Your favourite war film?

I'm quite a fan of war films, especially Vietnam ones. I was just wondering what you guys' favourite war films were? The poll is limited so I couldn't include all the Brit favourites like The Great Escape, The Eagle Has Landed, and so on, but it's got my top few in there.

FMJ was the best war movie out of those I think. Although I did like Saving Private Ryan and the Dirty Dozen.

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

I don't know how you could leave out Saving Private Ryan. I think it is the best war movie I have ever seen.

__________________
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

I voted for something else because I think that Dr. Strangelove would be the best war movie ever.

SPR is okay, but I found that it dragged on a bit. I also was rather annoyed about the fact that on their travels in France they didn't encounter one British person - I know that in the future this is how people will perceive the war, in the same way that that film about the submarine (UB331 or whatever) was entirely historically inaccurate, although most people (Americans won't realise that). However, when I think of war films I tend to think of them as 80s and earlier. I also missed out the Thin Red Line, and, to an extent, Forrest Gump, of course, A Bridge too Farr, and so on, but the poll only takes 5 entries. Perhaps I should have restricted it to Vietnam films...

No movie is 100% historically accurate. That doesn't mean that they aren't good, entertaining, well-made movies.

It's kind of like people who complain that depicitions of Jesus are not historically accurate. Did you know that almost every culture depicts Jesus with features that mimic their own race? In China, depictions of Jesus look Asian, and so forth. You can either let that bother you, or you can accept it as part of how humans view things.

We all view the world through our own predispositions. For instance, Democrats will remember the 2000 election totally differently than Republicans. Guess what--neither view will be 100% historically accurate. 50 years from now, if a movie is made about the 2000 election, it will absolutely not be 100% accurate.

It's a part of life.

*AHEM*! "Empire of the Sun", anyone? I'm voting for "Other."

Good point, but the difference is that no-one really knows what happened with Jesus, where there is factual knowledge about WWII. If they accepted that it was going to be factually inaccurate, why didn't they change the name of the machine? As a military man, I consider it an insult to the British people who served in WWII.

Take a counter-example. Say, for example, your family have always been from the north of the US, and were staunchly Unionist during the Civil War (I have a limited knowledge of US history, but it's better than most Brits because I really enjoy it and find it fascinating ). What if their was a film that said that the people who actually won it were a bunch of Brits that came over to help Lincoln et al.?

Take it for any great American military victories and try and see my point.

They are movies.

If the London were the movie capitol of the world instead of Hollywood, everybody would be griping about the historically inaccurate films that Brits make.

Movies are made by artists and business people, not historians. 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 don't think we've lost straight out. Let's keep in mind that the US, in plenty of those situations, is not sending an entire attack force in - rather smaller squads and stuff.

As it is we send aid packages all over the world to other countries. If we have a natural disaster, no one tends to send us international aid - we deal with it ourselves.

Sorry, but I honestly believe if we made an all-out 100% effort in those situations, we'd have won handily. We just have other things to deal with, and did no go all-out.

Oh Ollie, your just tempermental because you live in England and not the US. And that we beat you once and had to bail you out once. Shame on you. Just Kidding. My parents are British.

You speak of the corruption of history, and with it the memories of British service men who lost their lives during the war. No offense, but I find that a rather lacking statement. Not every life in a war has its story told. Their have probably been just as many American service men and women who have had their stories mistold, or not told at all, as their have been British, if not more.

The only reason this corruption occurs is because the people who make the movies are American. A movie that comes out of America, will inevetudbly be about America.

Did you know December 15, in Iraq, is Victory Day. It is the day they celebrate their Victory over Americans in the Gulf War. Now as I've been taught in school, I do believe Americans won that war. And by alot. The total number of Americans who lost their lives was in the hundreds, Iraq's the thousands.

It is all a matter of where you live. We Americans most likely feel we are getting the respect we deserve, whereas the British are saying they are not getting the respect they deserve. Its all in the location.

Oh, by the way, the british guy who was supposed to of been, eh John Smith i think his name was, in Pochantus was actually a rapist, he was horribly ugly, and died of an STD in London. The movie didn't go saying that now did it? Protecting the British right there.

Great banter all round .

Er, my knowledge of Vietnam isn't too extensive, but I seem to have heard sometime about the draft? Is that not an entire attack force?


I accept that - it still irks .

But please just answer me this - why did they have to call it the Enigma machine, implying that it was based on a true story? I hate to think of people watching it and thinking that it's true.

Where are your parents from, OG?

I don't know the exact name of the place, but it was outside of London. But they moved around alot. My grandpa was a police officer and a submarine pilot during WWII.

If you read the end of the credits of U-571, they say that it was the british that found it etc. And they probably still called it the Engima because that is what it was called, there was no other name for it, to my knowledge.

Oh and the Vietnam thing, if the US had kept in all its forces, and had used all it could, we still would not of won. It was wise to pull out.

Pocahontas also told that she stayed, when in reality she went to live with him in England. Didn't know he was a rapist: even then, I have to wonder. People accuse Christopher Columbus of everything they can think of - I'll believe it all when I see some real proof.

As for Vietnam: I'll learn more about it in time, but keep in mind that we did have MISSLES ready, and could have won that way - we simply decided not to. We decided to use troops.

Why? There were women and children there, I believe. The Vietnemese were ruthless, and, apparently, they even planted bombs in houses with women and children inside, detonating them when soldiers entered for whatever reason.

Anyway, we decided not to be as heartless as them, and as a result, did not come away with a victory. Rest assured, we could have.

Yes, granted, but using that reasoning, you could win any war. We could kill Sadam Hussein right now if we wanted to. We could destroy England, Russia, Cuba. and likewise any of those places could destroy us.

Yes, exactly I don't think other countries can say the same - they could kill a lot of people, but overall we would win. My overall point is that for a very long time, we've been the most powerful country in the world - military-wise, especially.

Under Bush, I expect that to continue.

I would never deny that - militarily, economically, culturally and so on - thank god we populated you, eh?

Yeah, but who does? That proves that the makes obviously felt that they had something to correct and that it was based on a true story.

I will quote George Kennan: Vietnam was "the biggest mistake of US foreign policy". The inventor of the policy of containment is criticising it - who else do you need? If you could have won, you should have won. The mistake was a tactical won; you can't win wars in foreign and hostile terrain against guerillas whose tactics you know little about, especially when you are forcing people to go there. Your cause was noble; the execution poor.

Absolutely true - that's the principle behind MAD.

I don't think they could - I think they could kill many Americans, but in the end, we would easily be the one left standing.

Just because we could, it doesn't mean we would have. We *could* have won the war, but killed innocent people in the process. We made a tactical mistake by going in at all, but that doesn't mean we couldn't have wiped them all out with the push of a button.

How about war movies where the good guys don't always win...I've noticed that regardless of anything, Americans always come out on top...it's a well worn out fad! I'm not sure that such a movie exists, if it does I sure can't remember it now!