Matrix Games Forums

well, the movie.. I liked it but, with me still being rather ignorant of the pacific theatre, is there any historical accuracy to the movie or is it another bravehart?

I, too, like the movie a lot, although it seems to evoke a "love it" or "hate it" reaction (i.e. many people on this board hate it).

Regarding it's historical accuracy, the context in which the movie takes place is quite accurate. It takes place during the Guadalcanal campaign. It represents the part of the campaign after the 1 USMC division left the island was replaced by army units (including the Americal & 147 Infantry Divisions, IIRC). During this part of the campaign the US had already captured Henderson Field and was trying clear out the remaining Japanese on the island, which included capturing Mt Austen. All those events did happen. It also reflects some other aspects of the campaign realistically - the tenacious Japanese defense, the hilly terrain, the bombing of Henderson Field.

I suspect some still believe the movie to be inaccurate, because the characters are too thoughtful & philosphical, but the basic course of events is not out of synch with what really happened. And there are other smaller inaccuracies as well, but all-in-all I think it's a very good movie

ORIGINAL: jnier

I, too, like the movie a lot, although it seems to evoke a "love it" or "hate it" reaction (i.e. many people on this board hate it).

Regarding it's historical accuracy, the context in which the movie takes place is quite accurate. It takes place during the Guadalcanal campaign. It represents the part of the campaign after the 1 USMC division left the island was replaced by army units (including the Americal & 147 Infantry Divisions, IIRC). During this part of the campaign the US had already captured Henderson Field and was trying clear out the remaining Japanese on the island, which included capturing Mt Austen. All those events did happen. It also reflects some other aspects of the campaign realistically - the tenacious Japanese defense, the hilly terrain, the bombing of Henderson Field.

I suspect some still believe the movie to be inaccurate, because the characters are too thoughtful & philosphical, but the basic course of events is not out of synch with what really happened. And there are other smaller inaccuracies as well, but all-in-all I think it's a very good movie

I have a copy of the book at home, it makes a good read but being holywood they removed parts of the storyline which they really shouldn't have for the film. All in all still a rather good film, better than windtalkers/pearl harbour etc.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: String

well, the movie.. I liked it but, with me still being rather ignorant of the pacific theatre, is there any historical accuracy to the movie or is it another bravehart?

I read the book and I saw the movie.

IMHO that movie is one of the best war movies I ever saw...


Leo "Apollo11"

imo, this movie was one of the WORST movie for me, I do think it is interesting how many poeple like/love it though.. I see alot of movies, maybe I will get it as a freebe and watch it agian and see why I thought it was so four finger gag... I am not saying this is the case for anyone else but me... I can here the incoming now...[:-]

I liked the movie. It serves more as an Anti-War movie than Privat Ryan. Sure, PR has the better action but from my european point of view it had just too much flag-waving and heroism. From such perspectives TRL is far superior.
The two competed for several Acadamy Awards but I guess the Spielberg/Hanks combo is hard to beat, just because of the names...

James Jones, the author of the trilogy one volume of which is TTRL, was an infantryman with the 25th ID during its tenure on Guadalcanal. He was wounded (or injured, I forget) towards the end, and basically spend the rest of the war in and out of hospital.

TTRL obviously draws heavily on Jones' own experiences, an impression reinforced by a reading of his 1975 "WWII: A Chronicle of Soldiering". WWII is a slender volume about American art in and about WWII, to which Jones was asked to provide the text. Here he restates many of the points made TTRL in non-fictional form, and makes it quite clear that TTRL can resonably be considered semi-fictional. Some social historians of note, like John Ellis or Gerald Lindermann, aren't shy of quoting TTRL outright in their work.

For my own part, TTRL is certainly the best piece of fiction on men in war at the individual/small-group level that I've read. As to it's authenticity, well, read it as an example of what the last months of Guadalcanal might have been like at company level. Granted artistic licence, Jones was there, and he's as good (or bad) as any other witness.

Jones' overarching points about modernism, the state, and the individual are of course as valid as any other viewpoint. I think, however, that his views are refreshingly contrary to the trimphalism and polarization that dominates Western public discourse on WWII.

I understand that Malik spend a decade or so doing the script for the movie, and it seems to me the novel got transformed beyond recoqnition during this process. There's very little left of the novel, to the point where I'd say that they share little other than the title.
Either that, or the producers felt that the American public couldn't stomach the idea that wars can be "necesary" without being "good", that even among the winners there are loosers, and, indeed, that these loosers might not be particularly content with their lot.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: timtom

James Jones, the author of the trilogy one volume of which is TTRL, was an infantryman with the 25th ID during its tenure on Guadalcanal. He was wounded (or injured, I forget) towards the end, and basically spend the rest of the war in and out of hospital.

TTRL obviously draws heavily on Jones' own experiences, an impression reinforced by a reading of his 1975 "WWII: A Chronicle of Soldiering". WWII is a slender volume about American art in and about WWII, to which Jones was asked to provide the text. Here he restates many of the points made TTRL in non-fictional form, and makes it quite clear that TTRL can resonably be considered semi-fictional. Some social historians of note, like John Ellis or Gerald Lindermann, aren't shy of quoting TTRL outright in their work.

For my own part, TTRL is certainly the best piece of fiction on men in war at the individual/small-group level that I've read. As to it's authenticity, well, read it as an example of what the last months of Guadalcanal might have been like at company level. Granted artistic licence, Jones was there, and he's as good (or bad) as any other witness.

Jones' overarching points about modernism, the state, and the individual are of course as valid as any other viewpoint. I think, however, that his views are refreshingly contrary to the trimphalism and polarization that dominates Western public discourse on WWII.

There is also one other famous book about similar Pacific thematic (and movie too):

The Naked and the Dead
by Norman Mailer

The "Thin Red Line" was about company while "The Naked and the Dead" is about squad.

I understand that Malik spend a decade or so doing the script for the movie, and it seems to me the novel got transformed beyond recoqnition during this process. There's very little left of the novel, to the point where I'd say that they share little other than the title.
Either that, or the producers felt that the American public couldn't stomach the idea that wars can be "necesary" without being "good", that even among the winners there are loosers, and, indeed, that these loosers might not be particularly content with their lot.

I liked "Saving Private Ryan" and excellent war movie.

For me the combat scenes depicted in both "Thin Red Line" and "Saving Private Ryan" are of same heavyweight category but while "Saving Private Ryan" is all about "guts and glory" the "Thin Red Line" is more "humain"...


Leo "Apollo11"

Leo "Apollo11"
[/quote]

There is also one other famous book about similar Pacific thematic (and movie too):

The Naked and the Dead
by Norman Mailer

Got that book as well, its a good read.

Was not aware there was a film though, have to have a look and see if i can get a copy.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Bobthehatchit

There is also one other famous book about similar Pacific thematic (and movie too):

The Naked and the Dead
by Norman Mailer

Got that book as well, its a good read.

Was not aware there was a film though, have to have a look and see if i can get a copy.

Here is the link (this is almost 50 years old movie):

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0051978/


Leo "Apollo11"

P.S. [Edit]
Typo fix and further clarification.

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Bobthehatchit

There is also one other famous book about similar Pacific thematic (and movie too):

The Naked and the Dead
by Norman Mailer

Got that book as well, its a good read.

Was not aware there was a film though, have to have a look and see if i can get a copy.

Here is the link (this is almost 50 years old movie):

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0051978/


Leo "Apollo11"

P.S. [Edit]
Typo fix and further clarification.

a

Cheers Leo!

ORIGINAL: timtom
..Either that, or the producers felt that the American public couldn't stomach the idea that wars can be "necesary" without being "good", ....

[&:] hmmm....stomach just fine with that idea. [8|]

Sincerely, American public,
at least 1/250,000,000 of it anyway.

Thin Red Line: P U

The movie i think overall sucked. However the battle scenes were good, and the part where the japs were chasing the GI's down the creek-the japs looked professional and strak, they did not look like the "John Wayne" movie japs.[:D]

The movie is more than just a "war movie", it's not just about some episode in the Pacific. If you're idea of a good movie is just a lot of combat scenes and explosions you're better off watching some old hollywood movie with John Wayne landing in France with a cigar in his mouth never needing to duck for cover.

Anyone remember the beautiful shots with the long grass blowing in the wind on Guadalcanal?

IMHO it's a great movie with alot of content, not just guns.

I hate that movie. Really 3 hours of Psycological analysis and philosophy were not what i expected from a pacific war movie. I wanted the realism of Private Ryan or BoB with the dark atmosphere of Das Boot in the landscape of Guadalcanal.... with the FX of PH or Enemy at the gates...

Actually there was a well-done Thin Red Line made in 1960s which followed the book. This (1998 version) movie was made by a director who previous movie was dishonest portrayal of a mass murder. Terrence Malick is a POS.

“The Thin Red Line
1964 - USA - War Drama/War Epic



Type: Features
Distributor: Allied Artists
Rating: NR (Not For Children)
Running Time: 180 minutesStarring: Ray Daley, Keir Dullea, Bob Kanter, James Philbrook, Jack Warden
Directed by: Andrew Marton

PLOT DESCRIPTION
Set during the Allied invasion of the island of Guadalcanal in the Pacific theater during WWII, this film is based on the novel by James Jones. Keir Dullea is Private Doll, who dreads the invasion and steals a pistol to help him protect himself. Sergeant Welsh (Jack Warden), a caustic, battle-scarred veteran, hates Doll, whom he considers a coward. In battle, Doll kills a Japanese soldier and is filled with remorse, which further angers the sergeant. The next day, an emboldened Doll wipes out an entire enemy machine gun post and begins to feel as sadistic as Welsh. The two must work together to clear away some mines, but as they do, their platoon is surprised by a Japanese raid. ~ Michael Betzold, All Movie Guide”

yea right![:-]

ORIGINAL: Salient

The movie is more than just a "war movie", it's not just about some episode in the Pacific. If you're idea of a good movie is just a lot of combat scenes and explosions you're better off watching some old hollywood movie with John Wayne landing in France with a cigar in his mouth never needing to duck for cover.

Anyone remember the beautiful shots with the long grass blowing in the wind on Guadalcanal?

IMHO it's a great movie with alot of content, not just guns.

No doubt the cinematography was striking, but the supposed moral dilemmas were conveyed a little too heavy-handed. Nolte's character was too overdone and I remember the advance through the village and all of the shots of the dead and dying was just . . . well . . . heavy-handed. I didn't get the "gosh, isn't war awful" feeling that I think I was supposed to. Instead I got the "gimmee a break/when does this movie end" feeling I wasn't supposed to get. Just too artsy-fartsy for my taste. If I remember, there were like three endings to the movie: the movie would clearly end and then UGH! another ten minutes until another obvious ending and then UGH! still more.

By the way, what is the thin red line the title refers? I don't remember any phrase in the movie explaining that.

One of the best war movies ever, imho; I watched it 4 or 5 times when I first rented it. Awesome music. Very cerebral, though, so I knew before anyone told me that many people wouldn't like it.

F.