John1966

See how Angela dispatches the Wehermacht here. They should include this in an add-on pack or possibly a module in it's own right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0rRPU_cvGg Although to be fair it might just look like a bug. Is that a proper MG42 at 4.53? You'd have thought it'd do better than that...

I bet it's not Angela Lansbury. Again.

No. Not really. Don't know about you but I don't take the Oscars very seriously. I could go into a very long list of why I don't take the very seriously including all the times the academy has got it wildly wrong but I fear I may be straying way off topic, It also involes a lot of Angela Lansbury related complaints (three nominations and no Oscar!) but I reckon this is hardly the place...

I think that was the one. Didn't get any Oscars last night though...

Sounds a completely plausible story. Years ago I was reading a British account of D-Day that had been written late-'40s/early-'50s and a British soldier quite openly admitting (to the point of being proud of it) that he'd not taken some Germans as prisoners (he threw a grenade at them) because "it was not what he was there for" (although, it has to be said, it was a heat-of-the-moment incident). But the thing is, I still don't think that scene in Fury was credible. Just the whole way it was done and the reasons for doing it. Sorry, we've stopped talking about Fury now, havent we...?

Yes, use of non-diegetic music in filmmaking is actually a bit controversial to me (no, really). In fact, it was hardly used in early talkies because filmmakers assumed (incorrectly) that an audience wouldn't accept music in a film if they couldn't see where it was coming from. That's partly why there were so many songs in films of that era that you wouldn't expect to have songs in (early Marx Brothers, for example) . I suppose it comes down to what you're trying to achieve. In a way, providing non-diegetic music to a battle scene is, sort of, selling a lie because when a soldier was surrounded by death and destruction he didn't usually hear a 40-piece orchestra while he was witnessing it. He just saw what he saw. Adding music adds all sorts of feelings or emotions that may not actually be there (or perhaps amplifies those that are). But then again, it is now readily accepted as a part of filmmaking so we're just used to it. Like I say, depends what you're trying to achieve: realism or heightened drama. Although in this case you have made rather a good movie (and kept the camera a ground level - funny how many of these films try to look like newsreel with cameras ten-foot off the ground) out of what is, at the end of the day, a computer game. So as it's unlikely to feature any Oscar-winning acting performances, I'd say use of music to add to the drama is pretty legitimate and, dare I say, quite cool. This is a film forum, right? IMDB? Oh...

Holst's Mars isn't it?

Or mine? Oh...

Don't be daft. Who'd want to see that?

Actually Jack Hawkins cries in The Cruel Sea; trumps them all. But in slightly different circumstances to Tom who does it on the battlefield.

For the record, I rather like SPR. I didn't moan about it. Vastly superior to Fury IMHO. Yes there are some historical accuracies but it was groundbreaking at the time and there certainly aren't enough to distract from my enjoyment of it. I am not one of those people who can't watch a WWII movie because they've got the wrong chin-straps. In thirty years SPR will still be regarded as a classic but I seriously doubt Fury will be. I'm actually just a bit mystified why so many people liked Fury so much. I think one critic described it as "overblown war porn" (not my words). I think I know what he means. Incidentally, when Tom Hanks cried in SPR it was dramatic and unexpected; it wasn't a cliche back then. When Brad Pitt did it, it just looked like it was a film requirement because Tom Hanks had done it. I found Captain Miller an entirely convincing character but I can't say the same of Wardaddy. Reckon SPR would have been showered with Oscars (got plenty of nominations) if it hadn't have been the bizarre decision to give the biggee to Shakespeare in Love and (I think) Jack Nicholson in whatever he was in that year. I've seen SPR about 15 times (maybe more). Once was enough for Fury...

Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)? [What did I say? - Ed]

Hmmm. Not sure where I said it wasn't cliched enough. I'm going to take a punt (and I could be wrong) that you're referring to me saying that their lack of comeraderie was the cliche I was missing. No, I'm not citing that as a missing-but-necessary cliche. I'm saying that I found their lack of comeraderie difficult to believe. That's slightly different. I just thought that that their relationship as a crew wasn't believable. I assume you thought it was. OK, if you buy it then no wonder you enjoyed it. I didn't (on either count). Did you really think the final battle was "enjoyable"? OK... Incidentally, I preferred all the movies you cite above. And I'll add A Bridge Too Far (1977) as long as we're only talking about the dialogue among the senior staff. Wasn't so keen on the action. I'd also add A Walk in the Sun (1945), All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), Ivan's Childhood (1962), Come and See (1985) and Downfall (2004). Although with Downfall I'd add the caveat that they did rather gloss over certain elements of the battle for Berlin (for, perhaps, understandable reasons). Thinking aloud, Attack (1956) is also very good (and shows you don't need authentic Tigers to make a good movie - they really are rubbish) and The Cruel Sea (1953) is, of course, one of the best war movies ever. Stalag 17 (1953) and The Colditz Story (1955) are also great but I'm not sure I count POW movies. Actually this could go on and on... I'm thinking of all those Brit war movies of the '50s now. And the '40s, come to think of it... God, there's a lot of them and a shed load of them are great. But if I go on, this'll just be a film list... Did I mention The Halls of Montezuma (1950)? [Oh, just stop it - Ed]

But that was one of the most cliched scenes! The quiet interlude; the young man losing his virginity; the girl being a goner; the guy in charge more educated than you thought; he weeps after they've gone... Did they miss any?

I’ve tried to avoid saying anything about this movie because I know a lot of people liked it but I can’t help myself... it was terrible. Sorry, but it was. Whether or not it's historically accurate is just for WWII nerds like ourselves but it wasn’t even a good movie if you ignore all that. At the end of the movie I thought “what do I know about the central characters?” I came up with one was religious, one was Mexican and one was Brad Pitt. That was all. The narrative consisted of a load of WWII clichés strung together via some tanks. (They were lovely tanks, mind. I have no problem with the tanks ) Yet it had pretentions of... well... something. Horses. What was with the horses? We start with the (somewhat unlikely) vista of a lone German officer on a white horse crossing a post-apocalyptic landscape only to be leapt on by Brad with a knife. This was not a great start to a “serious” WWII movie. But I kept with it. Next, they’re talking about dead horses (which I always find odd when you’re seeing dead humans in large numbers every day). Perhaps I’m missing something; but then the white horse is back in the closing scene! (You see its feet go past when the guys hiding under the tank) They just really wanted to say something about horses but I don’t know what it was... Then there were all those unlikely moments. I’m not sure whether Brad riding atop his tank through the streets as “unlikely” but if he did it in a game of CM I’d be screaming at him to button up. But have no fear: The inevitable German sniper (and boy, he was inevitable) was far keener to shoot the civilian (after he’d given the German position away, it must be noted) than any of the GIs including Brad as the aforementioned tank commander who likes to sit on top of his tank in the middle of an urban street when enemy contact is expected. Lucky they set up the MG42 in a stupid position too; that got one the Americans. And while we’re on the subject of the town scene, I realise that these were rough round the edges kind of guys (and I’ll even forgive them being too old as the photos show these guys tended to look older than their days) but to me they just seemed to hate each other at that dinner. Surely they would have had some kind of bonding, mutual respect or brothers in arms kind of thing going on? As for the execution of the prisoner? Well, yes, I think we know that allied soldiers almost certainly killed prisoners in cold blood from time to time; war is a rough dehumanising experience. But it still wasn’t a convincing scene. I couldn’t believe he’d get the other guy to kill him in that way for that reason. Perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps it was the fault of the acting or the director. I dunno but I didn’t feel convinced. And that happened just after a scene in which the Shermans closed range on an infantry position when surely they’d standoff and lay HE on it? That’s what I’d do. Isn’t that the point of the Big Gun on your tank? That scene also features American soldiers firing from the hip. I know that used to happen in movies a lot but I thought it was a thing of the past (at least since SPR). The Tiger? (And we are getting all WWI nerdy now but I’m hopefully among friends ) Well the fact it was real Tiger made little difference to the film. The SPR “Tiger” or some CGI would have done just as well. They smoked it: That was good. Just as well it was a lone-unsupported-Tiger . Were there a lot of those about? Can’t help thinking that was another “unlikely” moment. And how they dealt with it? Well I supposed if you don’t mind losing most of your platoon. Good job the Tiger didn’t just back off and keep the range longer while preventing them from out flanking it. Good job it decided to charge too (although at least it kept buttoned up, unlike the Americans). Yep, I’m being nerdy but again I wasn’t convinced by the scene. And the big finale? It’s hard to defend (no pun intended). They stay because it’s their “home” (although it almost certainly wasn’t). Don’t they want to see their kids again? Well actually, as previously mentioned, I don’t think we ever found out if they had any. The battle and the behaviour of the SS battalion? Think that’s been covered before. So, it was just a war movie? Who cares about historical accuracy? Well as many have said, it was a rare film about tank warfare; it really should have tried to get as much about that right as it could but it didn’t. War films aren’t very realistic? They’ve all got errors? Well that’s not a good enough excuse really. We’ve all got a number of unbelievable things we’ll put up with before critical mass is met and sadly, this one crossed the line with me by a long chalk. But I’d forgive all that if it was just a good story, well told. But it wasn’t. It wasn’t convincing on a historical or dramatic level and the story was, as I say, just WWII clichés strung together. In another life I review movies (but not normally WWII movies I’m relieved to say) so I see some howlers. But this was my worse (or at least most disappointing) movie of last year. But hey, if you liked it, that is your inalienable right... Sorry for the “hating”...

Am I the only person who reckons the Redux version of Apocalypse Now is actually nowhere as good as the theatrical release? I was as keen to see the legendary planation scene as the next man but in the Redux version the pacing is way off and there are scenes that actually ruin my perception of the movie. Specifically the scene in which Captain Willard nicks Kilgore's surf board as a prank. Firstly, it shows Willard in an entirely different light to the way I'd come to understand him in the theatrical version. He was spposed to be all about the mission and makes little effort to bond with the crew of the boat. Yet here he is in high jinks and having a laugh with them. Secondly (and most unforgivably), we have Kilgore fyling over the jungle distraught and begging for his board back. The whole point of Kilgore is that he's almost supernaturally untouchable. He is the essence of war; he thrives on it. As Willard remarks, nothing will ever touch him. He is a mystical character. Nothing could ruffle his feathers. He wouldn't get upset if Willard took his board because he wouldn't be able to take his board; fate would intervene because war is Kilgore's mystical realm where no harm can come to him. A notion completely destroyed by that scene. And if you just think I'm getting a bit too Film Studies about all this, Coppola said many times that he edited the movie to make sure Kurtz (a special forces colonel) didn't look fat. When he discovered Brando was not "in shape" as he had claimed, he suggested that he change the character so that he'd let himself go. But Brando insisted that he play him as written, hence the careful editing. But in the Redux, he leaves numerous shots that clearly indicate Brando was as fat as I am. Francis, you should have left it alone. It was a fine as it was...

The CO2 levels of maps without trees are horrific.

Well that was one of the things that bugged me about the movie. In a sense it was central to the "plot" (and I use the term loosely) as it's part of Pitt's justification for staying with the tank before the (ridiculous) climax: "This is my home!" Of course, it's supposed to be a parallel with the effect war had had on them: The war had become their home as the tank had. (Probably) Thing is though, did tankers really feel that way about their tanks? Bomber crews were quite attached to their aircraft (although they didn't live in them) but generally speaking, if they lost the plane, the war was over for them anyway (either because they were killed or had become POWS). The same is not necessarily true of tank crews who may have bailed out, lost their tank due to mechanical failure or simply had their tank upgraded as the war progesssed. I have no idea of the statitics on this but how many American tank crews who'd managed to survive from '42 to '45 would still be driving around the same tank they landed in North Africa with? I'll take a punt that it was very few. I saw an interview with a British veteran in a documentary about the dersert war last year and he said that he'd lost 35(!) tanks over the war. It's hard to imagine that he became particularly attached to any of them. Actually, according to IMDB, Fury was an M4A2E8 (76)W HVSS (although, of course, that may not have been the part it was playing). I'm sure someone will be able to say with absolute authority when that was introduced...

Of course. I was just pondering whether it might be a reason why Battlefront might have made bridges untargettable. Difficult really because in some scenarios would might want them vulnerable (where there are multiple crossings) and in others not. I've just done one with only a single crossing point for the armour (that I found, anyway ). If the Americans had blown the bridge on turn one then we'd have been reduced to taking potshots at each other for the next couple of hours. I suppose that might be fun of a sort but it'd make the ground objectives a bit tricky to take. Not that I took most of them anyway...

In a lot of cases, wouldn't it ruin the scenario if you could target the bridge? I mean if it's a river-crossing scenario with one bridge and somebody takes it out right at the start, that's pretty much game ruined. I have a dim and distant memory from some game or another (quite probably a board game) where the designer notes specifically stated that it would be unrealistic to let a player target a bridge as somebody further up the command might not want it destroyed even if the enemy was crossing as they might like to use it for the inevitable counter-attack. (I'm not saying that's historically accurate, that's just what the designers said and it sounds reasonable enough - bridges obviously were blown but at what level would the orders be given to do so bearing in mind a bridges obvious strategic importance?) Anyway, seems very unsporting if it's a river crossing and it's the only poinr you (or your vehicles) can cross.

Yep, the Haunted Tank is a great source book...

James may have been stealthier... And to think of all the things that could have gone wrong... Always expect the unexpected. It just wasn't their day!

That's not going to end well...

That would be eminently sensible. But I reckon something like this but with shrubbery would be more in the spirit of things: http://static1.shop033.com/resources/A6/5286/picture/EC/17678316.jpg

This is handy. I think I need to make a terrain identification chart and stick it next to my monitor. With a light. I always play CM in the dark.