Let's discuss our fave war movies

Tools    





I noticed yesterday that the local library has movies that can be checked out. While perusing through the many crummy titles, I found a couple of war movies. One I hadn’t seen since I was a kid, and another I had never even heard of. The one I remember from my youth is The Big Red One. Not too long ago, I watched a good biography of Lee Marvin and it was mentioned that it was a fine movie to end an exceptional career. Man, I don’t believe it for a second. This is one of the crappiest war movies I’ve ever seen. It stars, of course, Lee Marvin. Two other bigger names include Mark Hamill and Robert Carradine.

The catch phrase for the movie is, “The real glory of war is surviving”. That’s how if felt while watching it. The story is about the 1st Infantry, which is shown as being started by Marvin at the end of WWI. Later, after WWII starts, he is a grizzled Sgt. who commands a platoon of crack riflemen. They originally begin action in Africa then move to Italy, Omaha Beach, and eventually become a part of the push into Germany. The story is told through Carradine’s perspective and revolves around the differences between Hamill and Marvin who both have differing viewpoints about war. I don’t have much of a problem with the story so much, but it is really difficult believing Hamill and Carradine, as well as some other men, who are supposed to be battle hardened soldiers. There was a lack of believability with all concerned, and the battle sequences were pathetic. There were segments where I could readily see what was about to happen next and other things during battle’s that were distracting. For instance, I’ve never heard bullets ricochet on sand and water, but in this movie it happened all the time. I can only give this movie one star.

The movie I had never heard of before is called It Happened Here.



It’s the story of Hitler’s England, and what it would have been like if the battle of Dunkirk went the other way, and Germany actually won and occupied England. It is an independent film made in England and released in 1964. It was shot on B&W 35mm and took nearly eight years to make. According to history, the two who wrote and directed this movie first conceived it when they were sixteen and eighteen years old, and had many obstacles while trying to make it. Eventually, Stanley Kubrik, Tony Richardson, and 100s of volunteers helped with finishing it.

The story centers around a nurse who lives in Southern England and was born in Ireland. The Germans push the local civilians towards London, where the Germans have created the English Division of the SS. It is seen through capitalist Englander’s eyes, and show what a nightmare socialism in England would be. The nurse (Pauline Murray) wants to practice medicine but not to be involved with any political party at all, but when she gets to London, she finds out that she either serves in the party, or she starves. I won’t spoil the plot by telling you what all happens, but rather that it is about her eyes being opened about what this occupation really means, and what the English Partisan’s are really fighting for. I liked this movie quite a bit, I don’t know if it can be considered a classic, but it’s certainly worth a look.
__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."



My dad was in Vietnam for two years as a Staff Sgt. so naturally, a 13 year old asks a lot of questions. In fact, my debate in language class is about how pointless the Vietnam war actually was to America. Anyway, my dad and I sat down and watched Platoon and Hamburger Hill. After they were over, I asked which one was more realistic and he said Hamburger Hill by far. I like the movie Platoon, but I don't think any of the whole corrupt Sgt. thing happened over there. The Thin Red Line is one of my least fav. war movies. Mainly because I couldn't follow it's plotline. Saving Private Ryan is one of my favorites, because it's just so friggin' awesome. But the winner goes to We Were Soldiers. Dad said that movie was so realistic to what he went through in Vietnam, it was hard to watch. Can Mel Gibson make a bad movie? I mean you just can't beat Braveheart, no way! So, for realism, it's a tie between Saving Private Ryan and We Were Soldiers. For entertainment I'm gonna go with Saving Private Ryan and We Were Soldiers. BTW, THE WORST war movie of all time is Dead Men Walking. Total crap!
__________________
Remember, remember, the 5th of November
I'm afraid I must bid you adieu.
He woke up one night with a terrible fright
And found he was eating his shoe.



Originally Posted by led_zeppelin
but I don't think any of the whole corrupt Sgt. thing happened over there.
Who's to say? Platoon is a great fictional movie, but never did Oliver Stone say it was from actual events, whereas Hamburger Hill and We Were Soldiers were.

I've always liked all three. Though, if I had to choose one, it would be Platoon closely followed by We Were Soilders.



I decided this morning that I was going to watch Piddy’s favorite war movie again, after all, it had been since its original theatrical release since I had seen it last. I had forgotten how wonderful The Thin Red Line is. I do have a few complaints though.

One is that I could never become emotionally attached to any of the characters. That is a small complaint however, because there are other movies that have the same issue. It’s because there are so many central characters that the movie would have to be mini-series length in order to accomplish this. So, I forgive it that. Another thing that was bothersome is not being able to understand what the Japanese were saying when they spoke, though most soldiers wouldn’t either, so I can forgive that as well. The thing that bothered me the most is giving George Clooney damn near top billing for 45 seconds of screen time, and that 45 seconds was more of a distraction than attraction, because it wound up being a just cameo to add a name to draw more viewers. Oh well, can’t have everything.

There are so many things that I really loved about this movie, making my few annoyances miniscule in comparison. Foremost, is the top-notch acting. My favorite being Nick Nolte. Most people rally around Sean Penn or Jim Caviezel, who both performed quite admirably, but it was with Nolte’s performance that really electrified my senses and drew me closer to the screen.

The movie is shown through the soldier’s perspective through voice-overs and slow-motion close-ups. It is easy to understand the horror that these men feel because it is so plainly written on their faces and heard through their confusion and sorrow when the voice-overs are in effect. Yet with Nolte’s character, we are shown another horror of war, that of the high-ranking officer. It is shown early in the film when Nolte has his conference with the General (John Travolta in another small cameo role) and the import of securing Gaudalcanal regardless of the cost. It is easy to interpret the Generals view of Nolte, and his career, were he not to perform his duties in a timely manner. The pressure that a Colonel must feel as he forces his men to their graves can only be described as severe and extreme, and I could believe that was what Nolte was going through. He is not a stupid man, though he is uncaring during the fight. No odds are insurmountable and no cost is too high to gain the objective on time. Elias Koteas, who plays a Captain that refuses the Colonel’s orders, is perfectly cast as well. He shows what the differences are when you watch the men under your command die, compared to someone who only sees them as numbers and statistics.

I suppose I could go on forever with the entire cast, because I could find no fault with any of the acting whatsoever. It’s funny that Clooney and Rielly were listed in the cast with such small appearance times, and Miranda Otto who played the wife of Ben Chaplin, didn’t get billing at all. Even though she was on the screen at least four times the amount the other two were. Perhaps if she had already appeared in The Two Towers before this, she would have been.



I am having a nervous breakdance
Nice one, Slay...

The criticism you have about the film is justified. I agree with you about the stupidness of having Clooney as one of the big names when he only makes a cameo. I have two theories about it: 1) The poster was made before all the editing work was done and then it was too late to change it. (not very likely). 2) The company executives demanded that his name should be up there to attract ER-fans and others to the film. (more likely).

I don't agree with you about not getting emotionally attached to any of the characters. I think the fact that there are many, or non, main characters shows terrifically that war is for the most part a collective thing, not a single hero thing like it always is in the movies. At the same time, I think there were at least five characters that I personally felt some kind of connection with: Sgt. Welsh (Sean Penn), Private Witt (Jim Caviezel), Private Bell (Ben Chaplin), Cpt. Staros (Elias Koteas), and Lt. Colonel Tall (Nick Nolte). I think it is a sign of Malick's brilliance that he manage to develop so many characters in one film (not counting smaller appearances as those by Woody Harrelson and John Savage) without making it look sloppy. I think it was only positive that the film was about "the men" not a chosen few.

What really upsets me is that you couldn't understand what the japanese soldiers said! It wasn't subtitled??? I can't believe that ****! Was it the same in the theatres?? Here all films that are not swedish are of course subtitled so when the americans speak - subtitles, and when the japanese speak - subtitles. That is the beauty of the whole ****ing film, that you get both sides of the story! How can Malick be cool with this? Grrrrrrrrrr..... Isn't there some option on the dvd that you can have or not have the subtitles??
__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but
now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.



The lack of being able to understand the Japanese was delberate. Since this story was being told from the point of view of American soldiers, then it makes sense that we couldn't understand them, b/c the soldiers most likely wouldn't have. I think it adds to the fear of the characters being in battle a little, which was a small but nice touch.
__________________
Make it happen!




I just wasn't able to become attached to any of the characters where I feared for them. I was saddened with Jim Caviezel's plight, and angered when Ben Chaplin had his. So maybe I was more attached than I really thought. I wasn't exactly wishing for a hero role, though, I suppose, Caviezel came close to filling it.

As far as Malick's brilliance, I don't see it as brilliant to have a large number of cast members. Blackhawk Down did as well, so do a lot of war movies.

No, no subtitles. I didn't think to turn it on the DVD, I'll have to give that a chance.

Oh yeah, Project...that sounds like what I said.



I am having a nervous breakdance
Originally Posted by projectMayhem
The lack of being able to understand the Japanese was delberate. Since this story was being told from the point of view of American soldiers, then it makes sense that we couldn't understand them, b/c the soldiers most likely wouldn't have. I think it adds to the fear of the characters being in battle a little, which was a small but nice touch.
Well, if you had understood what the japanese soldiers said then I think you would haver realized that the story is in fact told from two sides instead of from one, even if it is of course firstly a film about american soldiers.


Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
I just wasn't able to become attached to any of the characters where I feared for them. I was saddened with Jim Caviezel's plight, and angered when Ben Chaplin had his. So maybe I was more attached than I really thought. I wasn't exactly wishing for a hero role, though, I suppose, Caviezel came close to filling it.
Yes, he did.

As far as Malick's brilliance, I don't see it as brilliant to have a large number of cast members. Blackhawk Down did as well, so do a lot of war movies.
Yes, but I didn't mean that the brilliance lies in the impressive cast. I think the brilliance lies in the psychological depth in characters that Malick manages to create even though he has brought so many individuals into the action.



Originally Posted by Piddzilla
Yes, but I didn't mean that the brilliance lies in the impressive cast. I think the brilliance lies in the psychological depth in characters that Malick manages to create even though he has brought so many individuals into the action.
Yes, I see your point, I guess. Case in point is Adrien Brody's character. I don't think I heard him utter more than a dozen words the entire film, but his character has a depth that is readable through his eyes, and the sadness and horror that his brows suggest. Perhaps the credit should be shared between the actors and the director



I just finished watching another one of my favorite war films, Three Kings. Not only do I love this movie because it is completely original in style, but it is also closer to my own experiences. I appreciate how well it was able to show so many different viewpoints. It shows the American soldier’s perspective with the restless soldier, the political soldier, and the sorrowful soldier. It shows Iraqi perspectives ranging from the soldier’s eyes, the rebel’s eyes, and the civilian’s eyes. I was able to feel for all those concerned and not just for the American GIs. It uses humor to draw you into the story then abandons it when reality rears its ugly head. This is a true anti-war film in its purest form.

Too bad Spike Jonez, the Director of Being John Malcovich and Adaptation, didn't get credit as the fourth king. He really was.



I am having a nervous breakdance
I must admit that Three Kings is one of those must-see-films that I actually haven't seen. To tell you the truth, I don't think I have seen any of David O. Russell's films, but this one I will have to see as soon as possible.



Three Kings is a great movie. At the beginning of it I thought it was just gonna be a comedy, which I thought was..ok...but once the action got going and the bigger story unfolded it was so much more. I wish it had gotten more exposure than it did because it is my favorite war movie. The first time I saw it, though, the biggest thing I remember about it was the music. When Clooney and Co. are going after the gold that drum music is awesom, but that's probably just the drummer in me speaking. Did you notice this Slay?



Oh goody I love POW movies they are so good!"The Great Escape" is my favorite if you had not seen it see it it is really realy good!
oh and Stelog Seventeen and The Empire of the Sun(Christen Bale very sad movie!)
and my favorite t.v show of all time that is not on tv anymore is Hogan's Heros really good show it will make you laugh!Well that is it for now see you around!JM To be Countuned?
__________________
Jackie Malfoy
Fourteen
Slytherin
Favorite Movie of all time:Star Wars!
Online offline boyfriend:AdarkSideJedi(brad)
Other Sites I belong tooeathcurse.com Darkmark.com and StarWars.com and Adult Swim.com!



I just know they're coming to kill me.
On 10-04-03, AMC was showing a personal favorite WWII flick of mine, The Longest Day. I love its theme song so much! Also- whene did MovieForums change the appearence of their forums?
__________________
Everything I do, I do to make my second stepdad proud.



Originally Posted by Holden Pike
Paths of Glory is unsentimental, graphic, horrific and morally murky - everything I believe warfare to be. Of course I have never been a soldier and likely never will be, so my perspective is what it is. But the no-win situations presented in the WWI narrative of Paths mesh with that perspecitve.
So now that you've seen A Very Long Engagement, how would you rate it compared to this WWI classic. I know that neither are typical war films, but both center on soldiers that have reached their limits and turned to desperate things.

Actually, asking someone to compare the two is probably ridiculous, but what the hell.



Paths of Glory and All Quiet on the Western Front are still the better movies, but all three are great. World War I has such resonance for me, as far as narratives set in conflict. The futility of it all is so perfectly summed up by trench warfare. So surreal, so bloody, so frightening, so pointless much of the time.
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
If there is one particular cinematic genre that I love more than any other, it’s the war genre. One of my favorite films as a child was The Dirty Dozen. I had probably seen it fifteen times by the time I was twelve. Another great war movie I loved as a kid, and still do by the way, is The Great Escape, which consequently made Steve McQueen my first movie idol. None of that matters, of course, I just felt like sharing it.

What I’d like is to have a discussion about war movies. What war movie is your all time favorite, and why? What is it about your particular favorite that makes it your favorite? We already have a generic thread about war movie favorites that, coincidentally; I created when I was still new here. But it was only a list thread…BORING! So my idea is this: Let’s discuss all of our own personal favorites, and explain what it is about that particular film that speaks to you. What does it say?

I’ll take the initiative with my personal all time favorite, Saving Private Ryan. Now I know that a lot of people give this movie flak because it’s actually pure fiction, but I think it really encapsulates the real emotions some soldiers, during war time, deal with. Case in point, Cpl. Timothy Upham (Jeremy Davies). Now Davies’ character really captures the fear that a new soldier, no matter how gifted, crazy, or emasculate, he or she may be, quite perfectly. This is a man that is terrified. Terrified of dying, and of the act of killing. Why would a once journalist ever put any real thought into taking someone’s life? And why would we assume that just because he’s thrust into a situation where he’s being shot at, that he has within himself, any capacity at all to point a weapon and pull the trigger, snuffing out someone else’s life?

I looked through his eyes and was transported back to my first day in Iraq, during the first Gulf War. I remembered the pure terror I felt at what I was about to be thrust into. My M.O.S. in the United States Army was Cavalry Scout, later trained in Air Assault. Basically, I was dropped with my platoon, well into enemy territory in order to scout out the enemy, and engage in combat if discovered, or when, and if, any target of opportunity presented itself. Now, if my life were a piece of fiction, the first engagement I was involved with would have been chocked full of bravery and valor, yet it wasn’t. I was so scared that, later, I needed to change my jockeys. That may sound funny, but it’s not. It’s real.

Az Zubayr is a city of above average size, and though the US Navy had pounded it repeatedly for weeks before my platoon was sent into it, it still remained a hub of resistance. Of course, we didn’t know that for sure, hence my Company’s involvement. To make a long story short, I and my friends were suddenly under fire. At one point during a pitched and fierce battle, that somehow only lasted a tad over 30 minutes, I was forced to kill. I didn’t do it as automatically as promised by my Drill Instructor back in the states. It was when I saw a good friend take a hit in his side, that I was finally released from my self-induced stupor, and fought back for their lives and mine. I screamed, I pissed, and I screamed some more. I lived through it obviously, but not until the damage to my psyche was done. After the battle was over we counted bodies: Allies 0, Iraqi’s 34. What commenced within myself after that was, to say the least, dramatic. I had killed not just one, but three human beings by myself. Two with my rifle, and one in close combat using my bayonet. Let me just say this, killing someone without the aid of a rifle is incredibly intense. Not only did I end a life, essentially bare handed, but also I had survived unscathed! From that point on, I was on autopilot, and by the time there was no more fighting (outwardly allowed or not), I had killed a great number of people. I had killed from a distance with my M-60, and shot men in the back of the head execution style. However, the terror never left me.

My point with all that is this, Saving Private Ryan captured, to the tee, what it is like to live and die in a war. Cpl. Upham is, in my own humble opinion, the epitome of what a real soldier is, at least during the beginning of their war time experience. I really identified with his character, and had never before seen such a true depiction. I was stunned and gratified that the people that Steven Speilberg hired as WarTime Consultants captured the true essence of debilitating fear. Upham failed miserably, and if he were a real human being, would be haunted for the rest of his life. I actually see suicide in Upham’s future, making his character all the more poetic for me.

There are three other major scenes in the movie, that quite literally, tore me apart. The first being Pvt. Irwin Wade’s (Giovanni Ribisi) death scene. There were a number of times I heard grown men call out to their Mama’s, at least I assumed they were. It was Iraqi soldiers crying it while they died, it’s heartbreaking regardless whoever is crying it. The second is Pvt. Stanley Mellish’s (Adam Goldberg) death scene. Now that one makes me cringe and want to cry out. It was so realistic it was frightening. And the fact that Upham is just outside the door with salvation only a trigger away makes it all the more distressing. The third, and last, scene that tears my heart to shreds is the famous, “Tell me I’m a good man” line said by James Ryan (Harrison Young) at the end of the film. What post-war soldier doesn’t, at the very least, say that to himself? I know I have dozens of times. I accidentally killed a child while in Iraq, and it wakes me up at night still. War nightmares are actually quite indescribable, so I won’t bother trying. Needless to say, I often ask myself, “Am I a good man?”.
Ofcourse you are. People who kill without purpose or reason are not. You kill to save or atleast support.
__________________
"You need people like me..."



This is a rarity:

I would like to take back my former comment, and claim The Thin Red Line as one of the best movies I've ever seen.

I also would now hesitate to call Apocalypse Now a war film, so I must withdraw its inclusion with a sigh.
__________________
You're not hopeless...



I am having a nervous breakdance
Originally Posted by Henry The Kid
This is a rarity:

I would like to take back my former comment, and claim The Thin Red Line as one of the best movies I've ever seen.
Ditto.



Apocalypse Now is at the top of my list now too.