New war movies....

Jacc · Post by **Jacc** » Fri Oct 11, 2002 2:35 am

13 Days is great. I have watched it many times and it just becomes better.
Watching the SPR was quite a challenge for me. The landing is surely impressive, but after that the movie just somehow turns into normal Hollywood war movie. It is, however, understandable - you can make a movie which aims to be superrealistic, but who would look at it, except those 3000 wargamers per country? Band of Brothers was impressive on the beginning, but after that stupid Ardennes part (oh medic Eugene, we all love you so much) it just fell like a rock.

Enemy on the Gates was total BS. Pearl Harbour was pure torment. Note that as the Doolittle raid crash lands on China, it is day. Immediately on the second shot - it is night.

Stalingrad... Well, what I recall was that it was a scary movie. I watched it in a cold winter night (January) in eastern Finland. I was a young lad and quite impressed on the bloody battles. However it was a bit spooky to go out after the film - there are old warehouses just outside our place, where army (stationed in the nearby barracks) train... shells and shrapnels all around the place. Hrrr.

I watched Das Boot yesterday (wednesday). It was not the movie, but instead the entire mini-series edited into a single entity. Perhaps a bit boring, but quite thrilling.

I recommend Finnish movie "Talvisota" by Pekka Parikka, though I think it has not been translated into other languages as Sweden. But rumours have it that it has also the english subtitles.

Gryphon · Post by **Gryphon** » Fri Oct 11, 2002 6:04 am

That could only help. The next time Kevin Costner does an accent in a movie, I'll wait for the German translation to come out.

In Pearl Harbor the scenes of the attack were great. But after that everything turned to crap.

Sgt.Striker · Post by **Sgt.Striker** » Thu Oct 17, 2002 7:10 am

Best War Movie of all time. The LONGEST DAY.

It actully gets all the information you need on D-day without turning the average public off. I think Saving Private Ryan did something similiar for my generartion. The only problem was it was too dam Amerocentric. Okay ,yes the Americans had a tought time on Omaha and they deserve to be honoured there but the Canadians and Brits had a much harder and bloodier fight later. I would accept the film from an American perspective but they wondered all over the Normandy Beaches and didn't run into one non-american or german. I have met kids who think that Candians didn't land on D-day. And BTW that Mustang at the end really should have been a British Typhoon

I love good war movies but i hope the americans include a more balanced perspecitve.

Lucullus · Post by **Lucullus** » Thu Oct 17, 2002 10:39 pm

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
One last comment

The Thin Red Line was crap, it was a mangled effort at best, a botched attempt, lacking in smooth continuity, pointless battle scenes, questionable directing.

I was able to watch it once, and glad I did it at home where the cost was lower. I wouldn't have watched it at all, if I hadn't been ambushed into thinking it might be as good as the book.

I think the thin red line was a good film. Every time I watch it it seems better. I don't think it a film about war. I think, like apocalypse now, it adresses other topic besides war. The war is just the setting.

I also think that the battle scenes appear quite accurate (although it is true I've never assaulted dug in japanese troops.)

I think you need to watch it again and give it another chance.

SteveR · Post by **SteveR** » Sat Oct 26, 2002 7:03 am

"We Were Soilders" was a true story. It is based on the accounts of the men of the 1st air cav's first encounter with the NVA before the war had drug on and on and many where killed. That could be the reason it seemed to be more "patriotic" in it's feel than say "Platoon" was.

Then agian i could be biased since half the movie was shot here at Ft. Benning

DoomedMantis · Post by **DoomedMantis** » Sat Oct 26, 2002 10:20 am

Originally posted by rbrunsman
Just my two cents but, as long as you keep out the idiotic "love interest" in a war movie then it won't be that bad of a movie. Pearl Harbor was made that much worse because of the "love interest." .

How true, there is so much emphasis on love interests in movies these days that it distracts from the real issues (that is that this is meant to be a war movie). Every time I see a love scene in a war movie I want to throwup. If I wanted to see that then I would go with my wife and see one of those movies that are catered for that.

How many times have you read a good book, then gone to see the movie and seen that they have deviated massively usually by adding that love interest that wasn't there.

By trying to please everybody you end up pleasing nobody. People don't watch war movies for the love interest. They watch it because it either has a good story line or it is a war film. By trying to appeal to our (usually female) other half by putting in the love part doesn't fool anyone. We get pissed off because of something in the film detracting from it, and they are only there because we are, because they know that if they see this one with us they can drag us along to one of their girlie moves - or at least thats how it works for me:D

Now if they are making a film where the war is part of the background then that is totally different from a war movie, but then again these are usually marketed this way as well. Obviously the one major exception of course is Pearl which I refused to watch once I saw that it was being marketed as Pearl Harbour - The Love Story, give me a break.

Another point while I'm having a gripe is it would be nice to see a movie that hasn't been totally Hollywoodised. Most people (and most probably mostly non US people will know what I mean). Why is it that every time that the US fight in a battle it follows the casualty reports read 3000 bad guys dead 3 US dead, but were the 3 US dead (all usually individullay named) worth the masiive victory that they achieved. I know that I am slightly exagerating here, but probably by not that much. By the way I'm having a go at Hollywood here for trying to make us believe that these odds are not only realistic, but fact - they must take us for fools. It would also be more realistic if Hollywood actually included some of the otehr countries that were involved and didn't change history to suit themselves as well. When basing a movie on historical fact, why is it so hard to stick to the facts. I understand artistic license, but then don't try to convince us that it is real.

Right now that I have vent my spleen, I release the floor

Frank W. · Post by **Frank W.** » Sat Oct 26, 2002 5:12 pm

Originally posted by Lucullus

I think the thin red line was a good film. Every time I watch it it seems better. I don't think it a film about war. I think, like apocalypse now, it adresses other topic besides war. The war is just the setting.

I also think that the battle scenes appear quite accurate (although it is true I've never assaulted dug in japanese troops.)

I think you need to watch it again and give it another chance.

hello.

i agree!!

like apocalypse now (redoux) this movie
is about much more than war, which
makes it - together with the nice graphics
and sounds - to a great movie.

not the mention the good actors.

Jacc · Post by **Jacc** » Sun Oct 27, 2002 3:44 am

There can be good movies about
A) war
B) love
Combine the two and you can have:
1) A story about love during the war, which works
2) A story about love in the war, which really, really sucks.
3) A great movie.
Number 3 is the rarest. I am young and I live in this remote god-forgotten corner of the world (Finland). So, I have seen one movie which combines the two in respectable and great way - Rukajärven tie, which was translated as "The Ambush" in english (IIRC). It handles a man, who think he's lost his love in the war and makes the rest of the recon journey his own personal crusade. But if you make a war movie, added with a blatant "a boy meets a girl", you'll only get a really bad reputation.

Apocalypse. Now is IMHO one of the very best movies I've ever seen. It's philosophic, pacifist and meaningful movie about the entire pointlessness of the war and degeneration of modern man and his ideals. Redux had this stupid French scene added in, but if you ignore bad directoring and it's meaningless position, that stage actually tells you A LOT about the SE Asia's situation.

I just saw a movie Kanal a week ago. It's a polish movie about the Warsaw rising. Not really a war movie, but a thriller. Find it and see it.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Sun Oct 27, 2002 5:54 am

I have now seen up to the 4th part of Band of Brothers (okay simmer down, not all of us are lucky to have had access to it earlier hehe).

I must say the action has been refreshingly real looking. There is lulls in the action of course (but then this is supposed to depict actual people, and theye were lulls for them). I have not seen any romance at all (aaaaaaaaaalright).

The accuracy factor, hmmmmm after seeing some posters comment about this technical infraction or that technical infraction, I wonder....did the person watch the film the first time in frame by frame mode?
I am reeeeeeally impressed with the armour so far. I mean hey I make models, I am used to comments about detail accuracy the likes of which would astound even the OOB hounds.

Not so sure I want to comment on uniform accuracy, I am not used to being that fussy there either. Tactics, again hmmm these guys started out green remember.

The actual scenes, man the intensity. Some stuff took me off guard (probably because it is normally absent in clean polished hollywoodish films normally).

The initial landing in Normandy had the same hellish look of Omaha in Saving Private Ryan. I grimaced a lot watching those planes fly through the flak. The fight in Carentan was also something to see. The armour fighting in Eindhoven was really outstanding.

Thus far this series has been something I intend to get the dvd set for.

DoomedMantis · Post by **DoomedMantis** » Sun Oct 27, 2002 7:08 am

I also have been watching Band of Brothers and while its good to have it, the one point that I would like to make is the casualty rate. There are always much more casualties for the 'crack SS troops' they always seem to be facing. Everytime there is a battle you know that 3000 enemy guys are going to get killed for the sake of 2 US guys (slightly exagerated but not by much)

KG Erwin · Post by **KG Erwin** » Sun Oct 27, 2002 7:29 am

The more I watch this, the more I like it. For the SPWaW players, the weapons and situations are like a reenactment of some of your most desperate battles in the Pacific. I played a long campaign scenario today that featured the Japanese defending a long ridge-line. It was the Saipan scene come to life--I couldn't believe it--my scenario was in 1942, but I could definitely visualize and identify with Enders & Henderson and their men in assaulting that ridge. I lost 227 men in that advance/delay scenario, but the Japs lost 940 men and 30 mortars/artillery--a marginal victory in my 2nd long campaign battle.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Sun Oct 27, 2002 8:10 am

I had a friend recently tell me he thought Windtakers sucked, but I have not seen it yet myself.

SteveR · Post by **SteveR** » Sun Oct 27, 2002 8:39 am

Hamburger Hill was a good yet overlooked movie that came out in the shadow of Platoon.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Sun Oct 27, 2002 9:03 am

I liked Hamburger Hill sort of.

I think I suffer from acute Hollywoodtosis though.

I have found myself well nigh incapable of really caring about ANY film almost, that has been made about post 1980 except in extreme cases (such as Saving Private Ryan).

To many films with two many effects aimed at looking flashy regardless of whether they looked real. To many films designed for people that have no real interest in war, just an interest in action. To many films where the love interest in a black and white era film might have been acceptable, but in modern films takes it to far (by to far I mean visibly obvious full nudity sex).

In some cases the films seem to have sold out or just have had no interest in excellence. The Longest Day is a film that could almost not be made today.

I have seen Platoon, I have seen Thin Red Line, I have seen several films of the time period. I don't own copies though (dubbed or original). They just don't have the level of substance I require.
The grit, the actual feel of a classic old war movie.

True the old films were not always "superbly" filmed or possessing excellent acting, just as it is a myth that cabinetmaking 100 years ago was always about craftsmanship (I have seen antiques that were actually lousy furniture then, and are lousy furniture now eh).

Jacc · Post by **Jacc** » Mon Oct 28, 2002 3:50 am

Originally posted by DoomedMantis
I also have been watching Band of Brothers and while its good to have it, the one point that I would like to make is the casualty rate. There are always much more casualties for the 'crack SS troops' they always seem to be facing. Everytime there is a battle you know that 3000 enemy guys are going to get killed for the sake of 2 US guys (slightly exagerated but not by much)

I don't know what sources Ambrosie (RIP) was using doing his book, but it appears he quite much relied on US field reports - the strange casualties reports also took my note. Well, the Airborne Inf WAS good, and most of the Waffen-SS they encountered during WW2 were nowhere near the quality of early Waffen-SS (the Germany had long ago ran out of their reserves, and time of the Volkssturm was ahead). Strangely, they skipped practically all of the Market Garden, I think that's where 101st took their heaviest casualties..?

Raverdave · Post by **Raverdave** » Mon Oct 28, 2002 3:54 pm

Yeah I also thought that BoB was very light on Market Garden......I wonder how it differs from the book?

rbrunsman · Post by **rbrunsman** » Tue Oct 29, 2002 12:41 am

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
I had a friend recently tell me he thought Windtakers sucked, but I have not seen it yet myself.

Les, I delayed seeing Windtalkers because I heard it was bad too. I watched it on DVD this weekend and it wasn't that bad as far as action movies go. I'm not a stickler for details myself, but I really get bent out of shape when a grenade (or knee mortar in this case) blows up like someone stuck a fuse in a gas station's underground fueltanks. They were using everything from grenades to 8" guns and the explosions were the same! (i.e. flames all over the place) Aside from that it is worth watching as a rental IMHO.

It would be nice if someone who has actually seen these things explode could give us civilians a description of what the explosions of different ordanance looks like. My experience is limited to M80s and they just flash a little and make a loud noise. No flames like Hollywood would have me believe everything else has.

Escaam · Post by **Escaam** » Wed Oct 30, 2002 10:38 pm

Most of talk seems to going around about WWII films, havent seen real good WWII film since The longest day or A bridge too far, well Saving private Ryan had it moments and admirable combat scenes.

On that point I did really started wonder about opinons about Black Hawk down, haven seen anyone to mention that one, if leave alone politics and some of inaccuracies on story telling/technical points, I have to say combat scenes looked quite good.

oh and btw avoid Windtalkers at any cost

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Wed Oct 30, 2002 11:08 pm

Action films are ok as long as they are labelled correctly as such.

I have seen it all basically, but I like to know what I am getting before I watch it essentially.

Seeing your comment about munitions in Windtalkers seems to say to me, heavier on the "action" and lighter on the "war" movie.

I will not say I thought Band of Brothers was the greatest stuff I have ever seen, but I WILL say that the efforts taken to make it look "credible" seem to far outstrip movies that get more occolades often.

I have seen a few positive comments for Thin Red Line recently on the thread.
Still, from a perspective of assessing it as a "war" movie, I found it sucked. It might please you if you call it more an "action" movie.
But my main beef was that the film just plain sucked due to being a plain lousy movie front to back.

Frank W. · Post by **Frank W.** » Thu Oct 31, 2002 2:39 pm

some movie fans here i notice. okay, as some ppl. like even watch none war movie as T.R.L and A.N., how about "Fight Club" i seen recently. What a disturbing ´movie, but i think it´s great!!!

New war movies....

Windtalkers, again...