conferred some human dimension, and served as plot exposition regarding Cdr Krause’s career and first command.

I liked the fact the POV was attached to the eponymous ship (and even more on Hanks’ character), but I felt the movie a bit too short, with the action sequences too fast, but there’s been worse on the big screen. But 10-20 minutes more would have allowed to make the tension rise higher between actions. It would have made a perfect counter-point to Das Boot or the numerous other submarine movies. I’ve read the book a long time ago, and I didn’t feel the inner turmoil of Krause or the mood of the crew as well as it ought to. But a movie rarely conveys the same feelings as a good book.

Overall, I’m not disappointed. And it made me think of the Hibiki (I might have to dig the forum to recover that, to read it again).

[tolsdorff]

you mean this one ?

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: tolsdorff

you mean this one ?

Yeah, thank you !

[Sardaukar]

It was better than I thought.

Should have had those knife-fight scenes during dark night, as they happened sometimes then.

And "Pillenwerfer" (BOLD decoy,) while it came to use in 1942, might not have been around yet (IIRC timeline of movie is early 1942?).

[CaptBeefheart]

In the book it's a Polish destroyer. There is no Brit destroyer.

One question: Does the film capture the multinational aspect of the TF well? In the book, Krause modifies his actions to take into the account the sensibilities of the several nationalities involved. It's a small but interesting part of the story, at least to me.

Cheers,
CB

[789456281]

Tom hanks is a liberal turd bag lousy actor too boot.Cannot stand that worthless PUD.Watch the cruel sea instead.Fantastic movie.