The WORST war movie.

[Major Tom]

The reason that war movies SHOULD be closer to reality (it doesn't matter if equipment is not replicated correctly!) is because they are representing ACTUAL HISTORY. You go to a War movie to see action that takes place in a conflict in our historical past, and since the Director, Producer, etc. USE an actual historic event they should be TRUE to that event as best they can. If they can't afford to buy a Tiger I, then it is OK if they use a facimile. People generally don't care about details like that. BUT, when you portray EVENTS, and PERSONALITIES to behave in a certain way people WILL believe it to be the truth.

They could have made U-571 (or whatever) about some fictional event in the future/present (Red October was already made though!) BUT, they chose an event that ACTUALLY occured in history and bastardized it.

Propaganda films should be taken with a different grain of salt. Usually they are contemporary pieces of work, where the producer cannot stray from a certain level of censorship and lies. They have to make their enemy appear to be sub-human and their troops collectively glorious.

Movie makers have the right to modify history so far as to create an interesting plot or story, not to modify it solely to make the audience feel better. If they have to do it, then create everything out of fiction and don't use a real event.

I liked the ending of Thin Red Line better than SPR (as I was so happy it was finally over!) mainly because it didn't end all happy (I did enjoy seeing Tom Hanks die, he should do that more in his movies, but, not wait until the end ). Thin Red Line Characters were less contrived (albiet I was confused throughout the entire film of who was who) than SPR. In SPR there was ONE coward with everyone else being more or less Rambo. In Thin Red Line everyone had a moment of fear and reluctance to move forward. I still have to say that Thin Red Line had better/realistic battle scenes than Saving Ryan's Privates (what little action scenes TRL had were fantastic).

[Da Coder]

And of course, war films lead to parodies of war films... Let me offer this little snippet I found on iFilm.com:

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilm/skeletons/film_detail/0,1263,221593,00.html

[This message has been edited by Da Coder (edited 10-16-2000).]

[ibucephalus]

I find it odd that some people on this thread are claiming Apocalypse Now is the novel Heart of Darkness set in 'Nam. Put your bong down for a moment guys and get over to the library. Beyond a river and Kurtz, the movie is not like the novel at all. In the book, Marlow is a steam boat captain travelling down river and the moral change that happens within him. The character in Apocalyse Now doesn't undergo any change. He's an assassin at the start and an assassin at the end. He was morally bankrupt when the movie started. I suggest everyone go out right now and get a copy of Heart of Dearkness by Conrad. Its not my favourite work by him but is pretty intense. If you like it you should check out Nostromo and Lord Jim. Both are fantastic!

To get back to the topic, SPR has my vote for worst. Couyldn't get over the flag-waving. Yanks eat this artless crap up for some reason though.

I'd like to make a movie called "Stock Characters in Militarily implausible situations who save the free world with good ol' american know-how".

[russellmz]

when don roos wrote the opposite of sex, he set out to break three cliches/rules of moviemaking:

-the main character has to be really likeable

-no flashbacks

-no narrator

he broke all three and made a great film.

so i propose everyone contribute to the most non-cliche-ridden script ever written about ETO infantry.

we need:

-a hopeless battle where the germans win against the allies for a dark edge(somebody suggest a battle!)

-have a non-american allied force as the main chracters(someone suggest a side they wanna see)

-intelligent use of german tactics against the defending brits/french/poles/or russians

-some non-stereotypical characters...er, what do you suggest?

atrocity committing SOB new guy?

gentle veteran sergeant?

crybaby complaining bad-ss?

atheist?

jewish former german?

'normal' guy who's actually the craziest most psycotic guy there?

suggestions please...

------------------

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[jackhammer]

Posted by Chupacabra: Additional points of suck:

1) I never knew Vietnam looked so much like California! Damn, I gotta visit. I mean seriously, folks, at least haul your Hollywood asses down to Costa Rica or something, at least they've got jungle there.

2) Ummm... I'm sorry, I missed the overt American West symbolism, could you shovel in a little more? Thanks Mr. Wayne, that's just right. Now let's go kill some Indians! Er, I mean Vietnamese!

3) Usually movies which use ketchup as blood are filmed on Dad's Super-8, and are mercifully lost in the attic three days after they're made.

4) Those Vietnamese were clever bastards! They not only dug pungi pits and such, they devised evil-scientist-style spike traps which spring out at the unwary. Apparently the jungle-vine technology field has made rapid advances.

5) Repeat after me: Mr. Sulu is not a convincing Montagnard.

6) And of course, there's the famous scene of the sun setting over the East China Sea.

Therefore, I have revised my previous List O' Suck. While I firmly believe that my 2 aforementioned movies suck heartily, in my opinion, The Green Berets is the worst war movie ever made.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. WHAT!!!!!!! How can you not realize that the Green Berets is the greatest movie ever made about Vietnam!!? (hehehehe) Well, actually compared to Full Metal Jacket and Casualties of War, Green Berets is a f@@king masterpiece. 1) the movie was actually filmed in Georgia,I believe. 2) the only good indian,er I mean VC, is a dead one pilgrim.

3)It goes in the attic unless they use Heinz ketchup. In that case it becomes an instant classic.

4)I guess you never heard of the infamous Ho Chi Hamster. He brought jungle vine tech. into the 20th century. The Vc admit that they could not have won the war without him. By the way he's currently on a college campus speaking tour in the US. 5)Sulu wasn't a 'yard he was a North Vietmanease. Remember that classic line: " First kill all stinkin' cong then go home!" 6)how can you rag on the most poignant beach scene ever made (hehehe); "your what this war's all about" ( fade to green beret song).

[Major Tom]

Russelmz, unfortunately you get into the trap of still being cliche ridden, just in the complete opposite manner

[JohnDeere]

I actually remember seeing Apocalypse Now in the theatres and to me it was more of a philosophical and ludicrous but almost factual acount of that conflict. As for the Big Red 1, it was partly based on the directors actual experiences during the war. It too tried to show the humanity in that conflict as well. The worst war movies in my category are: Siege at fire base gloria, Macarthur, and Battle of the Bulge.

------------------

"The dice of god are always loaded"- Emerson.

[russellmz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Russelmz, unfortunately you get into the trap of still being cliche ridden, just in the complete opposite manner <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

dang it! russe<blink>LL</blink>mz

please remember, russell is two L's...

hmmm still cliche ridden, eh? how about we mix genres? porn/war movie?

kubbokie theathre/war movie?

shakespeare/war movie?

horror/war movie?

i actually like the last idea...one by one german troopers get killed by unseen force, turns out it's [somebody fill the blank]

------------------

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[This message has been edited by russellmz (edited 10-17-2000).]

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

The only thing that REALLY ticks me off with war movies is when they don't get the equipment right.

For instance.. In Memphis Belle they would show the German FW190s coming in and you would see there wings lighting up from the muzzle flashes from machine gun fire. I got freakin' i-rate! Every war buff knows that the FW190 does NOT have wing mounted MGs. The FW190A has 2x7.92mm MGs and 4x20mm cannons. 2 20mms on each side of the fuselage where the wings connect, the wing root, and the 2 MGs on the top of the engine inside the engine cowling. Sometimes the FWs had under the wings extra 20mms cannons fix to the hard points but this was only seen in a ground support role.

For the time the Memphis Belle took place they were most likely fighting FW190Ds or(Dora Nines). Which only had 2x20mms, one in each wing root, and I think 2x13.7mm MGs in the cowling.

For me that one little point TOTALLY ruined the movie for me.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 10-16-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*Nitpick mode on*

IIRC, the movie takes place in 1943 (notice they have B-17Fs (no chin turrets). The FW190D-9 did not appear until Autumn of 1944. You are right about the armament of the FW-190A. It (typically, there were lots of variations) had 2xMG131 (13mm MGs) above the engine and 4xMG151 (20mm cannon) in the wings. One pair was in the wing root (where the wings connect to the fuselage) and the other pair were just outboard of the landing gear bays (laying on their side so's they'd fit).

*Nitpick mode off*

As I said before, my grandfather was a bombardier in a B-17F and had lots of good things to say about the accuracy (technical and otherwise) of the film. (He did notice that they missed the field-expedient MG mounts cut into the B-17 nose cones, though.)

I otherwise feel your pain about technical inaccuracies in supposedly "historical" movies.

------------------

Cats aren't clean, they're covered with cat spit.

[Guest MantaRay]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

Oh, do the Iron Eagle movies count as war movies? Because those are right up there. Basically, any movie with Lou Gossett Jr. you can pretty much assume is going to be more fun than losing teeth. But not by much.

Especially Iron Eagles (2?), the one where the WW2 planes were suddenly INCREDIBLY BADASS!!! and could blow the hell out of a modern country. I'm sorry, but I don't care what pissant drug-financed banana republic I'm from, if I ever see Lou Gossett Jr coming at me in a P-47, I'm going to take my Chinese surplus AKM and blow his bad-movie-making ass out of the sky.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is apparent you didnt see Iron Eagle 4. If you thought 2 was bad...........

Ray

[Guest MantaRay]

Everyone seems so critical of Green Berets. It is personally one of my favorites. It gets a nod from me just because of the fact that my brother liked it. Hokey, yes, but still the ONLY movie to do GB's any justice (even if it is for only 4 mins of a 2 hour film)

How can you guys not think, Navy Seals with Charlie Sheen, wasnt the worst war flick ever? A girl scout leader would have devised better tactics. Hell, Driving Miss Daisy was more believible as a war flick that that.

Ray

[STRAKER]

The funnuy thing is most war movies suck bar the odd one. IE the winter war

Its probably what make me enjoy documentaries more.

Im so pissed off at these film companies who spend millions making for eg SPR and it sucks.

The same for U F$%^KIN 57.

I mean what a crock.

Have u seen so many depth charges in ya life, blowing up a few metres away form a sub. Ohh whats that the sub seems to be ok!!.

U would think one director today would have the ability to make a good , accurate war movie with these huge budgets.

Enemy at the gates has had 100+ million spent on it, the most expensive for a European movie. Hmm that will be interesting.

Stalingrad was a nasty war.

If that movie isnt an NC17 STATES - R18 NZ i dont want to see it.

SPR was R18 because it depicted realistic war scenes.

If Enemy at the gates is a kiddies movie im gonna be pissed off. I have heard theres a love story going on in it to hmm.

Pearl Harbour is apparently a love story as well, about a WOMAN torn between two men.

What a crock! Part II!!!!!!

There wont be much fighting in that, i mean how long did the attack go on for,( how much fuel did jap planes have 20 minutes or so to fight with) cause thats about how long the attack scene will last and thats it.

The rest will prob be sucky sucky kiss kiss.

The future of war movies looks grim.

More movie stroy emphasis is now on fighting one another over woman, than the actual enemy.

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by STRAKER:

If that movie isnt an NC17 STATES - R18 NZ i dont want to see it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You'll never get a war movie released in the States with an NC-17 rating. It's the commercial kiss of death. First, many theaters refuse to show NC-17 rated movies. Second, Blockbuster Video, the largest video rental chain in the country, refuses to carry NC-17 rated videos.

The last NC-17 movie I can really recall was Showgirls. True, the movie was a big steaming heap of dumbass, but enough people would've probably gone to see it for the curiosity value for the filmmakers to recoup their costs. They didn't, because there simply weren't enough venues where people could see the movie.

So basically, I'd recommend against holding your breath for an NC-17 rated war flick.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Pain]

I have first seen "The thin red line" and was shocked how boring this movie was. Then I have read the book... and I liked it very much more than the movie. It was just such realistic. In the book there was a real plot, a real mission, some real death experiences, the movie just sucked about these points.

[Stefan Fredriksson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

The Vietnam movie with Michael J. Fox and Sean Penn would be up there. That piece of suck opened up strange new dimensions of suck to wallow in. ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not agree. I think Casualties of War is very good.

If nothing else, Michael J Fox shows he can do other things than comedies. And he does it well!

[gashford]

Well I have read your rants so here is mine about the worst war movies ever, haven't seen these mentioned yet, except for my last couple.

Spartacus - Where are the auxillary troops the romans used as fodder? Where did they get the roman tactics from the LAdybird book of the Romans?

Gladiator - Again were where the auxillaries. Why are the cavalry wearing lorica segmentata, why did they build their palisades in a forest? Why did the Romans leave the obviously fantastic defensive positions of the pallisades and embankment for a open battle with the Germans (see they where there even then - but no KTs that would have really changed things i imagine!!

SPR - Not bad, but where were the other allied troops? he rest of you have made most of the points I have picked up except the horrible bit where the party are going through the town shortly after the French child incident and they come across a machine gun barrel pointing out of a window into a narrow alley, not up it but across it giving a field of fire of about 4 feet to the front, who would position a weapons barrel poking out of a window across an alley way!

Anyway there is my rant, I realise the first to are war films at the furthest stretch of the imagination but there you go.

All being said and done I still enjoy watching them... oh oh there is one more with James Cagney in, he and his buddies are advancing across a field toward a ruined building when a machine gun starts to cut everyone up, Cagney in a fit of anger throws a couple of grenades at the ruined two story building then dives for cover, a few moments later the building expodes like it has been hit by 'off board' artillery, I would have loved to get my hands on a few of those grenades in times past!! =)

Graham

[Guest MantaRay]

I believe those grenades had a bit of fertilizer in them....literally.

Ray

[flyingcursor]

Thin Red Line (the last one) The first one was corny too but better.

Battle of the Bulge.

Deer Hunter. Not even a war movie.

Richthofen and Brown. A really bad film from the '70's. Shudder.

I've learned to accept the flaws in SPR. I liked it.

Has anyone here ever seen a movie called "When Trumpets Fade"? It came out in Dec of '98. It's about some people from the 28th div in the Huertgen. I liked that very well.

The only thing that bothered me was everyone was wearing their helmet liners backwards. I've never seen a photograph with them on backwards. Was this a pathetic attempt to make the soldiers look "cool" in a '90's kind of way?

[Frenchy]

One thing I noticed in Memphis Belle...at what altitude were they flying when attacked...IIRC, they had their gloves off while using MGs...wouldn't their hands have frozen quickly after exposure 3 to 5 miles up? (I did enjoy the movie)

Worst movie for me...Battle of the Bulge and Midway (god that was horrible).

------------------

Webmaster

http://www.trailblazersww2.org

http://www.vmfa251.org

[Croda]

Chuppy, Agreed about the Duke movies. I just hate crediting him with a bad one, even Ghenghis Khan.

And for the record, I liked Heartbreak ridge and To Hell and Back. Nothing quite like a medal of honor winner playing himself.

------------------

"Nuts!"

[chasd]

Star Ship Poopers has to be the worst ive seen!

The storyline was hardly beleivable, but thats ok its a sci fi.

I dont know what time period its set in, but if mindless bugs found a way to use their ass for artillery, youd think the humans might have developed some arty of their own.

And with bugs that are imune to bullets have a mouth that is only capaple of eating humans, maybe the Mobile Infantry should have scrapped the human wave attacks idea and use some sort of 'vehicle'.

------------------

" I swear by God this sacred oath, that I will give unlimited obedience to the Leader of the German Reich and People, Adolph Hitler, and as a brave soldier will be ready to stake me life for this oath any time."

The German soldier's oath, valid as of August 2, 1934.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I gotta say it although I'll probably be howled down...The thin red bloody line...what a shocker! I mean, since when did regular GI's contemplate the meaning of life & exostensialism & all sorts of other crap while engaged in a bitter war with the Japs?

Come on now, most probably all they were interested in was survival, getting sex whenever they could, food , water & other basics & that was probably it. You're living on a day to day basis when you dont know if your most recent meal was your last & these 2 jokers are contemplating the structure of a leaf or some such AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

Sorry, I just had to say it. Oh, and one other thing. Who else but me thought that the Japanese manning those 2 MG posts in their prime location must have been pretty bloody stupid not to think to hurl some hand grenades at those all of 5 or so Yanks below them. How idiotic can you get?

Regards

Jim R.

[Croda]

That has got to be my biggest complaint with The Thin Red Line. I cannot imagine any 18 - 20 year old kid, much less all of them, having any thoughts at that level. It's rare that your average person goes through their entire life with any thoughts of that magnitude, never mind a 20 year old getting shot at wondering about the Zen of the poor alligators. Nope. Not gonna happen. You, sir, are a crappy movie.

------------------

"Nuts!"

[CavScout]

I have a question, why do people get angry when America makes movies about Americans? Surely there has to be movies by Brits about Brits or by Canadians about Canadians!

Or is this just a weird acceptance that America (Hollywood) makes better films and you wish they'd do one about your country?

Cav

------------------

"Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "Wehrmact penis envy."--D. Bolger

Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade

"AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."-- Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 10-17-2000).]

[emsixteen]

I enjoyed the Thin Red Line immensly. Much better than Saving Private Ryan or any other war movie for that matter. It had excellent cinematography (did I spell that right? ), unbelievable fight scenes, and most of the historical details were correct. How do you know soldiers didn't think about all of these things? Were you there? Hell, I've never been in a war and sometimes I think about these things. It was a deep movie, if you went in expecting a shoot-em-up, then you probably came out disappointed. I, however found it to be the single greatest war movie I've ever seen.

As far as bad movies, check out "Soldier Boyz". Holy christ. In this one, a former marine who was in Vietnam recruits prisoners to go back to Vietnam and rescue a hostage. Horrible plot, bad visuals and acting. Garbage!

-Harry

------------------

"Are you righteous, kind? Does your confidence lie in this? Are you loved by all? Know that I was, too. Do you imagine your sufferings will be less because you loved goodness, truth?"