Mark IV Posted July 22, 2000 Share Posted July 22, 2000 1. I will see almost any war movie, including this one (TRL almost cured me, however). 2. Ridiculously extravagant special effects would be a real plus. 3. Kostner is almost reason enough not to go, except for 2 above. I will ignore bad acting, poor directing, obligatory love scenes, misplaced and anachronistic social commentary, and even bad history for the excellent reason that Zamo gave: "I can never see too many Zekes in the sky at one time." 4. I loved LOR but will wait for reviews on that one. Unless there's an air raid scene... 5. Prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pfalz XII Posted July 22, 2000 Share Posted July 22, 2000 Many people in the War Department did not think Pearl could be attacked by carrier based torpedo bombers because they thought the bay was too shallow. American torpedo bombers at the time required a minimum depth of 100 feet in order to operate without plowing into the bottom. Unfortunately, the Japanese had developed torpedoes that required less than 75 feet. They also practiced a lot. The main threat was thought to be sabotage from Japanese nationals who lived on the island. That's why most planes on the ground were lined up wingtip to wingtip. [This message has been edited by Pfalz XII (edited 07-21-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenoshi Posted July 22, 2000 Share Posted July 22, 2000 If they do a minute-by-minute movie full of action sequences, I'll prolly watch this movie. I mean, the attack on pearl harbor didn't last all that long...why do they have to go ruin it with a love story? Personally, I'd like to see a "Saving Private Ryan" version of the Battle of the Bulge... -Kenoshi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scottdt Posted July 22, 2000 Share Posted July 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kenoshi: If they do a minute-by-minute movie full of action sequences, I'll prolly watch this movie. I mean, the attack on pearl harbor didn't last all that long...why do they have to go ruin it with a love story? Personally, I'd like to see a "Saving Private Ryan" version of the Battle of the Bulge... -Kenoshi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly what I would LOVE to see. Imagine the fun you could have with all those computer generated tank battles.... I have been hearing rumors about Tom Hanks filming another WWII picture near where he filmed SPR. Does anyone have any details? It would make my year to know that a SPR prequel was in the works (Italy? North Africa?). Since we are discussing war films, what I would like to see is a return to the operational view point. Most modern war films are obsessed with the tactical perspective. IMO, what made THE LONGEST DAY and A BRIDGE TOO FAR so great was the entire perspective from the generals down to the individual "grunts". We need to return to the epic-scale war story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havermeyer Posted July 22, 2000 Share Posted July 22, 2000 Like everyone else I am fearful of The Lord of the Rings. I checked their internet trailer, and the director/producer acknowledged the tremendous responsibility of visually displaying a story line people have developed in their own minds. He did state, and I cannot interpret it, that "technology has finally caught up with the imagination of Tolkein..." I see that as generally bad. As for Pearl, I do foresee ancillary plot lines ruining the movie. As I oft said in Titanic, "Sink Already!!" ------------------ "Two World Wars and One World Cup, do da, do da!" --British Hooligan, sung to Camptown Races Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted July 22, 2000 Share Posted July 22, 2000 The sinking scene was the impressive part of "Titanic" to me. Rather, my attitude concerning the two main stars of that film was, "Drown already!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted July 22, 2000 Share Posted July 22, 2000 Spook, yeah that was pretty boring ... right up to the drawing scene ... I liked that And the Tom Hanks/Steven Spielberg venture is called Band of Brothers and is about a company of the 101st. Based, I believe, on the book of the same name. It's going to be an HBO release, I believe in episodes like the Moonshot series he did. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted July 22, 2000 Share Posted July 22, 2000 One of the best ww2 movies I've seen is still the excellent Stalingrad. Can't wait for Enemies at the gates(?) though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted July 22, 2000 Share Posted July 22, 2000 If true about Tom Hanks being used again, I'd have to say, that figures. (Sigghhhh...) Geez, is Spielberg gonna generate a WW2 series of films in which Hanks shows up again & again in the center stage? Sub Captain? Tank commander? Bomber pilot? Navy fighter pilot? I will allow that SPR was one of Hanks' better performances to me, but at times, I think the camera got a little TOO focused on him. It doesn't surprise me about Spielberg picking up the "Band of Brothers" theme. First off, it's from a Stephen Ambrose book of the same name (as you pointed out, Joe), to which Spielberg now seems to count on as a WW2 historical consultant. Second, the particular group of focus in that book (Co E, 506th) has a lot of "drama" attached to its campaign service: D-Day/Normandy, Holland, Bastogne, the Eagle's Nest, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts