Matrix Games Forums

Why did this get dragged up after 18 months?

Whatever... the worst war movie ever is STILL The Green Berets [:D]

anarchyitheuk, had a lot weighing on him. You see that he mentioned not one but 4 movies. [:D][:D] Now, you see, that kind of dislike for movies has to be aired out. Otherwise it boggs down ones emotional well being.[:D][:D]

Thats okay anarchyitheuk, the thread is there for you to make your comments. If you would have started a new thread someone would have mentioned that there was a thread already with this topic and why did't you use it.

ORIGINAL: Sarge

Well....... I will save my vote for the Battle of Britain staring Tom Cruise [8|]. Think its due out sometime in 05.

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4679.html

I duno why it was bumped up. But one awfull British directed movie (well actualy it was a few episodes)... involved alien Daleks attacking earth. Where do they land? Outside a highschool chemistry laboratory....

Take a guess how that one went...

ORIGINAL: 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.

2. The movie was I believe "The Conquerers" and it had John Wayne, so it didn't have to be good - it just was...[;)]

Basically, any war movie made after 1990 ( other than We Were Soldiers - which I saw with my Dad who flew Cobras in Vietnam and he said the night flying scenes under enemy fire were way realistic, which is enough for me ) sucks - unless we as a community made the thing, and kept Hollywood out of it, it has to suck - Liberals and War Movies, pluuueezzzee

ORIGINAL: ShermanM4

The Patriot with Mel Gibson. All around just plain stupid.

Cmon now the battle scenes in that movie were great. Wish there had been more of course but stupid movies have to have a silly plot.

I wish someone would do a conglomeration of just the battle scenes from all the war movies in chronilogical order from ancients to present day. I'd pay oodles for that alone, keep all the plot garbage out of it and just one battle scene after another.

I wish someone would do a conglomeration of just the battle scenes from all the war movies in chronilogical order from ancients to present day. I'd pay oodles for that alone, keep all the plot garbage out of it and just one battle scene after another.

That has to be one of the most brilliant ideas ever posted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShermanM4

The Patriot with Mel Gibson. All around just plain stupid.


Cmon now the battle scenes in that movie were great. Wish there had been more of course but stupid movies have to have a silly plot.

I wish someone would do a conglomeration of just the battle scenes from all the war movies in chronilogical order from ancients to present day. I'd pay oodles for that alone, keep all the plot garbage out of it and just one battle scene after another.

I will put it this way. Hollywood relies on certain architypes inorder to make a movie likeable by the public. Mel Gibson is an honest farmer and would never own slaves no never. Even though during the Colonial period, the Carolinas as a percentage had the highest ratio of slaves to whites. It was was huge, and I know it had be over 10-to-1.

Tavington who played the real Banister Tarlton was a vicious blood thirsty monster in the movie. The real Banister Tarlton NEVER huddled civilians into a Church and burned them all alive. He infact was once commisioned with the task of going to Virginia and finding Thomas Jefferson. He went to what was Monticello at the time and found no Jefferson. Had he been the blood thirsty monster he was in the movie, he would have burned down Jefferson's manor, had his way with the women, and taken the slaves.

What else made me puke about that movie? Oh yes the battle scenes. They then made it seem like the British had no conception of brush or gureilla warfare. Yet they magically won the French and Indian War or Seven Years war. Which seems bizarre as our troubled main character is a French and Indian war vet. The Battle of Cowpens was decent as the command was given to the militia to only fire two volleys and fall back. Though No mention of the real Daniel Morgan or what his grand strategy was for actually defeating the British. According to the film, why Cornwallis then pulled up into Yorktown was anybodies guess.

Sorry I know its just a film, but what could have been a great movie about the American Revolution was bogged down in a stupid story line with ridiculous archetypes.

What I don't think you are taking into account though Sherman is I would say the majority of Americans don't really know "or care" what happened during the American Revolutionary War. Only the most die hard would read the actual histories of so many people during that time. People enjoy the Hollywood productions (I know I do). The guy that played Pvt HOOK in Zulu was nothing like the hollywood production, but, still the movie was great, they still made a hero out of him which actually is the truth, but, making him a slaggard and a thief just fit the movie for filling only. When we goto a movie we want to be "entertained", we don't usually goto them for a "history class", they have special movies for those. To downplay Tarlton to be a bloodthirsty murdering killer made for good script and the good guy always wins ending the picture had. I'm sure people got a thrill when he got his at the end. If we had to sit through actual footage of real life of the days of history we'd all probably fall asleep during the movie. Except of course for the die hards that get into that boring stuff. People like action and heroic deeds and the good guys winning out over the bad guys, stuff like that. That's what hollywood brings. I don't think I've ever read in the credits that it was an historically accurate protrayal of what actually happened. Cept for the Exorcist which did state in the opening credits the movie was "based" off of actual events, though we all know no one spun their head around full circle, lol or probably threw up green pea soup like a fire hydrant. lol But, still the movie was good.

Oh and if you've never seen the Exorcist and read the book "The Making of the Exorcist", it's very scary and in the book they tell about a scene they "didn't film", it's a demonic face that flashes for an instant and they tried cutting this scene over 50 times and never could cut it out of the picture. Heh, makes for some great reading and enough to scare the crap outta some people when they see the movie and that face flashes during the picture. Of course I believe this is just more hollywood hype, but, people buy into that stuff and just love to be scared. According to the book people had accidents and some even died during the filming. I believe it was the producers or directors mother that died during the filming. Coincedental I'm sure, but, just more fluff for the book to scare and make people wonder and of course buy the book and see the film.

Another vote for "Windtalkers". I was so surprised that they still make movies like that in which the good guys always fire from the hip while running like crazy and still are able to kill at a 100:1 ratio. It also features the universally bad dialogue that can be found in many bad war movie: [While waves of enemies form up for the final and worst attack] Hero: "I'm out of ammo", Best buddy [second row] who is marked to get killed at the end of the movie: "Here, take my last clip ...".

I really liked "Thin Red Line", but I can understand how someone can be disapointed when expecting a war movie about the Pacific theater.

I have very mixed feelings about "Saving private Ryan": The first half to two-thirds are very good, the landing scene at the beginning brilliant. The end where a small group of allied soldiers is able to beat this large (and dumb) German force (including tanks) with a brilliant plan and some bombs made out of socks is rubbish and moves too much in the Windtalkers direction for my taste ...

All the "light stuff" (U-571, Pearl Harbor etc.) is ... well, light stuff. You either enjoy it for the eye-candy (beautiful scenery and actors, big explosions etc) or you don't, but if you start to take it serious in any way ... you're doomed!

Chuck

[quote]ORIGINAL: ravinhood

What I don't think you are taking into account though Sherman is I would say the majority of Americans don't really know "or care" what happened during the American Revolutionary War. Only the most die hard would read the actual histories of so many people during that time. People enjoy the Hollywood productions (I know I do). The guy that played Pvt HOOK in Zulu was nothing like the hollywood production, but, still the movie was great, they still made a hero out of him which actually is the truth, but, making him a slaggard and a thief just fit the movie for filling only. When we goto a movie we want to be "entertained", we don't usually goto them for a "history class", they have special movies for those. To downplay Tarlton to be a bloodthirsty murdering killer made for good script and the good guy always wins ending the picture had. I'm sure people got a thrill when he got his at the end. If we had to sit through actual footage of real life of the days of history we'd all probably fall asleep during the movie. Except of course for the die hards that get into that boring stuff. People like action and heroic deeds and the good guys winning out over the bad guys, stuff like that. That's what hollywood brings. I don't think I've ever read in the credits that it was an historically accurate protrayal of what actually happened. Cept for the Exorcist which did state in the opening credits the movie was "based" off of actual events, though we all know no one spun their head around full circle, lol or probably threw up green pea soup like a fire hydrant. lol But, still the movie was good.


Good point! I am not going to buck the entertainment argument one bit. I myself am in business to make money just like many Hollywood directors and producers. However, I think the best history classes I had in High School and College were the ones in which the professors did not make it a history class. The best story I ever heard was about Caesar Rodney. He was absolutely an American Hero. His life and times speak for themselves. Yes this does require story telling skills and finess on the part of the instructor, but there is nothing made up about his life. It is all fascinating and would make a great movie. Another example I could give is October Sky. That film is barnone one of my most favorite movies. It differs from the book Rocket Boys, but the the differences are not major. Because of the value of entertainment, I can see why certain changes were made.

As for the American Revolution. It speaks for itself! Characters like the one Mel Gibson played and the entire screenplay was just ridiculous.

The one thing I don't understand is your fascination with the Excorsist.[X(] That is way to scary for me. That makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck just thinking about it[:D][;)]

The one thing I don't understand is your fascination with the Excorsist. That is way to scary for me. That makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck just thinking about it

Lol that's a sign of a good movie when it still effects you such after so many years after release. Does Halloween or Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street have the same effect? No other horror movie was ever so scary as the Exorcist to me. I just grew up fasinated with horror movies. The Exorcist is one of the few that doesen't involve blood and guts and throat slashing. A mental horror movie that touched on some peoples spiritual values, that's what made it scary.

And if you ever wake up in the middle of the night, sometime near 3am, listen closely to the darkness and for sounds coming out from under your bed, for in the silence of the night that is where demons dwell. muahahahaha

[quote]I was so surprised that they still make movies like that in which the good guys always fire from the hip while running like crazy and still are able to kill at a 100:1 ratio.[quote]

What? Are you taking a cheap-shot at the Rambo fans!?

The Cars That Eat People and The Clonus Horror are the first two that leap to mind. The first one was one of the very few movies I seen in a theatre with my Dad. I think it got on his list too and he hated it enough to tell me his dislike.

In my childhood the Jerry Lewis movie The Family Jewels was pretty awful. I unfortunately saw it again about 6 months ago, not sure if I had seen it before. Oh yeah. It's not quite as bad to me now, since I'm not used to the better stuff of Lewis as I was back then, but then more awful movies, made me forget it.

Oh sorry, I thought this was awful movies altogether. Ah, for sheer awfulness, there's no war movie as awful as these. I can't think of any awful war movies off hand. I avoid awful movies liek the plague these days, and the chances of me remembering any of the bad war ones is practically nil. I guess Memphis Belle was pretty bad, but only because it was so farcically opposite of what the real crush mission for it was like. If you didn't know that it wasn't too bad I guess.

I still have memphis belle, had it for many years. I have no doubts being holywood its story line was chagned, altered, etc, etc. But now that we mention it, some of the directing wasn't too bad, but then it had its moments of pure rediculous amateurness!

Like those scenes where you suddenly see an OVERLY OBVIOUS mini-model airplane where the props are suddenly moving only 5 revolutions a minute, and no motion blur anywhere, except for movement that just looked like a 5 inch toy model. LOL. That was pretty bad..

Or the time the guy got blown out of the cockpit. It looks like a barbie-doll they had and just tilted it so it fell out of the model. EEEEEEk. What kind of people do you know do cartwheels off planes without a parachutte, and not even move an inch the whole time? That was pretty rediculous, but got a lot of laughs.

As the saying goes, when you add humour in a movie, make sure the audience is laughing at the RIGHT places.

In Order

1. Braveheart
2. Patriot
3. U571
4. Pearl Harbour
5 Objective Burma

ORIGINAL: Pippin

I still have memphis belle, had it for many years. I have no doubts being holywood its story line was chagned, altered, etc, etc. But now that we mention it, some of the directing wasn't too bad, but then it had its moments of pure rediculous amateurness!

Like those scenes where you suddenly see an OVERLY OBVIOUS mini-model airplane where the props are suddenly moving only 5 revolutions a minute, and no motion blur anywhere, except for movement that just looked like a 5 inch toy model. LOL. That was pretty bad..

Or the time the guy got blown out of the cockpit. It looks like a barbie-doll they had and just tilted it so it fell out of the model. EEEEEEk. What kind of people do you know do cartwheels off planes without a parachutte, and not even move an inch the whole time? That was pretty rediculous, but got a lot of laughs.

As the saying goes, when you add humour in a movie, make sure the audience is laughing at the RIGHT places.

Thank goodness I don't remember that much about that movie! If you didn't know, the real story was that during their whole flight, they only saw one German plane in flight, and it didn't even bother with them. Given I heard that said, it's clear their plane wasn't attacked, and it even calls into question whether the plane they saw, bothered attacking any of the group.

I wouldn't doubt it was a duck flapping its wings they saw. Gota bring back some interresting story home...

ORIGINAL: Maciste

ORIGINAL: gunny

If I had to pick one:

Sergeant Steiner.

The sequel to Cross of Iron with Richard Burton. I guess somebody couldn't accept a ficticious hero who was not only a skilled soldier but could also maintain an ant-war sentiment while fighting for survival on the side of the NAZIs. So the solution was to transfer him to the western front, then have him become a traitor, join the enemy and kill his best friend. Willi Heinrich must of rolled over in his grave when this came out.

What's the title? A sequel of Cross of Iron??? [&:][&:][&:]

By the way, my particular list of bad war movies are:
-Pearl Harbor.
-Windtalkers.
-The thin (bo)red line.
-Saving Private Ryan.
-All of the "made-for-video" war movies about Vietnam (any fan of Chuck Norris out there? [:D])
-Rambo III.
-Rambo II.

P.D: I'd like to see any time of my life, some of the war soviet movies made on the URSS during the Stalin rule... critics says that those films are polithically smelly, but also great blockbuster spectacles...

[&:] title clearly stated: sergent steiner

ORIGINAL: VictorH

I have to say all Mel Gibson's War Movies. The reason being they are portrayed as Historically accurate, but in reality are just the opposite. The British never behaved like the SS in the Revolution, although to be fair there were massacres on both sides.

What about "We were soldiers....". that was a pretty good war movie and supposedly true.