The only Mel war movie I wouldn't pick apart is We Were Soldiers. The parts with all the flag waving and the others with Mel kinda blew chunks, but the yellow cab with the wives parts were really heart stoppers.
Now onto the worst war movies ever, I think any of the 'Americans are Number One in the Box Office Recruiting' all fit the list (Windtalkers, Thin Red Line, Patriot, etc.) When Hollywood makes a movie to get ratings and milk the cash cow, that movie generally sucks. When they make a movie 'to just make the best damn movie I could afford to make', THEN you get a kicking movie.
BTW, the worst has to be Tears of the Sun.
What's Your worst war movie ever
Moderator: maddog986
-
Madcombinepilot
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 1:55 am
- Location: Saskatoon, Canada
RE: What's Your worst war movie ever
ORIGINAL: gunny
There's also an Italian flick about the Eastern Front that is pretty darn good. Can't remember the title.
would that be "The Battle of Neretva" by any chance? it was pretty good, Italian movie made in Yugoslavia about partisans vs italians/germans.
Maybe (it's been a while!) I just remember a few parts: the Italians were debating whether to continue fighting for the Germans, then they got attacked by a pretty significant Russian force--I think it was supposed to be Stalingrad, but those were Romanians . . .--and got slughtered. The last scene of the movie shows this poor Italian soldier crawling through the snow, looking around at the dead bodies of his comrades, realizing that he's never going to make it home. Pretty powerful.
Rodney J. Ross III
Reality is optional
Tom Cruise wins the Battle of Britain? I thought you were joking, but alas no...
http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/low_ ... =5&dir=215
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
Billy Fiske was a racing driver, a pilot, an Olympic gold medallist and an American - but one thing he did not do was win the Battle of Britain single-handed. Veterans and historians fear that will be the impression given, however, when Tom Cruise plays Fiske in a new film called The Few.
"I've heard it is almost like he won the war all on his own," says Ben Clinch, who loaded the guns fired by the real Billy Fiske and his comrades in 601 Squadron during the summer of 1940. "I can't see how they can make a film of Fiske's life. It was quite short. He was unremarkable, in the context of the squadron. He was just another pilot as far as we were concerned."
Hollywood's version of the Second World War has already shown Americans capturing the Enigma code machine in U571 (they didn't) and leading The Great Escape from a German prisoner of war camp (also not true). Pearl Harbor even suggested that the RAF only thwarted the Luftwaffe in the summer of 1940 because US pilots popped across the Atlantic to help out. Now Mr Cruise looks set to expand on that with his own version of what Churchill called our "finest hour".
Fiske was a remarkable character who did fly in the Battle of Britain, but recorded no confirmed kills. "It is going to be a farce if we have the Yanks shooting down everything in sight," says Bill Bond of the Battle of Britain Historical Society. "The battle was four weeks old when Billy was shot down. He made several sorties but he didn't shoot anything down, and his impact on the battle was negligible. We are concerned."
The Few is being made by Michael Mann, director of Top Gun, the jet-fighter movie that made Tom Cruise's name. Currently in development, it will be based on the life of William Meade Lindsley Fiske III, son of a wealthy Chicago family, who became the youngest Winter Olympics contestant to win a gold medal, in the bobsleigh at the age of 16. Handsome, charming and addicted to speed, he married the former Countess of Warwick and raced at Le Mans. So far, so historical, and filmable. But alarm bells started ringing when Variety, the movie world's magazine of choice, described the film's historical content. "In 1940, expert German fighters had decimated the Royal Air Force to the point that there weren't enough pilots left to fly the Spitfire planes sitting idly in hangars," it said. "Unable to rouse the US into action, a desperate Winston Churchill hatched a covert effort to recruit civilian American pilots to join the RAF. Risking prison sentences in the then-neutral US, a ragtag bunch of pilots answered the call." The magazine also looked forward to "ferocious dogfights between the overmatched American pilots and the German ace fliers".
This account prompted despairing laughter from Bill Bond last week. "It's hilarious," he said. "Totally wrong. The whole bloody lot. They flew Hurricanes for a start." Spitfires have a more romantic image, however. "Recruited by Churchill? Crap. They wouldn't have gone to prison either." And as for the idea of aircraft sitting idly by in hangars while the brave Americans took to the skies: "What a load of bloody rubbish. We did have a pilot shortage, but not to that extent."
Mr Bond has much more confidence in the accuracy of a forthcoming book by the author Alex Kershaw, whose proposal was the inspiration for The Few. The book is due to be published by Michael Joseph next year. Mr Kershaw also wrote The Bedford Boys, the basis for the film Saving Private Ryan.
There was no crack American squad of flyers, but at least nine US citizens did fly and fight during the Battle of Britain, according to the aviation historian Andy Saunders. "It would be an injustice to the memory of Billy Fiske were Hollywood to corrupt his story," said Mr Saunders in a recent edition of Aeroplane magazine. Although a gifted pilot, Fiske was frustrated by his own lack of combat action. His Hurricane caught fire in the air on 16 August 1940, but nobody knows whether this was because of enemy bullets or an accident. Soon after he landed, his airfield, RAF Tangmere, was attacked by Stuka bombers. Fiske died in hospital the next day from his burns.
Two other American pilots had been killed before him, but it was the dashing, well-connected Fiske who caught the public imagination - or was recognised as useful for propaganda purposes. Churchill sent a wreath to his airfield, and in July 1941 a plaque was unveiled by the Minister for Air at St Paul's Cathedral. His gravestone at Boxgrove in Sussex was replaced and rededicated in 2002.
"There is no doubt the Few, as Churchill called them, were wonderful," said Ben Clinch, now chairman of the 601 Squadron Royal Auxiliary Air Force Old Comrades' Association. "They gave their lives without thought. It's a good job they were there."
But his memories of the time are very different to those told in heroic movies: 601 was nicknamed the Millionaire's Squadron because most of its pilots moved in high social circles. "They were very aloof," said Mr Clinch.
When petrol rationing hit hard, one of the wealthy flyers bought a local garage outright, he said. "We used to get visits from theatrical types from the West End. The stars went to see the officers. The chorus line went to the non-commissioned officers. We got nothing."
Mr Clinch saw Billy Fiske's Hurricane land for the last time but took cover as buildings around him exploded. He has a print of a painting on his wall that shows one version of Fiske's last moments, but at 85 he is bemused by the attempts to immortalise this one of many pilots. "This resurrection is commercial, as far as I can see," he said. "But at my age I let sleeping dogs lie."
HOW UNCLE SAM REWROTE THE SCRIPT
Objective, Burma! (1945)
Errol Flynn's paratroopers overcome the Japanese with barely a Brit in sight, although it was really they who won the battle. The press and public, some of whom had fought in Burma, were so outraged that the film had to be withdrawn.
The Great Escape (1963)
Steve McQueen played a leading part in a mass escape from a POW camp. In real life, 76 got out of Stalag Luft III, but only three made it alive; 50 were shot and 23 recaptured. No Americans among them.
Braveheart (1995)
Mel Gibson as a charming William Wallace - not the real man who wore the skin of an opposing general as his belt. Wallace fathers a son by the Princess of Wales who really gave birth seven years after his execution.
Titanic (1998)
First Officer William McMaster Murdoch is remembered as a hero in his Scottish home for saving passengers. He froze to death in the sea. The film shows him shooting passengers in a blind panic.
U-571 (2000)
Harvey Keitel and other plucky American seamen pull an Enigma code machine from a sinking German submarine and change the course of the war. Except that it was the crew of HMS Bulldog.
The Patriot (2000)
Gibson again as a pacifist provoked into joining the American War of Independence when sadistic Brits herd women and children into a church and set fire to it. Nothing like that happened.
http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/low_ ... =5&dir=215
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
Billy Fiske was a racing driver, a pilot, an Olympic gold medallist and an American - but one thing he did not do was win the Battle of Britain single-handed. Veterans and historians fear that will be the impression given, however, when Tom Cruise plays Fiske in a new film called The Few.
"I've heard it is almost like he won the war all on his own," says Ben Clinch, who loaded the guns fired by the real Billy Fiske and his comrades in 601 Squadron during the summer of 1940. "I can't see how they can make a film of Fiske's life. It was quite short. He was unremarkable, in the context of the squadron. He was just another pilot as far as we were concerned."
Hollywood's version of the Second World War has already shown Americans capturing the Enigma code machine in U571 (they didn't) and leading The Great Escape from a German prisoner of war camp (also not true). Pearl Harbor even suggested that the RAF only thwarted the Luftwaffe in the summer of 1940 because US pilots popped across the Atlantic to help out. Now Mr Cruise looks set to expand on that with his own version of what Churchill called our "finest hour".
Fiske was a remarkable character who did fly in the Battle of Britain, but recorded no confirmed kills. "It is going to be a farce if we have the Yanks shooting down everything in sight," says Bill Bond of the Battle of Britain Historical Society. "The battle was four weeks old when Billy was shot down. He made several sorties but he didn't shoot anything down, and his impact on the battle was negligible. We are concerned."
The Few is being made by Michael Mann, director of Top Gun, the jet-fighter movie that made Tom Cruise's name. Currently in development, it will be based on the life of William Meade Lindsley Fiske III, son of a wealthy Chicago family, who became the youngest Winter Olympics contestant to win a gold medal, in the bobsleigh at the age of 16. Handsome, charming and addicted to speed, he married the former Countess of Warwick and raced at Le Mans. So far, so historical, and filmable. But alarm bells started ringing when Variety, the movie world's magazine of choice, described the film's historical content. "In 1940, expert German fighters had decimated the Royal Air Force to the point that there weren't enough pilots left to fly the Spitfire planes sitting idly in hangars," it said. "Unable to rouse the US into action, a desperate Winston Churchill hatched a covert effort to recruit civilian American pilots to join the RAF. Risking prison sentences in the then-neutral US, a ragtag bunch of pilots answered the call." The magazine also looked forward to "ferocious dogfights between the overmatched American pilots and the German ace fliers".
This account prompted despairing laughter from Bill Bond last week. "It's hilarious," he said. "Totally wrong. The whole bloody lot. They flew Hurricanes for a start." Spitfires have a more romantic image, however. "Recruited by Churchill? Crap. They wouldn't have gone to prison either." And as for the idea of aircraft sitting idly by in hangars while the brave Americans took to the skies: "What a load of bloody rubbish. We did have a pilot shortage, but not to that extent."
Mr Bond has much more confidence in the accuracy of a forthcoming book by the author Alex Kershaw, whose proposal was the inspiration for The Few. The book is due to be published by Michael Joseph next year. Mr Kershaw also wrote The Bedford Boys, the basis for the film Saving Private Ryan.
There was no crack American squad of flyers, but at least nine US citizens did fly and fight during the Battle of Britain, according to the aviation historian Andy Saunders. "It would be an injustice to the memory of Billy Fiske were Hollywood to corrupt his story," said Mr Saunders in a recent edition of Aeroplane magazine. Although a gifted pilot, Fiske was frustrated by his own lack of combat action. His Hurricane caught fire in the air on 16 August 1940, but nobody knows whether this was because of enemy bullets or an accident. Soon after he landed, his airfield, RAF Tangmere, was attacked by Stuka bombers. Fiske died in hospital the next day from his burns.
Two other American pilots had been killed before him, but it was the dashing, well-connected Fiske who caught the public imagination - or was recognised as useful for propaganda purposes. Churchill sent a wreath to his airfield, and in July 1941 a plaque was unveiled by the Minister for Air at St Paul's Cathedral. His gravestone at Boxgrove in Sussex was replaced and rededicated in 2002.
"There is no doubt the Few, as Churchill called them, were wonderful," said Ben Clinch, now chairman of the 601 Squadron Royal Auxiliary Air Force Old Comrades' Association. "They gave their lives without thought. It's a good job they were there."
But his memories of the time are very different to those told in heroic movies: 601 was nicknamed the Millionaire's Squadron because most of its pilots moved in high social circles. "They were very aloof," said Mr Clinch.
When petrol rationing hit hard, one of the wealthy flyers bought a local garage outright, he said. "We used to get visits from theatrical types from the West End. The stars went to see the officers. The chorus line went to the non-commissioned officers. We got nothing."
Mr Clinch saw Billy Fiske's Hurricane land for the last time but took cover as buildings around him exploded. He has a print of a painting on his wall that shows one version of Fiske's last moments, but at 85 he is bemused by the attempts to immortalise this one of many pilots. "This resurrection is commercial, as far as I can see," he said. "But at my age I let sleeping dogs lie."
HOW UNCLE SAM REWROTE THE SCRIPT
Objective, Burma! (1945)
Errol Flynn's paratroopers overcome the Japanese with barely a Brit in sight, although it was really they who won the battle. The press and public, some of whom had fought in Burma, were so outraged that the film had to be withdrawn.
The Great Escape (1963)
Steve McQueen played a leading part in a mass escape from a POW camp. In real life, 76 got out of Stalag Luft III, but only three made it alive; 50 were shot and 23 recaptured. No Americans among them.
Braveheart (1995)
Mel Gibson as a charming William Wallace - not the real man who wore the skin of an opposing general as his belt. Wallace fathers a son by the Princess of Wales who really gave birth seven years after his execution.
Titanic (1998)
First Officer William McMaster Murdoch is remembered as a hero in his Scottish home for saving passengers. He froze to death in the sea. The film shows him shooting passengers in a blind panic.
U-571 (2000)
Harvey Keitel and other plucky American seamen pull an Enigma code machine from a sinking German submarine and change the course of the war. Except that it was the crew of HMS Bulldog.
The Patriot (2000)
Gibson again as a pacifist provoked into joining the American War of Independence when sadistic Brits herd women and children into a church and set fire to it. Nothing like that happened.
/Greyshaft
-
AbsntMndedProf
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Boston, Massachusetts
- Contact:
RE: What's Your worst war movie ever
I'd have to go along with Battle of the Bulge. When a war movie is bad enough to make Dwight Eisenhower hold a press conference to denounce it, you know there's got to be something majorly wrong with it.
Eric Maietta
Eric Maietta
-
Bart_Breedyk
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 3:58 am
- Location: Ottawa
RE: What's Your worst war movie ever
ORIGINAL: AbsntMndedProf
I'd have to go along with Battle of the Bulge. When a war movie is bad enough to make Dwight Eisenhower hold a press conference to denounce it, you know there's got to be something majorly wrong with it.
Eric Maietta
I did not know this.
B
Game slut
-
UndercoverNotChickenSalad
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Denial Aisle
- Contact:
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
RE: What's Your worst war movie ever
What I want to know is....
Are Americans really sufficiently dumb to accept films like this (I hope not).
Or does Hollywood actually think Americans are sufficiently dumb to accept films like this (potentially).
Or are Hollywood film makers themselves actually this dumb (I can believe that actually).
Or are Hollywood films basically made by greedy #&^%$ swine that could care less if the audience is dumb or not, because they could care less if the film is logical or accurate or not, as long as you line up like cattle to pay for whatever garbage they think you will watch (now that seems likely).
There is really no excuse for some of what I have seen.
Are Americans really sufficiently dumb to accept films like this (I hope not).
Or does Hollywood actually think Americans are sufficiently dumb to accept films like this (potentially).
Or are Hollywood film makers themselves actually this dumb (I can believe that actually).
Or are Hollywood films basically made by greedy #&^%$ swine that could care less if the audience is dumb or not, because they could care less if the film is logical or accurate or not, as long as you line up like cattle to pay for whatever garbage they think you will watch (now that seems likely).
There is really no excuse for some of what I have seen.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
RE: What's Your worst war movie ever
[
You're correct. There is no excuse but plenty of reasons.
I've been working as a Properties Master in the film biz for about five or six years now and I've particpated in many frustrating meetings between producer and director.
The director usually respects advice and opinions of his or her film crew and most of the time will go to great lengths to get what funds are needed to make the film work according to his or her vision.
A producer will go great lengths to get what funds are needed in order to make the film work according to his or her OWN vision. Which is confined to a spread sheet of the budgets for each department concerned.
Like most successful generals of the past will attest, it's all about having the capabilities and logistical back-up to get the job done.
Producers will spend mad amounts of money on famous actors and luxury food wagons, yet skimp on funds to aquire a squadron of proper allied fighter bombers and go with painted A4 training planes and try to pass them off as Typhoons!(ref. past posting about"A Bridge Too Far.")
When I've been directly involved with a decision on whether a particular prop is accurate or not, I hear the same old worn-out phrase,"If the viewers are concentrating on the in-accuracy of the planes, well then we've done a bad job with telling our story."
This thinking is counter productive and when someone says it,(and they always do!), you can tell the speaker knows they're spouting crap and are just praying no-one calls them out. And no-one does. Even myself. Because I need to keep the job in order to pay my rent and fill my refrigderator.
I know crew from,"The Patroit" who knew they where making junk yet no-one resigned in protest for the above mentioned reasons.
It ALWAYS goes back to money. Always.
Personally, when I see junk in a film, I think of the poor prop-master who probably protested at first then backed down. Then I become more and more critical of the entire film as it unfolds.
Unfortunately there are not enough producers who are aware that people go see historical films are nuts about the subject and will not recommend a film if it is rank with innaccuracy. These,"Film-makers", are hoping on snaring thier victims with pretty faces and big giant fireballs. Who cares if the movie sucks? They get enough one-time suckers to pay and it adds up to profit.
These people dishonor the efforts of all hard-working film crews and more importantly, dishonor those who actually did the fighting and suffering during the actual event. They re-write history in order to fill thier bank-accounts and they make me sick.
cash-money-cash-money-cash-money(HMM, kind of like the reasons we as cultures and nations shoot at each other!)
Can't live with it. Can't live without it!!!
Noquote]ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
What I want to know is....
Are Americans really sufficiently dumb to accept films like this (I hope not).
YesOr does Hollywood actually think Americans are sufficiently dumb to accept films like this (potentially).
Maybe. But I think,"Indifferent", might be a more accurate description.Or are Hollywood film makers themselves actually this dumb (I can believe that actually).
Yes-yes-yes.Or are Hollywood films basically made by greedy #&^%$ swine that could care less if the audience is dumb or not, because they could care less if the film is logical or accurate or not, as long as you line up like cattle to pay for whatever garbage they think you will watch (now that seems likely).
There is really no excuse for some of what I have seen.
You're correct. There is no excuse but plenty of reasons.
I've been working as a Properties Master in the film biz for about five or six years now and I've particpated in many frustrating meetings between producer and director.
The director usually respects advice and opinions of his or her film crew and most of the time will go to great lengths to get what funds are needed to make the film work according to his or her vision.
A producer will go great lengths to get what funds are needed in order to make the film work according to his or her OWN vision. Which is confined to a spread sheet of the budgets for each department concerned.
Like most successful generals of the past will attest, it's all about having the capabilities and logistical back-up to get the job done.
Producers will spend mad amounts of money on famous actors and luxury food wagons, yet skimp on funds to aquire a squadron of proper allied fighter bombers and go with painted A4 training planes and try to pass them off as Typhoons!(ref. past posting about"A Bridge Too Far.")
When I've been directly involved with a decision on whether a particular prop is accurate or not, I hear the same old worn-out phrase,"If the viewers are concentrating on the in-accuracy of the planes, well then we've done a bad job with telling our story."
This thinking is counter productive and when someone says it,(and they always do!), you can tell the speaker knows they're spouting crap and are just praying no-one calls them out. And no-one does. Even myself. Because I need to keep the job in order to pay my rent and fill my refrigderator.
I know crew from,"The Patroit" who knew they where making junk yet no-one resigned in protest for the above mentioned reasons.
It ALWAYS goes back to money. Always.
Personally, when I see junk in a film, I think of the poor prop-master who probably protested at first then backed down. Then I become more and more critical of the entire film as it unfolds.
Unfortunately there are not enough producers who are aware that people go see historical films are nuts about the subject and will not recommend a film if it is rank with innaccuracy. These,"Film-makers", are hoping on snaring thier victims with pretty faces and big giant fireballs. Who cares if the movie sucks? They get enough one-time suckers to pay and it adds up to profit.
These people dishonor the efforts of all hard-working film crews and more importantly, dishonor those who actually did the fighting and suffering during the actual event. They re-write history in order to fill thier bank-accounts and they make me sick.
cash-money-cash-money-cash-money(HMM, kind of like the reasons we as cultures and nations shoot at each other!)
Can't live with it. Can't live without it!!!
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
RE: What's Your worst war movie ever
Which is also why even when people say "Les why don't you get into politics", it's because I won't lie for a living, or "just go along" with the process because it's a job.
Oh before you get all flabergasted, Les in person in considerably different than Les in text.
My oratory skills just don't translate into writing is all
Fact is, I have spent a life time usually getting what I want, simply because I know how.
Would be useful in politics, but I would have to live with it too. I ain't interested in being a paid liar.
Politicians that aren't swine, are still stuck in a job where telling the truth accomplishes more harm than good. Those not lying, are usually just quiet and saying nothing.
Ever wished you could hear the guy you elected tell the &#^%#$# jerk off (normally referred to as the honourable member of the opposition), to take his idea and ram it up his &$#&%$# and go $^%^ himself.
Won't happen, it isn't allowed, it's against the rules.
Pity.
Oh before you get all flabergasted, Les in person in considerably different than Les in text.
My oratory skills just don't translate into writing is all
Fact is, I have spent a life time usually getting what I want, simply because I know how.
Would be useful in politics, but I would have to live with it too. I ain't interested in being a paid liar.
Politicians that aren't swine, are still stuck in a job where telling the truth accomplishes more harm than good. Those not lying, are usually just quiet and saying nothing.
Ever wished you could hear the guy you elected tell the &#^%#$# jerk off (normally referred to as the honourable member of the opposition), to take his idea and ram it up his &$#&%$# and go $^%^ himself.
Won't happen, it isn't allowed, it's against the rules.
Pity.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
RE: What's Your worst war movie ever
Word.[8D]
Anyway, my vote for worst war movie ever is still anything by Mel Gibson. I guess if forced I think I'd have to nominate,"The Patronize-" I mean,"The Patriot". Worst war movie ever. Just poop.
Anyway, my vote for worst war movie ever is still anything by Mel Gibson. I guess if forced I think I'd have to nominate,"The Patronize-" I mean,"The Patriot". Worst war movie ever. Just poop.
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
RE: What's Your worst war movie ever
I am not exactly a Mel fan club, but I think you sound like you just hate the guy
I mean, the last film I feel like watching right now is his film Passion of Christ. I could care less if it is any good or not, the subject does nothing for me.
It's not because I have trouble with Mel or why he wanted to make that film either.
I DO think his film We Were Soldiers is one of the best war movies I have ever seen though. And I think it was because of Mel.
I like Braveheart in spite of it being battered to hell in accuracy. The film was amusing. Guess I just like hating the english hehe (my being Scottish is a weakness there ).
I saw Signs and thought it was ok, but a bit flaky in spots.
I saw Patriot, and thought, ok film, bit of a problem with some spots. Suffered same problem some of Segals film suffer from. Some stuff was just to over done.
It certainly is not on par with Windtalkers, which really was just a film pandering to Nic and just happened to have some indians in it (which seems like it was forced due to the premise, but they came off as almost being intrusive to Nic's parts).
And let's face it, the only way Pearl Harbour is bearable, is if you have good reason to assume you are taking the gal you watched it with to bed later. Because otherwise, the pain is not worth it.
I mean, the last film I feel like watching right now is his film Passion of Christ. I could care less if it is any good or not, the subject does nothing for me.
It's not because I have trouble with Mel or why he wanted to make that film either.
I DO think his film We Were Soldiers is one of the best war movies I have ever seen though. And I think it was because of Mel.
I like Braveheart in spite of it being battered to hell in accuracy. The film was amusing. Guess I just like hating the english hehe (my being Scottish is a weakness there
).I saw Signs and thought it was ok, but a bit flaky in spots.
I saw Patriot, and thought, ok film, bit of a problem with some spots. Suffered same problem some of Segals film suffer from. Some stuff was just to over done.
It certainly is not on par with Windtalkers, which really was just a film pandering to Nic and just happened to have some indians in it (which seems like it was forced due to the premise, but they came off as almost being intrusive to Nic's parts).
And let's face it, the only way Pearl Harbour is bearable, is if you have good reason to assume you are taking the gal you watched it with to bed later. Because otherwise, the pain is not worth it.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
-
Raindog101
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 6:10 pm
- Location: Hole-in-the-Wall
RE: What's Your worst war movie ever
I'm at a loss for words.ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Which is also why even when people say "Les why don't you get into politics", it's because I won't lie for a living, or "just go along" with the process because it's a job.
Oh before you get all flabergasted, Les in person in considerably different than Les in text.
My oratory skills just don't translate into writing is all
Fact is, I have spent a life time usually getting what I want, simply because I know how.
Would be useful in politics, but I would have to live with it too. I ain't interested in being a paid liar.
Politicians that aren't swine, are still stuck in a job where telling the truth accomplishes more harm than good. Those not lying, are usually just quiet and saying nothing.
Ever wished you could hear the guy you elected tell the &#^%#$# jerk off (normally referred to as the honourable member of the opposition), to take his idea and ram it up his &$#&%$# and go $^%^ himself.
Won't happen, it isn't allowed, it's against the rules.
Pity.
Usually I finds your posts merely nauseating, but this one is actually disturbing.
I read it twice and both times I felt like my sanity was slipping away.
On the third read, I found myself convulsing with laughter.
I just don't know what to say.
A great orator huh? [8|]
ROFLMAO!!
RE: What's Your worst war movie ever
Yes Les,
You are correct, I don't like Mel.
I have not seen ,"The Passion", and don't care to. Besides, I thought we where talking about bad war films.
I feel Gibson makes sh*tty war films because him and his team re-write history so they can justify some plot line or character trait.
When I see the same consistant level of inaccuracy of events, and the same paper thin characters in each film. Well then, I'm convinced the guy and his team are not interested in showing any certain view of a historical time period, but would rather just break out the pretty women, big fireballs and bad computer graphics and collect the proceeds from the show.
I raise my eyebrows and question your taste in chick movies. "Pearl Harbor"?! Ouch.
Hey Old Eagle, you want to read some real nauseating posts? Go check out ARIS under the subject; War the American way.
That guy is f***-in' crazy!! He hates the U.S. and anything to do with the U.S.! Great stuff if you've got a few hours,(It's like 11 or 12 pages long!)
I hope he learns something from some of the more," Facts and Stats", people.
Oh and if you read my fishing story, consider the fact that I voted for dad the first and second time.
You are correct, I don't like Mel.
I have not seen ,"The Passion", and don't care to. Besides, I thought we where talking about bad war films.
I feel Gibson makes sh*tty war films because him and his team re-write history so they can justify some plot line or character trait.
When I see the same consistant level of inaccuracy of events, and the same paper thin characters in each film. Well then, I'm convinced the guy and his team are not interested in showing any certain view of a historical time period, but would rather just break out the pretty women, big fireballs and bad computer graphics and collect the proceeds from the show.
I raise my eyebrows and question your taste in chick movies. "Pearl Harbor"?! Ouch.
Hey Old Eagle, you want to read some real nauseating posts? Go check out ARIS under the subject; War the American way.
That guy is f***-in' crazy!! He hates the U.S. and anything to do with the U.S.! Great stuff if you've got a few hours,(It's like 11 or 12 pages long!)
I hope he learns something from some of the more," Facts and Stats", people.
Oh and if you read my fishing story, consider the fact that I voted for dad the first and second time.
RE: What's Your worst war movie ever
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.
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.
Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves…
RE: What's Your worst war movie ever
Oh you can count on that.[:'(]
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
RE: What's Your worst war movie ever
JaegerJ I haven't seen Pearl Harbour, I was merely saying the only way you COULD force me to watch it, is if I was taking a woman to see it, and it meant a chance to score.
I am not sure how much value it has to a female though. But I have heard some say they endured it because of a woman.
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.
I am not sure how much value it has to a female though. But I have heard some say they endured it because of a woman.
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.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
RE: What's Your worst war movie ever
I might be in the minority, but I thoroughly enjoyed both The Patriot and Braveheart. If you want to blame someone for Braveheart's inaccuracies, try the writer; he's the one trying to pass of that tripe as fact, but the movie itself was a powerful one which did what few did: remain character focussed and use action scenes to enhance rather than window dressing. Rather than the English, Braveheart trashed a Scot's national hero: Bruce more than anyone else.
It's a rarity that any historic films remain historic. There are a few documentary-like in their approach such as Tora! Tora! Tora! Ghandi and Battle of Britain, but for the most part it's just not common to see any kind of accuracy at all.
On the subject of American film makers" Les, perhaps you should avoid Hollywood altogether and simply watch Canadian-made historic war films. Good luck, you certainly won't need an extra annex to hold that DVD collection.
Now why should war movies be immune from the trappings other genres have of just being bad? Simply adding some bullets does not a movie make, but as soon as some uniforms are worn and the setting is a battle then we all expect it to be great: it just doesn't happen. Even the good war movies almost always fall in to the tired old cliche which has remained unchanged since All Quiet On The Western Front, almost every film follows the same bunch of characters just dressed in different costume. For every chest-thumping garbage movie such as this new BoB might be, there are gems, and I'd recommend Welcome To Sarejevo in this category. I don't think that war's barbarity and futility has ever been brought to the screen and it's a perfect antidote to the bloated garbage that many of the posts in this thread have mentioned
It's a rarity that any historic films remain historic. There are a few documentary-like in their approach such as Tora! Tora! Tora! Ghandi and Battle of Britain, but for the most part it's just not common to see any kind of accuracy at all.
On the subject of American film makers" Les, perhaps you should avoid Hollywood altogether and simply watch Canadian-made historic war films. Good luck, you certainly won't need an extra annex to hold that DVD collection.
Now why should war movies be immune from the trappings other genres have of just being bad? Simply adding some bullets does not a movie make, but as soon as some uniforms are worn and the setting is a battle then we all expect it to be great: it just doesn't happen. Even the good war movies almost always fall in to the tired old cliche which has remained unchanged since All Quiet On The Western Front, almost every film follows the same bunch of characters just dressed in different costume. For every chest-thumping garbage movie such as this new BoB might be, there are gems, and I'd recommend Welcome To Sarejevo in this category. I don't think that war's barbarity and futility has ever been brought to the screen and it's a perfect antidote to the bloated garbage that many of the posts in this thread have mentioned
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
RE: What's Your worst war movie ever
Actually Canada does make the occasional nice production, not always military of course.
We certainly are not known for volume good bad or otherwise though.
But well, what can we do, all the best actors in the US were born as Canadians They just didn't want to work here heheh
We certainly are not known for volume good bad or otherwise though.
But well, what can we do, all the best actors in the US were born as Canadians
They just didn't want to work here heheh I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
-
EricGuitarJames
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 12:02 am
- Location: Not far enough away for some!
- Contact:
RE: What's Your worst war movie ever
But well, what can we do, all the best actors in the US were born as Canadians
And Pamela Anderson
I said AND PAMELA ANDERSON [&o] (Sorry I'll clear that mess up in a minute when I recover[:D])
It's Just a Ride!
-
W Thorne_MatrixForum
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2003 3:11 am
- Location: Houston
RE: What's Your worst war movie ever
But well, what can we do, all the best actors in the US were born as Canadians
You can have them back. We don't want them.