What is your favourite war movie? And the worst?

Raverdave · Post by **Raverdave** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 5:49 pm

Originally posted by DP
Hey Raverdave:

I remember Midway in Sensoround. When they cranked up those B-25's, it felt like the theater was going to crumble! They must have had a dozen speakers on each side of the room, each about four feet high.

Oh yeah! IIRC they used the same effect for the movie "Earthquake".

Raverdave · Post by **Raverdave** » Wed Jul 02, 2003 5:54 pm

D'oh! Nearly forgot one for the "Shite" list..........."Heartbreak Ridge" with Clint Eastwood.

AbsntMndedProf · Post by **AbsntMndedProf** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 2:41 am

My favorite(s) are tied; Battle of Britain for its authentic WW II era aircraft, thanks largely to the Spanish Air Force, and Bridge at Remagen for the great action sequences and the stellar performances in it, and last but not least 12 O'Clock High, the best film I've seen that tries to show the effects on airmen of the strategic bombing campaign over Europe by the 8th Airforce.

I'll have to get back to you on my least favorite. There are so many to choose from!:D:D

Eric Maietta

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 3:06 am

Actually while there WERE some defininte turkeys from years gone by, I have to say, most movies made since about 1980 have in a lot of cases added elements to the films, that ruin it for me.

Swearing, I swear like the rest of the world, but, I really don't like it in a movie. If they must swear, could they at least swear they way they actually did in the time period in question.

Sex, I would rather limit sex in my life, to when I am alone with a woman. I would rather it stayed out of my movies entirely.

Lousy idiotic fireball explosions. The more modern the films get, the dumber looking the munitions seem to get. Someone please teach hollywood what real explosions look like.

I would rather have dramatic acting over "awwwwwesome special effects". Because often, the special effects have no lasting value.
A well acted movie can be watched many times. But most films that only offer cheesy action, are only good once if that.

I expect uniforms to be done correct. I expect small arms to be accurate. I can forgive them not having the absolutely categorically correct vehicle down to the rivets. Using poorly selected stock footage though is inept.

I like the old films, even the ones we like to sling jeers at. I will pick for instance Battle of the Bulge over Pearl Harbour any day.
The first might look bad, but the Pearl Harbour film had access to the latest in cutting edge film technology, and all they gave us was a **** love story with a high tech attack sequence.
They should have chosen one or the other.

tmac · Post by **tmac** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:06 am

Some of my favorites:

Older movies I saw with my father (great movies that have added value for sharing the viewing with that old Marine)
Tora tora tora
Battle of Britain
Sink the Bismark
Bridge over River Kwai
Stalag 17
Kellys Heroes
Zulu
The Enemy Below
12 oclock high
Battle of the Bulge (cheesy but fun, and it does have that d*** song)
Combat (tv series that I think most of the actors served, so they come across very realistic, even if the plots weren't always)

Newer movies I enjoyed:
Saving Private Ryan
Schindlers List
Band of Brothers (**** this sounds like a speilberg rant)
BoB gets my vote for favorite all time, especially for those poignant interviews with the actual old vets.

Paths of Glory (older movie thats maybe the best anti-war movie I've seeen, it's great)

Worst all time:
Wow, Pearl Harbor vs Thin Red Line
I agree with Les the Sarge about Red Line ruining book just like Dune, but at least sci-fi channel remade that reasonably well. This movie is just a muddled mess of egos and bad acting. Pearl Harbor is a few hours of my life that I will NEVER get back, and I am angry about that. This movie should be avoided at all costs. Even the much vaunted battle scene dissapointed me greatly, most ships were these modern ships with sharply arching bows that looked like this was shot yesterday instead of 1941. i hated it, and was soo let down. Its a cheesy love story masquerading as a war film. Give me a break.

SLAAKMAN · Post by **SLAAKMAN** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:44 am

BEST- Kelly's Heros(1960's), Waterloo(1970's), All Quiet on the Western Front (1980).

Legbreaker · Post by **Legbreaker** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:56 am

Originally posted by Golf33

The Odd Angry Shot is awesome and unusual, although tubby old Graham Kennedy is a bit hard to take as an SASR Corporal, and the movie doesn't exactly showcase the SASR in general.

[/B]

I thought I was the only one who'd seen that gem. I agree that Graham Kennedy is a bit hard to believe but overall a great film. My most memorable scene is at the bridge with the White Phos. The ending is about as fitting as it could be - really showed the public perceptions towards the soldiers of the day.

Best movies - most of the above including Aliens for it's thoughtful approach to what the future could hold for small unit tactics and tech.

Worst movies - Arrrrrgh!!! too many, too many. Missing in action leaps to mind as does all those pretentious historial revisionist movies such as Pearl harbour and U571

Ian Packham · Post by **Ian Packham** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:19 am

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1

Sex, I would rather limit sex in my life, to when I am alone with a woman.

Have you any idea how tempting that statement is. I am just itching to say something. Will I?, Won't I?, Will I?, Won't I?

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1

Lousy idiotic fireball explosions. The more modern the films get, the dumber looking the munitions seem to get. Someone please teach hollywood what real explosions look like.

I would rather have dramatic acting over "awwwwwesome special effects". Because often, the special effects have no lasting value.
A well acted movie can be watched many times. But most films that only offer cheesy action, are only good once if that.

I expect uniforms to be done correct. I expect small arms to be accurate. I can forgive them not having the absolutely categorically correct vehicle down to the rivets. Using poorly selected stock footage though is inept.

Come on now.. I like to see enormous fireballs hundreds of feet high especially when a concrete building containing no ammunition is hit. What about the hydraulic jacks which fire drums miles into the air. You want these special effect people to lose their jobs?

I could never understand why each film always has to create its own costumes. Once one film gets them historicaly right, then others could just borrow the costumes and save a lot of money.
But thats not the Hollywood way of doing things.

Raverdave · Post by **Raverdave** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 10:39 am

Yup.....gotta agree with my fellow Aussies...."An Odd Angry Shot" is a classic....not sure if it got a wide screening outside of Australia. The way that they patrolled...well they got that part spot on. As with everything, the book was much better.

I remember seen a B&W war film that was soooo cheesy that one of the Germans was a black guy! Talk about cheep!:eek:

Ian Packham · Post by **Ian Packham** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 4:13 pm

Riverdave, I like your signature. Hope you dont mind if I borrow it.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 4:41 pm

Been a long time since I watched The Odd Angry Shot, but it was a good film.

AbsntMndedProf · Post by **AbsntMndedProf** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 4:43 pm

Tmac posted:

Pearl Harbor is a few hours of my life that I will NEVER get back, and I am angry about that. This movie should be avoided at all costs.

I agree! I made the mistake of renting Pearl Harbor. Luckily, the place I rented it gives 'two for one' rentals, so at least I got to see one good movie. I think Tora, tora, tora! is a much better treatment of the subject, even without the flashy special effects.

Eric Maietta

AbsntMndedProf · Post by **AbsntMndedProf** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:11 pm

Another good movie I just remembered is Attack Force Z with Mel Gibson.

Eric Maietta

Von Rom · Post by **Von Rom** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:24 pm

Some personal favourites:

1) Kelly's Heroes and The Great Escape (great double bill).

2) The Blue Max (with George Peppard)

3) Saving Private Ryan

4) Where Eagles Dare

5) Patton

6) Tora, Tora, Tora

7) Das Boot (with sub titles)

8) Last of the Mohicans (great flick)

9) Glory

10) Gettysburg

11) Mr. Roberts

12) Pork Chop Hill

13) Khartoum (with Charles Heston)

14) The Sand Pebbles (with Steve McQueen)

I could go on and on. . .

The worst?

Hmmm....

Windtalkers, Thin Red Line. . .

I don't mind a film using the wrong equipment (I try to over look it). But when the story itself is poorly done or cheesy, then give me the fast forward button. . .

Cheers!

Losqualo · Post by **Losqualo** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:34 pm

A title I miss in this thread (and there only) - be it best movie or worst - is "apocalypse now". I always thought it was a movie to love or to hate.
But since it's not mentioned here, it seems people do not care much.

Actually it would be the worst on my worst list, if a could accept it as a movie

.

Von Rom · Post by **Von Rom** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 5:46 pm

What is worse than the passing of great war movies, is the loss of many of the great actors.

Where are the NEW Steve McQueens, Gregory Pecks, Kirk Douglass, Richard Burtons, Clint Eastwoods, Henry Fondas, Charleton Hestons, Charles Bronsons, Yul Brenners. . .?

Are special effects now substituting for good acting and story lines?

Belisarius · Post by **Belisarius** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 6:14 pm

Originally posted by Von Rom
What is worse than the passing of great war movies, is the loss of many of the great actors.

Where are the NEW Steve McQueens, Gregory Pecks, Kirk Douglass, Richard Burtons, Clint Eastwoods, Henry Fondas, Charleton Hestons, Charles Bronsons, Yul Brenners. . .?

Are special effects now substituting for good acting and story lines?

It certainly seems that way. Hollywood producers are yielding for cheap special effects that appeal to the average movie-goer. Or does it really?

This matrix craze we're seeing will hopefully backlash and bring focus to films with good acting instead of good effects. Although I like matrix since it has a clever plot as well, albeit not the best acting around except for Hugo Weaving.

Who knows, in the future today's actors may be regarded with the same esteem as the ones you mention? Personally I hope not, because they are a different breed altogheter.

My most recent "old" film I saw was "Desert Fox" from 1951. James Mason is BRILLIANT as Rommel.

The only current actor I think could make a similar performance would be Ed Harris.

Von Rom · Post by **Von Rom** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:10 pm

Originally posted by Belisarius
It certainly seems that way. Hollywood producers are yielding for cheap special effects that appeal to the average movie-goer. Or does it really?

This matrix craze we're seeing will hopefully backlash and bring focus to films with good acting instead of good effects. Although I like matrix since it has a clever plot as well, albeit not the best acting around except for Hugo Weaving.

Who knows, in the future today's actors may be regarded with the same esteem as the ones you mention? Personally I hope not, because they are a different breed altogheter.

My most recent "old" film I saw was "Desert Fox" from 1951. James Mason is BRILLIANT as Rommel. The only current actor I think could make a similar performance would be Ed Harris.

Yes, Ed Harris was brilliant in Enemy at the Gates.

James Mason, another excellent actor.

I should also add John Wayne, Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, David Jansen, etc.

Many of the new actors seem to be light-weights. Anyone who has seen the remake of the Four Feathers will know what I mean. It has great action sequences, but the lead roles were insignificant actors (can you say "Over acting?").

I guess film makers are trying to appeal to the younger generation. Too bad. I have run into many 20 year olds who have never seen Spartacus or Ben Hur. True classic films. . .

Cheers!

Aetius · Post by **Aetius** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 9:18 pm

My all time favorite war movies are all listed in the previous posts, so i'll post a bit on the movies that haven't been discussed yet.

Did anybody see "march or die" i always thougt it had great fighting scenes.
Gene Hackman gave a great acting performance, as usual.

another favorite is "Devils Brigade", somethimes a bit to much "heroism" but OK.

A black & white classic to me is "The password is courage" with subtitle "A Hero Named Coward" based on the true war time story of sergeant major Charles Coward, the only british soldier given the EK II.

greetz

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 9:48 pm

Films are often memorable due to special conditions.

I saw Midway in theatre with my father. Last film I actually saw in theatre with my father. Today it is a major accomplishment if he doesn't fall asleep part way through sports news hehe.

I remember watching Devils Brigade at my first Army Cadet camp. I hated the camp immensely, but they had gone and acquired the movie to watch there. The actual movie reels eh. Unfortunately something happened to the film, we didn't get to see last half (oh you can imagine how well that flew with the group). I waited several years before I got to see second half.

I remember being not old enough to see Apocalypse Now when it came to theatre. Missed it by a couple of years. Took me a long while to finally see it. I think it was a land mark film even if it was an odd war movie.

Today we have thanks to CGI no excuse whatsoever to see inaccuracies. The tigers should be genuine articles visually. There is NO excuse now whatsoever for a film showing us junk. So now it is clear hollywood could care less when we get Pearl Harbours shoved on us.

Acting appears dead in 1 in 3 movies at least. If the film isn't an animation or a comedy, your chances become 50-50 you wasted your money it seems.
Sadly I don't think we will get any more epics with comically bad props and knee deep in big name actors.
The rule now seems to be two mega names that cost an insane fortune, and special effects that are not so special when you consider accuracy.

Saving Private Ryan is quite frankly unique mainly for how odd it is when compared against what is more commonly the case.
It stands out so obviously when placed in the same time period as WindTalkers which was an over rated film highlighting Nic Cage's bland acting and very inaccurate special effects. Thin Red Line was just a poorly directed film from the get go.

Aside from Saving Private Ryan, if asked what films were most memorable in last 10 years, I am forced to state, most were Disney children's films.
I can list dozens of great films in seconds if I skip last 10- 15 years. If asked to list great films in the last 10 - 15 years though, I start to need time to think after I pick the first 5 more obvious titles.

Hollywood today, is mostly about shallow unmemorable cheesy action dependent special effect instead of acting based films. Some of the better films being totally animation are not easy to use as comparisons.
I really thought The Spirits Within was incredible, but then it was just an animation film. I was really impressed with Spirited Away, but again, its just a feature length anime film.
I thought the recent film Finding Nemo was a great laugh fest. But its an animated comedy about two fish.
Dinosaurs was great, again not real people.

I have been quite blown away by the two films so far for Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. I am not even concerned the film took a bit of artistic license with the book version. It was a great visual spectacle, and the characters sure come to life.

The recent rise of comic books made into film have been fun. They have been light on plot, but then, they are after all based on comic characters.

War Movies though, we war movie fans are most assuredly getting ripped off with what we are being given lately in most cases. Hi Tech has not given us high quality films much.