Movies like "Das Boot"?

[littleike]

Das Boot is one if not "the best" war film i have ever seen.

A film where you forget the side for whom the soldiers are fighting and you only feel them as fellows and brothers that are at war for their country.

12 o clock high is another great film (Another B17 well done film is "Memphis belle") where you feel the homesickness not of the war but of the men who shared that experience together.

Talking of homesickness I remember also a touching scenery from "the best days of our lives" where an ex B17 pilot dismissed at the end of the war walks though an airplane graveyard looking for a job . (You can find it easily on you tube….Ah how i would have payed to take home one of these beasts to restore it bit by bit!!)

I agree totally that there is no need of mad action to have a good war film.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: littleike

Das Boot is one if not "the best" war film i have ever seen

I agree totally that there is no need of mad action to have a good war film.

warspite1

First comment +1

Second comment - for proof of that have a look at Conspiracy if you have not yet seen it. Stonkingly good piece of drama [&o]

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: littleike

Das Boot is one if not "the best" war film i have ever seen

I agree totally that there is no need of mad action to have a good war film.

warspite1

First comment +1

Second comment - for proof of that have a look at Conspiracy if you have not yet seen it. Stonkingly good piece of drama [&o]

I agree with Warspite1.[8D]

Das Boot is probably the best war film ever made ( with 'Apocalypse Now' running a very close second ).

Conspiracy is BRILLIANT!!
One of the scariest portrayals of wartime bureaucratic brutality ever made.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Empire101

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: littleike

Das Boot is one if not "the best" war film i have ever seen

I agree totally that there is no need of mad action to have a good war film.

warspite1

First comment +1

Second comment - for proof of that have a look at Conspiracy if you have not yet seen it. Stonkingly good piece of drama [&o]

I agree with Warspite1.[8D]

Das Boot is probably the best war film ever made ( with 'Apocalypse Now' running a very close second ).

Conspiracy is BRILLIANT!!
One of the scariest portrayals of wartime bureaucratic brutality ever made.

Warspite1

Kenneth Brannagh is superb (and suitably menacing) as Heydrich. But the incredible thing was when someone asked for a show of hands; how many people round the table at the Wannsee conference were qualified lawyers. It must have been around half to three quarters. The people that set the Final Solution in train were not mindless thugs, but well educated human beings..... Shocking...

[spence]

"Gods and Generals" is the reason that they'll never make a movie out of "The Last Full Measure" which was a much better book (probably because it was the author's second effort). Way too bad.

"The Lighthorsemen", "Anzacs", and "Beneath Hill 60" are all Australian WWI movies that call to mind the American Private's comment in "Gettysburg" about "these officers that ain't fit to lead a jonny detail, that ain't fit to pour pee out of a boot with the instructions written under the heel" (It would seem that Australians have a certain displeasure with the way that British commanders have employed them over the years). I really thought each of those movies, as war movies, were really good.

I don't think the Stukas were real in "Battle of Britian" but the Heinkels, Messerschmitts, Sptifires, Tante Ju and Hurricane were. The air to air stuff was the best that any studio has even done IMHO (a lot of the air to air stuff in that other classic "Twelve O'clock High" wasn't done in any studio).

Along with "Das Boot" and "Run Silent, Run Deep" I'd say "The Enemy Below" is a great "ASW Movie". The ending was a little corny (in the American movie- different and reflecting the prevailing hatred of the time in the British book) but that didn't spoil the tension as the two commanders tried to out-think one another.

It's really great when any movie reaches into and touches something inside a person. Such movies overall are rare. As a minority of movies the number of good war movies is even smaller. Too bad most of Hollywood's efforts aim merely to collect money.

[spence]

"Gods and Generals" is the reason that they'll never make a movie out of "The Last Full Measure" which was a much better book (probably because it was the author's second effort). Way too bad.

"The Lighthorsemen", "Anzacs", and "Beneath Hill 60" are all Australian WWI movies that call to mind the American Private's comment in "Gettysburg" about "these officers that ain't fit to lead a jonny detail, that ain't fit to pour pee out of a boot with the instructions written under the heel" (It would seem that Australians have a certain displeasure with the way that British commanders have employed them over the years). I really thought each of those movies, as war movies, were really good.

I don't think the Stukas were real in "Battle of Britian" but the Heinkels, Messerschmitts, Sptifires, Tante Ju and Hurricane were. The air to air stuff was the best that any studio has even done IMHO (a lot of the air to air stuff in that other classic "Twelve O'clock High" wasn't done in any studio).

Along with "Das Boot" and "Run Silent, Run Deep" I'd say "The Enemy Below" is a great "ASW Movie". The ending was a little corny (in the American movie- different and reflecting the prevailing hatred of the time in the British book) but that didn't spoil the tension as the two commanders tried to out-think one another.

It's really great when any movie reaches into and touches something inside a person. Such movies overall are rare. As a minority of movies the number of good war movies is even smaller. Too bad most of Hollywood's efforts aim merely to collect money.

[StK]

@spence I don't know the book but from experience all I can say is good books don't make good movies. Some books can't be made into an adequate film, but most books simply aren't made into good movies because someone screws up.

All I can say is I think Gods and Generals made a terrific movie.
"Battle for Britain" is actually a movie I wanted to buy a long time ago but somehow I never did.. My next order will include it.

[spence]

I read somewhere that at the time of the making of "Battle of Britian" the studio could only find 6 "flyable" Spitfires (perhaps of the appropriate Mark-I'm not enough of an a/c afficionado to recognize which ones they were using). But during the filming it sure looks like they crashed one/one really crashed (in the final battle sequence).

As for "Gods and Generals" I eagerly anticipated it coming out. When I watched it all I can say is that I eagerly anticipated it coming to a (merciful) end.

[Canoerebel]

Gods and Generals was terrible. Honestly. Just terrible.

[StK]

@Canoerebel:
Would you tell me why you say so?
I don't really know much about the realities of the American Civil war (which is a big oversight of mine because I'm supposed to be a history teacher. In my defense I do know may way around the theoretical aspects of it). As was mentioned in my other thread everybody is ignorant in some topic, but I would really like to know more.

[wolfclan]

spence:
Speaking of Aussie movies, I have always thought that BREAKER MORANT was very good.

[spence]

I enjoyed "Breaker Morant" also. I sort of thought it was more of a "courtroom drama" than a "war movie" but that may just be me.

IMHO "Gettysburg" is far and away a better movie than "Gods and Generals". "Gettysburg" is based on the book "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara. "Gods and Generals" is a similarly formatted book (Chapters named after the General/Character who's point of view they convey) written by Michael Shaara's son Jeff (Michael Shaara died). I think "Gettysburg" was easier to do both as a movie and a book because the time scale was compressed to just the few days of the battle and those immediately preceding them. "Gods and Generals" (the movie) tried to cover 2 years of the war and IIRC pretty much ignored the point of view of one of the principle players in the war during that time: General George McClellan (along with Ambrose Burnside and Joseph Hooker) . It left out half of the story of the war (to say nothing of leaving out all of the fighting in the West) such that much of what is left becomes incomprehensible. Lee and Jackson's reputations owed a great deal to the missteps and fears of the Union commanders who faced them. The movie "Gettysburg" works without the commander (mostly) of The Army of the Potomac because it was mostly a "soldier's battle" from the Union perspective: strategic direction didn't matter to the movie's plot, the Union tactical commanders and Confederate mistakes determined the victory (the high quality and motivation of the common soldier on both sides only made the battle bloodier rather than contributing to the victory of one over the other).

Another advantage that "Gettysburg" had over "Gods and Generals" is that over 10,000 amateur Civil War re-enactors (rather than extras) took part in making the movie. The uniforms are authentic, the tactics are authentic because they take great pride in transforming themselves into their historical counterparts. I believe that over 5,000 participated in the reenactment of Picketts Charge. The only artillery barrage ever fired in North America which was bigger than the one preceding Pickett's Charge in the movie "Gettysburg" was the artillery barrage that preceded the real Pickett's Charge during the real Battle of Gettysburg. Gods and Generals used computers. Not the same...not as good.

[StK]

@spence
Thank you. The only of those things that I picked up when watching it was the accelerated time and the focus on one theater of the movie, which irritated me a little but was in my view offset by the depicting of character, although I wouldn't know if it was done properly (I only know so much about the Generals that fought in that war). For the really detailed stuff, my knowledge about uniforms and the likes in the American Civil War simply isn't good enough. I will watch it again keeping those points in mind.

Another thing is I simply can't get my head around the tactics used from the Napoleonic Era up until the American Civil War. Especially in the American Civil War because of the technological advances of weaponry.

[treespider]

Sitting here with my bud and he suggested Battleground and Hell is for Heroes.

[treespider]

Another is A Walk in the Sun

[spence]

Q: Who's battles filled every military textbook in the 1830's, 40's and 50's?
A: Napoleon

Q: Who did all those Union and Confederate generals fight in Mexico?
A: Santa Anna, (self-styled) Napoleon of the West

Q: What technological advance happened right after they'd gained all that experience in Mexico?
A: Mr Minie invented his bullet that allowed for the rapid loading of a rifled musket and an increase in effective range of the ordinary soldier's weapon by a factor of 5.

Q: Guess what didn't matter much on the tactical scale any more?
A: All that theoretical learning from school AND all that experience with battle in Mexico.

[StK]

@spence:
I know all that. I know Napoleons tactics where the ones that filled the military textbook. It really isn't meant disrespectful to anybody, because of course its me reflecting on this with 20/20 hindsight. But never mind those theoretical aspects your soldiers know they can fire their weapon with good accuracy and reload at a rather quick rate, so they have to know something like Picketts charge won't work unless you have vastly superior numbers (and then it won't end pretty). Advancing in the open against people in defensive positions with accurate firearms is certain death.

I also think that there was the thought of that war was always fought like this and something so simple as a musket shouldn't be able to change the rules so quickly and so completely. A thought which has its merits but it didn't stand the test of the battlefield.

Again I mean no disrespect and I never was a soldier (I served a year in the Red Cross instead) I simply can not imagine myself in the position of those soldiers.

[pmelheck1]

I know someone stated earlier that they didn't like we were soldiers but I and my wife liked it very much. My wife liked it as it's the only movie I can recall off the top of my head that depicts the folks at home in quite the same depth. My wife was a brat and she liked this aspect of the film very much. As for my I liked 2 points. First was the Sgt Major. I knew some folks just like him very humorous for me ... Second thing I liked is that it didn't try to portray soldiers and vets as burned out losers. I am sick to death of these movies portraying all vets as losers who are incapable of surviving out side the military or are thieves, losers, perverts, mentally unstable, ect, ect, ect.

I do not believe that to be a good war movie it must have a anti war/anti military theme. Not all do but more then a few do.

[Justus2]

ORIGINAL: StK

@spence:
I know all that. I know Napoleons tactics where the ones that filled the military textbook. It really isn't meant disrespectful to anybody, because of course its me reflecting on this with 20/20 hindsight. But never mind those theoretical aspects your soldiers know they can fire their weapon with good accuracy and reload at a rather quick rate, so they have to know something like Picketts charge won't work unless you have vastly superior numbers (and then it won't end pretty). Advancing in the open against people in defensive positions with accurate firearms is certain death.

I also think that there was the thought of that war was always fought like this and something so simple as a musket shouldn't be able to change the rules so quickly and so completely. A thought which has its merits but it didn't stand the test of the battlefield.

Again I mean no disrespect and I never was a soldier (I served a year in the Red Cross instead) I simply can not imagine myself in the position of those soldiers.

I agree with Spence, years of training and experience are hard to overcome, the whole 'refight the last war' mentality that has vexed commanders for generations. Look at the French in WWII, even with the changes in aircraft and tanks, their strategy and doctrine did not change much.

Another reason I have read about for the amount of bloodshed (the 'advancing in the open to certain death') from the Civil War was that most regiments were made up of volunteers, generally from the same areas. While there is always the 'peer pressure' not to run or desert in front of your brothers in arms, that was multiplied by the fact that they weren't just fellow Soldiers, but they were your brothers, cousins, and neighbors. If they advanced, and you fled, everyone in your town, your own family, would know you had 'turned coward'. Very powerful motivation to stick it through.

[StK]

Now I derailed the topic myself [8|].
I don't really want to go down this path because it might hurt someones feelings with a remark that was never meant that way.
I apologize if someone feels offended.