Jump to content

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:

Because "a more nuanced story" rarely puts bums on seats. Sadly.

Most of the bums probably just go to see the special effects, but there's no reason why you couldn't have a movie with great effects AND a nuanced story. It's not like it's the script writers who cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 359
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My initial thoughts...this movie will bite the big one.   I didn't bother to go see it in the theater.  I read about a dozen "professional" reviews, and literally hundreds of wargamers' and military

All the negativity. You guys really suck. You almost wrecked the movie for me before I even watched it. Yes, does the scenes play out like they would in real life. Heavens No. But really, do they in

I've not seen Fury, might watch should it happen to be on television when am bored. I only saw Hacksaw Ridge for the same reason. The scenes with the bar gunner carrying an torso as an bullet shield b

30 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:

Because "a more nuanced story" rarely puts bums on seats. Sadly.

An ending where the Nazi SS chappy just says "Gosh, I am terribly sorry old man about all this Hitler crap.  How about I just surrender and we can all go off to the NAAFI for a cuppa and have a good laugh about it all" just doesn't have the dramatic impact that audiences are looking for.  Unless it's a Monthy Python skit natch. 

Maybe it's time for a spoof - "Saving Ryan's Privates".

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Erwin said:
35 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:

Because "a more nuanced story" rarely puts bums on seats. Sadly.

An ending where the Nazi SS chappy just says "Gosh, I am terribly sorry old man about all this Hitler crap.  How about I just surrender and we can all go off to the NAAFI for a cuppa and have a good laugh about it all" just doesn't have the dramatic impact that audiences are looking for.  Unless it's a Monthy Python skit natch. 

I think you have the wrong idea about what a "nuanced story" means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having worked in Hwd, I can assure you that you would be horrified at what is termed "commercially viable" by most studio execs.  Compare with what sort of scripts they all want:  "Fast & Furious" ad infinitum.  "Ryan" and "Fury" are about as nuanced as one can expect.

Edited by Erwin
Link to post
Share on other sites

it´s not bad. I just hate the usual approach that certain terms from US sources are taken literally. Also counts for SPR. That would be every german tank is a "Tiger", every gun an "88" and so forth. Also if I see "sandbag positions" to present "typical" WW2 infantry combat positiions, I usually start to get mad. :P 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Having worked in Hwd, I can assure you that you would be horrified at what is termed "commercially viable" by most studio execs.  Compare with what sort of scripts they all want:  "Fast & Furious" ad infinitum.  "Ryan" and "Fury" are about as nuanced as one can expect.

Not saying you're wrong about that. And half of people are by definition below the mean average intelligence.

But I once watched The Matrix (the first one) in a cinema, and on the way out, two obviously quite mentally standard guys were talking loudly about the (to them) completely philosophically novel concept that the world as we see it might just be an illusion.

That movie was a great Hollywood hit, and it entertained the masses with the usual violent power fantasies - but it did more than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes time for Hwd to catch up with new concepts.

When I was a teen I read all the Philip K Dick books and his writing affected how I saw the world - may have inspired the Matrix writers (Wachowski Bros.).  I spent the next 10 years trying to convince Hwd studios to work on a project based on his concepts - and for 10 years was shot down all the time.  After I gave up, "Blade Runner" was made, and since then most of the Sci-Fi TV series and movies have much basis in the concepts Dick wrote about. 

Actually it's interesting that the Wachowski Bros don't mention getting any inspiration from Dick even though it's pretty obvious if you know Dick's work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The movie just did not work for me. Banal rants about the human condition and the endless French civilian scene, felt like they were there to fill a quota. I was distracted by Brad Pitt's funny accent and the Transformer's kid's mustache. Wasn't a huge fan of the shots, either. Locations looked all the same and everything seemed to be purposefully desaturated. I appreciated the tanks but I think this movie over-thought its own premise.

I feel like this movie was a compromise designed for no-one but everyone. Not too silly to be Kelly's Heroes. Not too existentialist to be Full Metal Jacket. Not too historical to be A Bridge Too Far. Not too dramatic to be Das Boot. Usually movies of these genres rely on creative writing, directing and acting to make the viewer care, and identify with, the crew. This movie relied on star power and tank-hype (props to Bovington, though).

Mediocre film in all sense of the word. Not the worst thing you can see in the cinemas, and certainly not the best. I saw it way back when and haven't felt a need to rewatch it. Hollywood can do better, see Hacksaw Ridge (not a fan of Dunkirk, though).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

see Hacksaw Ridge (not a fan of Dunkirk, though

Yes, Hacksaw Ridge probably the most violent and gut wrenching film I ever seen - like they went all out to beat Saving Private Ryan in that regard.  I dunno about the story particularly.

Dunkirk I thought a wonderful "Art War Film" or "War Art Film"...   Not sure I seen that genre type of movie b4, so maybe new.  They messed around with time so it's not a traditional linear timeline film.

Darkest Hour is not a war movie I suppose.  But, nonetheless a brilliant depiction of that same time period in the halls of power at Westminster.  Gary Oldman deserved his Oscar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

Not too historical to be A Bridge Too Far.

In the words of a certain USatian tennis player who now works for Aunty Beeb, "You cannot be serious". A movie based on a flawed book, made by "Darling Dickie" who had established his directorial credentials with "Oh, What a Lovely War", and was then leaned on by Hollywood agents to give their clients more scenes. Doesn't equal "historical" in my book.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Erwin said:

 But, nonetheless a brilliant depiction of that same time period in the halls of power at Westminster.  Gary Oldman deserved his Oscar.

You're right Oldman did deserve an Oscar.... For "Sid and Nancy" and for "Prick up your Ears". But his Churchill in "Darkest Hour" doesn't really compete with Simon Russel Beale's in  Aunty Beeb's three hour "Dunkirk".

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

Doesn't equal "historical" in my book.

Is it possible to boil down the largest airborne operation in history to a couple of hours and consider it to be perfectly historical? As a piece of fiction, and as an epic -- B2F explained the story of the operation, instead of a specific protagonist. We got to see the planning, the execution and the results. Lots of fake German tanks, an excellent take-off scene and a great big bridge skirmish. That is what I meant by "too historical." A film that focused on the history (regardless of how flawed), rather than a tight unit. 

16 hours ago, Erwin said:

Darkest Hour is not a war movie I suppose.  But, nonetheless a brilliant depiction of that same time period in the halls of power at Westminster.  Gary Oldman deserved his Oscar.

Yes, saw Darkest Hour recently. Good film, I especially enjoyed the tasty stakes.

14 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

You're right Oldman did deserve an Oscar.... For "Sid and Nancy" and for "Prick up your Ears".

Aye, Darkest Hour was hardly his best work. That being said, I think he did a good enough job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

 That is what I meant by "too historical." 

Aye, Darkest Hour was hardly his best work. That being said, I think he did a good enough job.

It may be a language thing, but, to me the phrase "too historical" suggests that the movie stuck too closely to the facts for your liking. Whereas, for me it strayed too far from them. 

Yes, a good enough good job, Whether it deserved an Oscar, I don't think so. As mentioned previously, I think that Simon Russel Beale gave a far more convincing performance in Aunty Beeb's "Dunkirk". And lets not forget Albert Finney's "Churchill" and Vanessa Redgrave's "Clemmie" in The Gathering Storm, probably the definitive portrayals of both of them. Even the toilet scene smacks of a rip off of the bath scene in The Gathering Storm.

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2018 at 8:41 AM, Warts 'n' all said:

After June 7th the antipathy was mutual, with the Canadians even being called "Tommie SS". It wouldn't be surprising if some of the Canadians who arrived here in the summer of '40 heard stories about Wormhout, and passed those stories on to later arrivals. And the Canadians were therefore determined to get their revenge in first. Perhaps IanL or another of our Canadian forumites, might be able to confirm or disprove that notion.

I haven't heard much in the way of Canadian war crimes. There is an incident later in the war with the A&S Highlanders, but it in 1945 near the end of the war and there is not much recorded on it. Ardenne Abbey was not the only case either where the 12th SS executed Canadian soldiers and I believe close to 140 were recorded having been executed overall. It seemed the 12th SS had a particular liking to executing Canadian soldiers post Juno.

I have Mark Zuerke's "Holding Juno" book that I haven't read yet. I can take a peek. But as far as being in Canada, I've never heard the term "Tommie SS"

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2018 at 2:06 PM, sigop22 said:

My friends wife is from the Philippines. She said once that even a few generations later they still have a hatred for the Japanese

Oh yeah, the countries occupied by Imperial Japan have long memories. I served in USFK earlier this decade and the hatred my ROK Army friends had for Japan was palpable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not seen Fury, might watch should it happen to be on television when am bored. I only saw Hacksaw Ridge for the same reason. The scenes with the bar gunner carrying an torso as an bullet shield before tossing himself an grenade. The scene with the medic swatting grenades away in mid-air. They did not work for me and just seemed more comical than gut-wrenching. Not sure about the story either, gibson wanting an religious viewpoint on everything I guess.

Dunkirk I went to see. As the subject matters more interesting to me. I thought was alright film I guess. The sound was great, every time they are shot at scared the crap out of me. The messing with the timeline was confusing at first until you realise that each story/timeline are merging together to become the same story/timeline towards the end. Some things grated on me though, to try and keep it short;

  • The germans are being kept back from the beaches by an perimeter that seems to be about two streets away?
  • The Andrew appearing to be fecking powerless in the whole matter. But the smalls ships appearing are Christ reborn.
  • They have an boat loaded with soaking wet and oil covered troops but sail down to fecking Dorset rather than return them into Ramsgate like everyone else would have?
  • The director I believe said that using an French post war destroyer rather than CGI should not be noticeable unless you know what an British destroyer from the era looks like. Well I do know, so was rather noticeable to me.

I echo Warts also in remembering the BBC's Dunkirk being rather good however.

Edited by Oliver_88
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's unfortunate that some of the deleted scenes actually gives the characters of the crew more personality than their most apparent features. Bible being the religious guy. Gordo being the Mexican. Wardaddy being a huge douche. Coon-Ass being..well...an ass. The whole of Wardaddy's character is fleshed out in one deleted scene that involves him speaking about how his younger brother and his 'Rose' died in a car accident he caused while drinking. Hell, it explains the whole reason why he's in the military as well as the scars on his back. The one with Jon Berenthals character (sorry, just hate referring to his nickname) shows that he's more than a one dimensional 'haggard' grizzly mean guy and some who's absolutely frightened that they're going to be the next in the coffin. The alternate to the discussion at the dinner table about shooting horses is much more emotional and pushes how much Gordo hates the war.

 Honestly think the movie deserves a 'directors' cut. There are some alternate and deleted scenes that explain much more and give it a bit more heart and made the characters more redeemable.

I personally enjoyed the movie. Having been in a hatch for with 'field showers', dirty rations and cigarettes it captures a rugged look that I believe some war movies miss(Oh the mud, there can never be enough mud and grime.). It had its flaws, but no more than some other war movies I watched (Cross of Iron and Stalingrad(old one) being my favorites). The inclusion of actual tanks was amazing; and I only wish they had incorporate some more dynamic tank-on-tank action besides the tiger (Imagine the beginning battle with Stug's and a Panzer included).

The final act is the part I could live without. Feels like they were attempting to create a separate war movie and made it much more dreary than it had to be. I would have been happier if there was a solution either than 'everyone has to die' in order to wrap it up. It seemed almost like they had rented the tank for a few extra days more than they planned so they filmed a scenario that seemed implausible. 

And the actor not showering for a month to recreate the prospect of soldiers not being clean is a bit.....dumb. Even in the most extreme of circumstances, hygiene for a soldier would involve more than running dip over your staches and seeing a puddle of water once in awhile. A can of water and a wash cloth can go miles above just being a dirty bastard. 

One other thing that bothered me was the cussing. Sometimes I think it was a bit much and heavy for the time period. Not that I sat in a tank in Berlin in 45', but the level they were swearing seemed overboard for their situations. It's more common than before for people, especially soldiers, to cuss. But even now.....eh. Dropping the F-bomb between nouns and pronouns doesn't really give to good dialogue. 

Edited by sigop22
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, sigop22 said:

One other thing that bothered me was the cussing. Sometimes I think it was a bit much and heavy for the time period. Not that I sat in a tank in Berlin in 45', but the level they were swearing seemed overboard for their situations. It's more common than before for people, especially soldiers, to cuss. But even now.....eh. Dropping the F-bomb between nouns and pronouns doesn't really give to good dialogue. 

Yeah this is definitely a product of modern movies. I remember this being one of the criticisms of Band of Brothers back in the day -- that the soldiers cussed too much and didn't really talk like that back then. I think at least one of the vets that the show was based on complained about it. Trying to look that up again I found this:

https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2010/06/14/but-we-didnt-talk-that-way-by-randy-ark-staff-writer/

It seems a lot of veterans complain about it. Modern movies are written by modern people, so they make the characters talk like modern Americans and use modern slang. It seems the trend of American soldiers cussing a lot in war started with Vietnam and continued from there. And nowadays we have Quentin Tarantino movies where the characters drop the F-bomb every other word in every sentence, and US Marines who talk the same way.

On the other hand, the WW2 generation was a bunch of religious farm boys coming out of the depression, so it was a very different generation than what we are used to today. Many of them would get upset if you used "unchristian" language. One interesting excerpt from that article:

“The f-word was used, but not a whole lot, because our Platoon Officers and NCO’s would reprimand those who used it, and they knew that they could get extra duty for using foul language.”

Now that's interesting. I had never heard of soldiers actually being reprimanded for cursing. I've never seen that in any movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...