Your favourite war film?

Tools    





In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!
Originally posted by crash
I don't think Adam Sandler would be too bent out of shape about it.
What's sandler have to do with anything?
__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.



Registered User
Ahem, SHE!!! Giggle. I am a she, that's right, she. And someone mentioned an Adam Sandler movie, I was simply replying.



Registered User
That just occured to me...Jim Carrey. Consider my wrists slapped.

Forgive me O'Forum-goers for screwing with the classics.



Registered User
Nope...comes from my love action movies...car crashes and the whole lot. Anything with guns, bombs, and car chases is my kind of movie. Lots of loud noises, too.



jamesglewisf's Avatar
Didn't see it.
Originally posted by OllieO
They are for entertainment, not history lessons. They are for enjoyment, not education.

They are movies.
Then why did they have to refer to the Enigma code in UB whatever and not, say, an "Omega" code or something? Why are they the same as real life when dealing with the events and structure, but not the same when dealing with the heroes (another great example of this is The Patriot, where the character that Gibson's is based on was actually a brutal rapist etc. - look it up, it's very interesting)? Do the Americans have a complex about their lack of military victories? They just managed to draw in Korea, lost 'Nam, kill more of their own men than Saddam's in the Gulf, got battered in Somalia etc. - please don't think that I'm flaming or trolling, it's just that I'm trying to reason why this always happens. Fair enough, Kosovo was a great victory, and I don't want to get into an argument about military superiority etc. but please try and see my point. I know it will be difficult because of the pride that Americans are brought up with in their nation - a good thing, BTW, and something that a lot of Britons are lacking - from my point of view history is being corrupted, and with it the memories of those British servicemen who gave their lives in war.

Anyway, I'm enjoying this discussion, let's keep it going and going friendly . Merry Christmas to all, I look forward to the next round .
I rented the U571 DVD today and listened to the commentary. One of the things the writer/director stressed was this was a historical fiction movie, that is make-believe tales set against the backdrop of history. Evidence of this is the fact that the first enigma was captured from a U101, the second from a U559, and the third from a U505. That's why this was historical fiction.

The enigma machine was seized the first time in 1941 by the British. The writer/director consulted with an 80-year-old Lieutenant Commander who 60 years ago actually went on board an abandoned sub and seized an enigma. There were two other instances of the enigma being seized, one by the British in 1942, and one by the Americans in 1944. He said, "These gave me the inspiration for this fictional story."

Anyhow, I think this explains why they use real-life elements and fictional elements. It also explains why you can have an enigma movie without Brits. As stated before, he even has text at the end explaining who captured all three enigmas. He said that one of reasons he put the titles at the end was to give credit where credit was due - to the Brits.

I think if you listed to the writer/director's commentary on this movie, you might have a greater appreciation for the effort they put into making it look historically accurate from a scene/props standpoint- the uniforms, equipment, bed linens, hiring German actors for the German scenes, etc. It was really very interesting.
__________________
Jim Lewis
To BE or Not to BE, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Barium Enema
Crouching Tiger, Paint Your Wagon - Forums



Registered User
It's just a shame that a lot of Americans won't listen to the director's commentary and believe what they want to believe .



MovieForums Extra
I can't believe I didn't read this thread in detail beofre! It sure is interesting, hope you don't mind if I go back a little bit and post a thought or three about wars!

Originally posted by Flywaver
As for Vietnam there is no way the US could have won...the ratio was not on their side as the Korea, Russia and China were providing Vietnam with military equipment.
Not true at all. Korea was not in much of a position to assist militarily as it was itself damaged in the war. The reason why the US couldn't have won in Nam was because the Vietnamese were defending themselves from what they saw as an invasion by an aggressor, and the US soldiers were miles away from home...


Originally posted by TWTCommish
I am not claiming invincibility - just that any one country (two in some cases I'm sure) can only take some of us down before we destroy them - IE: we can win any straightforward war.
I have to disagree there. If any one country had the element of surprise or a slight tactical advantage (i.e. Russia during the Cuban Missile Crisis) would be able to inflict more damage on the US before it could retaliate. Cuba was a flashpoint because it gave the USSR an advantage in that it could fire the nukes and destroy many of the US bases and nukes, thereby diminishing the US capability of retaliation...the US of course couldn't allow that.

Originally posted by Flywaver
If the US and even the UN/NATO were the best armies in the world they would have defeated Saddam and Bosnia much faster...today's wars aren't necessarely technological like most thinks; you still need to get your infantry and artillery moving. After such a number of bombs dropped on both Bosnia and Iraq none of them were totally defeated; they both have their same ruling person
Bosnia actually was quite a success for the allied forces, after twelve days of bombing the Serb army retreated. The Dayton peace accord was signed soon after. Bosnia is now controlled by three presidents (one for each ethnic group), and controlled by the US and many other countries under NATO.
As for Saddam, you're right, he did come out as the winner, he is stronger if anything and Iraq did come out as the moral winner. However, with the country in ruins the moral victory is the only thing they have left.


Originally posted by Flywaver
Fair enough, Kosovo was a great victory...
It was a victory in the sense that the Serbian troops retreated from Kosovo...however, it wasn't much of a military victory. It exposed many of the flaws of modern technological warfare - that air power isn't enough to win a war. The NATO alliance came within an inch from cracking as well. And not to forget that they did shoot down a F-117a which was supposed to be "invisible" and managed to damage two more (which crash-landed in Croatia and Macedonia). They were quite smart actually, they had big camouflaged frames in the shape of a tank with a pipe sticking out, a nice way to waste a $1.2 million Tomahawk...A friend of mine is Serbian, so I know a lot about this from him. If anyone's interested, I can go into more detail on what techniques they used to foil the missiles and bombs, but I won't bother for now



My favourite war film of all time must be,

"The Guns of Navarone"

Man, what a show!

and what a great cast too, with Gregory Peck, David Niven and Anthony Quinn!

Sure hits the spot!



1. Paths of Glory (1957 - Kubrick)
2. All Quiet on the Western Front (1930 - Lweis Milestone)
3. The Thin Red Line (1998 - Terry Malick)
4. Apocalypse Now (1979 - Coppola)
5. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957 - David Lean)
6. Glory (1989 - Ed Zwick)
7. Das Boot (1981 - Wolfgang Petersen)
8. Grand Illusion (1937 - Renoir)
9. Full Metal Jacket (1987 - Kubrick)
10. M*A*S*H (1970 - Altman)



Cross of Iron (Sam Peckinpah, 1977) gets my vote. The film is far removed from the monotonous simplicity of most big-budget war films.
__________________
Personality goes a long way...



MovieForums Extra
I just saw The Thin Red Line again the other day on Showtime...

I think its far more superior than Apocalypse Now (it has its moments though). AN is too dark and dreary and depressibve. TRLis as well, but it's not that bad, and its exploration of the human condition is very in-depth
__________________
Black Holes Suck!



More superior.
I love double comparatives.
Paths of Glory brings great smack.
But Braveheart is my favorite war movie.



Registered User
My favorites are The Thin Red Line and Saving Private Ryan; How could you leave them out!?



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
Full Metal Jacket
Apocalypse Now
Saving Private Ryan
Platoon
__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg



Has anyone seen DARK BLUE WORLD, DIVIDED WE FALL and NO MAN'S LAND..........all 3 are superb near masterpieces of the war genre that have gone largely ignored???
__________________
******"The Majority Is Always Wrong" Steve Mcqueen in Enemy Of The People******



braveheart for me too.
__________________
i hate hugh grant