What's Your worst war movie ever

[VicKevlar]

Old Eagle101 glad to see you haven't changed. Why don't you just go and hang out with the other 3 wing nuts I know so well that have a personal problem with me, and stop pretending to actually have anything useful to say.

Pity you couldn't have settled for being at a loss for words and left it that way.

Knock it off Les. You are now warned.

[Rummy]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

I remember the first time I watched Battle of Britain, must of been, over 20 years ago, I think I was in grade 2, or so. Much later on, recently I got around to watching it again, with a lot more understanding. It is somewhat great to find a decent war movie without the typical far fetched hero bs you see in Holywood.

But now hearing about this Tom Cruise version, I am pretty weary myself. Especialy now that Tom is now in control of both directing and screen writing. Not to stray too far off topic but I remember my disapointment over the whole Mission Impossible bit. Guy almost re-wrote the entire series into something that would of never happened... And naturaly made himself the star... Granted, MI was fiction so perhaps we should not get too upset over it but..... why do I sense something similar is going to happen all over again.

I still consider Battle of Britain to be one of the best (top 3) war movies of all time--not just for the aerial dogfights, which are impressive, but for its grasp and portrayal of the enormous significance of the battle in which these lonely, almost inadequate pilots were engaged.

Its capture of the Germans overwhelming victory in France, their overconfidence, Britain's inadequacies and heroism, and the sheer determination of the British pilots all add up to a superb film that doesn't receive the kudos it deserves.

[JaegerJ]

Rummy,
"Your Favorite War Movie", forum is on some other page. We were putting in votes for WORST war films. Got any?

And yes, "Battle of Britian", the original is a good film. I'll have to watch it again. It's been years and years since I've seen it.

[Rummy]

ORIGINAL: JaegerJ

Rummy,
"Your Favorite War Movie", forum is on some other page. We were putting in votes for WORST war films. Got any?

And yes, "Battle of Britian", the original is a good film. I'll have to watch it again. It's been years and years since I've seen it.

Already posted them on page 2 of this thread: The Thin Red Line and Windtalkers.

[DzrtFox]

Easy...

Red Dawn is THE stupidest war movie ever. The Russians parachuting in and attacking the critical strongpoint of a small-town high school, being fended off by a group of high schoolers. This movie scared the crap out of me when I was a kid watching it, but I went back and watched it recently and it is HORRIBLE!!!

[mavraam]

Battle of the Bulge

There are soo many bad ones, its hard to know where to start, but you nailed it with this one! Is there a single part of this movie that is historically accurate? If memory serves, the entire German assault is stopped because of one wounded soldier who rolls fuel barrels down a road and lights them on fire. It would be hilarous if it wasn't so sad.

The main ones listed:
Pearl Harbor (I didn't realize the Japanese concentrated on strafing nurses on the way to the hospital instead of taking out ships!),
Wind Talker,
U-571

are all first team as well.

Here's one I don't think has been mentioned yet:

Casualties of War! (More anti-American, evil, capitalist, rapist propoganda that Kerry probably loved.) But the best part was Michael J. Fox's performance in one of the worst casting decisions in the history of movies. The mockery of his cracking whiney dialogue on Saturday Night Live is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

[mavraam]

ORIGINAL: jnier

ORIGINAL: showboat1

I always forget to include the Thin Red Line simply becuase it is SOOOOOOOOOO bad that I try to block it from my memory.

Everytime this thread come up I dread it because I know someone will say how bad Thin Red Line was. Well guess what - lots of people think it's a great movie, such as:

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_rev ... 10802.html
http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movie ... n_red.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/mov ... 4&afl=imdb
http://www.boxoffice.com/scripts/fiw.dl ... IN+RED+LIN

The movie seems to try to combine the style of independent film with the content of a war movie - which is probably why it seems to evoke "I loved it" or "I hated it" type of reaction and not much in between. I loved it. Of course, you're entitled to hate it.

I actually loved this movie but don't consider it a war movie in the traditional sense. Its a Malick movie and that says much more than the subject matter. The movie has more in common with Days of Heaven than Patton. I'm not even sure I consider what Malick does to be movies! They are more like audio visual works of art. But I love them. So I guess you're right, you either love it or hate it!

[mavraam]

Patton was too much about Patton

How dare they make a movie called Patton about Patton!

[mavraam]

Hollywood updates history of Battle of Britain: Tom Cruise won it all on his own
The 'Top Gun' star is making a new film glorifying American Billy Fiske as the hero of this country's 'finest hour'. But veterans say that, though a remarkable man, Fiske died without shooting down a single plane. Cole Moreton talks to those who knew him
11 April 2004

As a proud American, I would like to go on record and appologize in advance to the entire United Kingdom for the missrepresentation of our part in defending against the German air assault that this movie will undoubtably make.

Aren't there enough TRUE stories of heroism? Why does Hollywood have to make this crap up?

[dinsdale]

Theres a good parody of U571 here http://www.fishtank.org.uk/humour/humou ... icleid=108 referring to England's 5-1 win over Germany and a proposed Hollywood film

[Pippin]

Does anyone remember this one movie... and older one.. where the chinese, or japanese were trying to take over the U.S. by digging tunnels under the oceans etc all the way over to the states, and were planning to do a suprise attack that way?

I forget how most of the plot went along, but something about the americans discovering what was going on, and they ended up saving the typical day in the end. For the life of me, I just can't remember what this one was called, but someone here HAS to have seen it!

And BTW, they ended up sticking caucasians in as the chinese/japs, and put makeup on em. I guess it was too hard to find oriental acters willing to play along with such a story...

[runes]

"The Big Red One, starring Lee Marvin and Luke Skywalker "

hey, i liked the big red one! haha. i tend to enjoy anything starring either: Lee Marvin, Donal Sutherland, or Telly Sevalas.

my vote?

Windtalkers. what an utter piece of trash.

the worst part is when one of the characters is like: How are we ever going to get over to the japanese lines?

camera cut

cage and injin guy shown behind enemy lines.



er...?? huh?


also, enemy at the gates wins a close second worst.

it tried to be three movies at once (pscyhological thriller, romance and war movie) and failed. it had so much promise, but went down the crapper.


and for the record, i enjoyed pearl harbour, it had some really good action sequences.

[Pippin]

Actualy, some interresting news regarding holywood....


Warner Bros. To Punish Poor Quality Games
According to reports officials from Warner Brothers are to planning fluctuate the licensing fees paid by publishers for their properties, according to how well the resultant games are received by reviewers.

According to Jason Hall, senior VP of the newly formed Warner Brothers Interactive Entertainment, "The game industry has had its time to exploit movie studios all day long and to get away with producing inferior products. But, with Warner Brothers, no more."

Hall has mentioned sites such as GameRankings.com, Metacritic.com and GameStats.com specifically, indicating that future Warner Bros. licensed games must achieve at least a 70% rating or incur an increase in royalty rates.

However, this tough stance has already caused controversy in relation to Enter the Matrix which despite making $250 million world-wide was critically panned by most reviewers.

Hall has been adamant that “sales don’t equal quality” but Atari boss Bruno Bonnell, whose company publishes Enter the Matrix, has claimed that, “I will never, ever sign this sort of agreement, which effectively insults our business."

Source: Hollywood Reporter

[mavraam]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

Actualy, some interresting news regarding holywood....


Warner Bros. To Punish Poor Quality Games
According to reports officials from Warner Brothers are to planning fluctuate the licensing fees paid by publishers for their properties, according to how well the resultant games are received by reviewers.

According to Jason Hall, senior VP of the newly formed Warner Brothers Interactive Entertainment, "The game industry has had its time to exploit movie studios all day long and to get away with producing inferior products. But, with Warner Brothers, no more."

Hall has mentioned sites such as GameRankings.com, Metacritic.com and GameStats.com specifically, indicating that future Warner Bros. licensed games must achieve at least a 70% rating or incur an increase in royalty rates.

However, this tough stance has already caused controversy in relation to Enter the Matrix which despite making $250 million world-wide was critically panned by most reviewers.

Hall has been adamant that “sales don’t equal quality” but Atari boss Bruno Bonnell, whose company publishes Enter the Matrix, has claimed that, “I will never, ever sign this sort of agreement, which effectively insults our business."

Source: Hollywood Reporter

Just out of curiosity, I checked Enter the Matrix at Gamerankins and its just over 70 on the XBox and GameCube but just under 70 on PC and PS2 so it would have been right on the line.

Maybe the sales are meaningless in this case. After all if it made $250 mill but wasn't that good, doesn't it follow that it was the movies that made the game so popular and if it had been better, it may have made even more. Hard to say but I think as a rule, Gamerankings ends up being pretty accurate about the quality of a game.

Actually, come to think of it, Gamerankings is where I found out about Korsun Pocket and HTTR by searching for best WWII strategy games.

[Blackhorse]

Worst movies:

1. Breakthrough! I believe this is the title of the crap-awful sequel to the superb Cross of Iron. Stupid plot. Stilted Acting. Unrealistic battle scenes and equipment. 1970s anti-war moralizing set against the backdrop of the liberation of France. Could anything be more wrong?

2. Genghis Khan. Starring John Wayne as GK. Worst. Casting. Ever. Would be #1 but it has that car crash, "so awful you have to watch" quality about it.

3. The Thin Red Line. Lush, tropical. Beautiful art house flick. Would have been a great National Geographic special. Failed to even remotely capture the feel of what it was like to be a dirty, half-starved grunt in overstretched defensive positions in a malarial jungle / swamp. Dragged on foooorever. Couldn't tell the characters apart. The film has a false ending, then cranks up again so all the characters can jump into a landing craft to be rotated out while one of them muses "oh, my soul" . . . I was rooting for them to hit a mine, to put them out of my misery.

[Von Rom]

I think if countries want to see real, decent war movies, then other film industries need to step into the breach.

However, in the current film void, Hollywood will always push out whatever it thinks the public will swallow (and hand over money for).

Tom Cruise in the Battle of Britain?

Interesting. . .

Few realize that Canada had the second largest number of foreign pilots flying during all of the Battle of Britain, and they had a very distinquished flying record.

If we want that story to be told, then Canada will have to get off its derriere and make a movie about it. I'm not expecting Hollywood will do it.

If Europeans lament inaccurate American movies, then they should start making quality movies of their own.

If those movies make money, then Hollwood won't be far behind in making better ones

Nothing works better than good old fashioned competition. . .

Cheers!

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
I think if countries want to see real, decent war movies, then other film industries need to step into the breach.

Thing is, there are some decent foreign language war films made. No Man's Land was the last one I've been aware of, but I assume the genre hasn't died out. But where are the other English-language film industries? Canada, Aussie, Britain have all made great movies in the past why not now?

Hollywood will always be Hollywood, but there is surely room for an alternative, now more than ever before.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
I think if countries want to see real, decent war movies, then other film industries need to step into the breach.

Thing is, there are some decent foreign language war films made. No Man's Land was the last one I've been aware of, but I assume the genre hasn't died out. But where are the other English-language film industries? Canada, Aussie, Britain have all made great movies in the past why not now?

Hollywood will always be Hollywood, but there is surely room for an alternative, now more than ever before.

I agree.

You have to wonder why other countries aren't making good war movies anymore, such as Das Boot (Germany), Battle of Britain (Britain), Gallipolli (Australia), etc. . .

I wonder who controls the film distribution rights worldwide?

I also wonder if deals have been made between some countries to forgo their film industry in return for certain "concessions"?

There is still hope with the independent film companies such as Speilberg who did "Saving Private Ryan".

[warhead2]

ORIGINAL: Barticus

Easy enough for me, 'When Trumpets Fade'. Seemed to me to be a movie set in the 40's with slang and attitude from the 80's. Almost as bad as seeing a crowd chant Queen's 'We Will Rock You' at a supposedly Medieval Joust.

B

good mock-up stugs though,or PZIVs

[anarchyintheuk]

Hard to pick the worst out of this lot:

Pearl Harbor: Crappy romance story disguised as a crappy war movie. They would have been better off giving the money to Nick Adams, Pearl Harbor with Wallace and Grommit would have had more heart and realism.

Kelly's Heroes: Just gawdawful.

Revolution: Someone said this was Pacino's worst. I still rank Cruising as worse, altho it was unintentionally hilarious.

Patriot: Shite. However it may just be worth the price for the look on kids faces after Mel does a babe ruth job on the brit soldiers and their subsequent realization that, yes, their father is an axe-wielding maniac.

To bad Cruise isn't playing a brit in the BoB. I'd like to hear him butcher the accent. I always wished the Duke would have played Nelson just to hear it.