Most of the films I recommended represent a trend within the genre and aren't outliers but rather peaks within that thematic trend. They focus on the moral cost of war, usually through the lens of a child experiencing it. Others like Au Revoir Les Enfants and Spirit of the Beehive (which I haven't seen but it inspired Del Toro's two magical realism films on the Spanish Civil War, The Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth) would also be prominent and influential films of that ilk.
And that goes without mentioning films that focus on the nihilistic machinations of war that destroy lives, like Paths of Glory, A Farewell to Arms (which captures just enough of the spirit of the novel to count), and All Quiet on the Western Front.
And that is entirely discounting films about the Cold War, which usually carry themes of paranoia and a loss of faith within systems.
Then there are the war romps made in the image of Gunga Din, like the Dirty Dozen and Where Eagles Dare, which are saying more about masculinity, bravado and adventure through jingoistic adventure than anything truly about "heroism."
The problem is that reducing an entire genre to a dichotomy isn't particularly enlightening, especially when it cherry picks and ignores large swaths of the "genre" as outliers. You could push it even further in reduction to "war all bad" to "war mostly bad" and virtually all films would fall into either category. Does that touch on a profound truth of the genre or does it negate the complexities (or superficiality) of the films in favor of a platitude?
Please note that OP is both limited in scope (i.e., serious war movies) and not concerned with perfect reduction (and I have been rightly chastized for the reduction assumed in the closing line of the OP).
We are only speaking of what is typical for serious war films. Any movie that has a war in the background or is set during a war could be called a war movie, but we're not speaking of all such films. I am rather, speaking of films where war is the focus, the subject matter is treated seriously, battles are depicted, we see people fighting in these battles, and we're in the "action" of "real" combat.
War romps don't fit. They're macho fantasies. Del Toro's fantasies don't fit either. Again, I am not talking about
1941 or
Pan's Labyrinth or
Good Morning Vietnam or
Monty Python and the Holy Grail or
Air America, although all these are arguably "war" movies.
If one insists on broadening the scope of the discussion to any film set during a war, or mentioning a war, or showing the effects of a war on an individual, or a metaphor for war, etc., then we won't have much to say about them at all (some are funny, some are sad, some are good, some are bad, some have battles, some have none, some are depressing, some are fun).
If, however, we limit ourselves to serious war films and we were then to metaphorically blindfold ourselves and throw a dart at the wall, would we have strong odds of hitting a love letter or dirty letter? I think so. I am not aiming to expose profound truths apart from saying this. I think that this appears to be rather typical, that this is a way of describing it.
Now, given this framework, I nevetheless think that you've touched upon films which upset my alleged pattern. There is the legit anti-war, the war is hell movie (sans war porn), which preceded the dirty letters that started popping up after the Vietnam war. After WWI and WWII there were serious artistic attempts to convey the "war is hell" message that were not beautiful bloodbaths, but rather just depictions of psychological misery.
There is an attraction and repulsion to war. People are drawn to glory, but are repulsed by trauma, and yet the trauma is the ticket to glory. We glorify heroes because of their sacrifice. You can't have the glory without the trauma and trauma tends to cause us elevate and sacralize. The anti-war movie warns that the glory is illusory, and yet we still thank veterans for their service. The pro-war movie holds that the glory is real (saving the world, the nation, your families, from the barbarians) which justifies the cost depicted.
In this sense, describing the war movie as being pro and/or anti-war is inevitable. What I am talking about, however, isn't really this basic pattern, but two patterns that ride along with them. One is a sort of nostalgic nationalism (When we were great! Aren't we really fine when our backs are against the wall!) and the other is a sort of not-guilty pleasure (not guilty because we're being scandalized--yes show me some more people get shot so I can really learn my lesson!).
Watch a random "serous" war film, and I think you're likely to watch a love letter (nostalgic nationalism) or a dirty letter (war is hell, ain't it cool, I mean... ...terrible).
Perhaps the most effective authentically anti-war movies are comedies like M.A.S.H. Comedy punctures seriousness and grandeur and glory. Comedy doesn't focus on a meaningful big picture in the background, but rather the follies of our contingencies. Most important, it can undercut the sacralization that tends to occur in the depiction of trauma.
At any rate, I was only hoping for a discussion. You have given me that, so I am in your debt.
Reply to Topic
