"which war film gets you mad?" Topic

Man gets bleeped?

Hmm the green berets…Actually the Duke enjoyed meeting the personelle in VietNam,Green Beret SSG Lee Wade comments on meeting the gentle giant in his books.As it was an introduction to the se asia conflict for many it can be excused.How about the King Arthur movie with Sean Connery made in the early 90s where they wear STNG cast offs for armour,that movie really stunk.

Can't anyone say
something righteous and hopeful for a change.

Yeah. I'm right hopeful that some day they will get a movie right.

I loved 300 and thought that Thin Red Line was really good.

The one that got my blood boiling was Troy.

This is quite amusing. You don't mind them totally butchering history but you do mind them slightly changing the end of fiction.

I was the exact reverse. I liked Troy. It did deviate from Homer in some substantial details, but then Homer deviated from other versions anyway (the whole Achilles' being held by the heel in the Styx is not canonical).

I could not bear to watch "300". Mostly the xenophobia kills it for me, but in general if you want to make up a story, make up a story – don't pinch something real and dress it up. As awful as the Patriot was, at least the British Generals weren't portrayed as bondage queens and made to ride rhinos.

Thin Red Line sucked worse than John the OFM complaining about our spelling/typing.

but cold moutain…. I am still in counseling for.

I must say I liked 300, but then again I went in expecting to see a comic book story

I thought the Thin Red Line was beautifully filmed, and totally unwatchable

Patriots – also didn't like it for reasons noted

I did, though, like the Green Beret

Finally, the move Pearl Harbor was truly, truly awful

"Battle of Britain"

Not a bad movie but try watching it with the subtitles on it's hilarious! The yanks obviously had real problems with the Cockney accents. Some of their translations are superb.

Two kids chatting on a corner looking up at some german bombers:
"Its a Junkers" says 1 to which his mate reorts;
"No it's not it's an Heinkel"

The subtitles come up as: "No its not its his uncle" Its full of priceless gems like that.

Sorry if your a yank BTW. No offence intended. I'm a Scot and I can't understand cockneys either!

Without doubt, Thin Red Line was horrendous. It's so bad that I culled through the reviews on IMDB.com and saved the best ones….

Date: 19 February 1999
Summary: Oh the rapturous torture of my sleeping buttocks…
Was it a dream? $6.50 USD here, in my hand, now gone. We are nothing, dirt. The war-numbness-paralysis of my butt, confusion. Boring movies don't ennoble men, they turn them into zombies… My popcorn, some kernels pop, some don't, why? Will my life peter out and end with the last unpopped kernels? Will this movie? I am becoming, swelling at the seams, ready to burst forth, or is it my bladder, screaming for release? What is love? How do I presume, to spit out all the butt ends of my days and ways. The watches glow, on then off, on then off. The glowing countenances of the owners faces show a vast cool…is it indifference? My kingdom for a milkdud. There's something about Mary, something about Mary, something about Mary…….

-------
About an hour after settling into my nice comfy high-back chair, I began fiddling in my left ear and discovered a rogue hair growing far out away from its pals. I tugged on it and found it rather tenacious. The pain this tugging caused was mildly pleasurable, but after a while I gave the hair a good yank and its short life was over My nose hairs need plucking more regularly too.
--------
The music score matched the visual proceedings perfectly, being one-noted and always straining toward a point of finality without ever reaching it. When I found out it was from Hans Zimmer whose scores never fail to bore me, it all made sense.
---------

This movie was so bad it had me whishing I had paid to ANTZ instead. And yes I've already seen ANTZ with my wife. She liked ANTZ and I didn't. Even with the big name stars like Nick Nolte and John Travolta couldn't bring this one out of the scrap heap. I belive the best shots are still on the cutting room floor. The director tried to shock the audience with cameos of dead soldiers with limbs blown off and totally unbelieveable seens like a soldier falling on a grenade that he inadvertantly pulled the pin on, but showed no injury to the soldier (they talked about it but failed to show the end result). If I had to see this one again it would probably because I was sent to hell and this was my punishment. Out of a possible 4 stars I give this film a negative 1 for wasting the audiences time and money.

-----
"Thin Red Line" is nearly three solid hours of depressing reality. On opening night, about a dozen people left the theater before the film was over. One person in the theater spoke for many when he exclaimed in a loud and anguished voice, "Thank God!" as the credits began.
-----
First of all….I truly hated it. Okay, now we all know that we should "hate war", but this is the first film that truly lets that feeling sink in personally. Unfortunately this movie makes you hate war not because of the violence against mankind, but because this was the longest, dry, and most boring film ever made about war. I promise that some part of you will fall asleep during this film, whether it be your feet, butt, or entire body. I haven't said this in awhile, but if you are ever having company over that you want to leave early, then rent this film, show it and I can assure you that your guests will be sleeping or begging to go home within the first hour. This was just a terrible film. Bottom line on the Thin Red Line…if you are having trouble sleeping lately, this film will cure your insomnia.
-----
Rating this movie on par with Saving Private Ryan is to slander Ryan. Line had no plot, a few bit parts by some noted actors acting badly and terrible camera work. At almost 3 hours it was a yawner and definitely a movie to stay away from. The best part was the popcorn.
-----
I just spent the longest three hours of my life! It should be against the law for someone to make a movie this boring. During the first hour of the movie I almost got up and left, but I kept thinking that it had to get better. Then we were shown forty minutes of soldiers walking through the jungle -- with nothing happening! During the entire length of the movie (and I use that term very loosly), we were subjected to a continuous barrage of the private thoughts of the main characters. Only problem -- I can't imagine any any infantryman in the middle of a war thinking the deep thoughts that were cascading from the screen. It got to the point that it was funny! And one of the characters (by the way, the characters were so transparent that I don't even remember who they were)kept flashing back to his wife over and over and over and over and over -- you get the point. Once would've been plenty. To sum it up -- don't waste your money. I saw the pathetic "Virus" the day before this, but it was even better than "The Thin Red Line".
-----
I can't believe I just wasted almost 3 hours of time. I thought maybe I was the only one who thought that way. But as I was walking out I kept hearing the same phrase over and over "That sucked". They seemed to throw alot of well named actors into it just to draw an audience.
-----
that such high quality actors combine could turn out such an incredibly poor product is totally astounding. after the first 50min, there was no character development, barely any plot, and all delivered in the most boring of fashions. in nearly 40years of movie-going, this is the first that i've left early (after wasting 50min of my time, i didn't *care* what happened) and demanded a refund. i'm guessing the stars couldn't get out of there contracts. a great example of why some director/producers should not attempt a comeback.
-----
I fell asleep. My friends fell asleep. The guys behind us fell asleep until one of them began snoring. At the end of the 'experience' there was much groaning and I feel that everyone who actually stayed to the end deserves a free pass or two to a real film. This was no 'great cinematic experience'. I would have preferred an import film about banana picking in Africa told in Swahili to this.
-----
So bad, so bad, so bad. What a pathetic waste of time and film. Caught somewhere between WWII and a bad poetry reading, this movie was a bad dream. No discernible plot, no character development, and the only memorable piece of acting was Woody Harrelson's poignant realization, "I blew my @&& off!"
I have never seen so many people walk out of a theater in my life. At least the showing I attended was merciful--we never made it to the end (maybe it was an effort to hide the credits of those who would contribute to such drivel). After 3 1/2 hours, the theater just stopped the film, shut the curtains and rewarded everyone still seated with a free pass for next time. I think that says it all.

(They shut off the movie? Wow. I wish that had happened when I saw the film. I don't remember this happening, but apparantly at one point in the film when I thought it was over, another flashback started, to which I pronounced "Aw, !" to many chuckles…)
---------

Malick's intoxicating use of inner monologues made the movie come across as a Calvin Klein commercial

Ultimately, this movie did not meet my expectations and I would have followed the 3 people that walked out when I went to see this movie but my foot fell asleep.

This film is the biggest waste of money ever and I have seen Star Trek Insurrection.

I walked out of the theatre saying, "What the hell was that crap about?"

I should first warn that I haven't seen the entire movie, I walked out of the theater about 20 minutes before it was over. Not because it was bad or boring or pretentious. I got tired. That pretty much sums it up. I didn't care enough to stay, and there was no end in sight. It just kept going and going and going…nowhere.

The thin red line between boring and horrifically boring has been crossed.

Words cannot describe how bad I found this movie. In a film about war, it would help to have an explosion less than 40 minutes in.

. The only good thing about it? From now I'll see anything – I know nothing could be that bad.

I know I've seen worse movies than this, but I can't really remember when: lucky for me, I block them out…..

YOU'LL NEVER GET THOSE 170 MINUTES OF YOUR LIFE BACK!

This movie was almost pure, unredeemed awfulness.

To sum up – I kept hoping against hope through the movie that someone would shoot out the camera. In the alternative, I was rooting for everyone to die as fast as possible.

Why do the voice-over narrations sound like hillbillies from the Ozarks? Were all the men who fought at Guadalcanal hayseeds from the South?

Anyway, suffice it to say. Don't go to this movie unless, in your own opinion, you are a deep person capable of thought well above and beyond that of we simple folk. For this is an exceptionally deep movie. So much so that no one understands anything about it. No one I have yet heard from.

I tried to fall asleep, only to be startled awake by more gunfire.

When the wife writes to say she wants a divorce, I had to laugh. I ended up wanting the soldiers to die, just to make the bad, bad movie go away.

Blackhawk Down.

Not cause of the movie, but because of the policies and politics that caused it to come about.

My main problems with the patriot were the typical stance: all enemies of Americans are evil AND stupid. It isn't enough to just be an enemy.

Secondly though, it demonstrated how in personal combat, guerrilla warfare, and battlefield tactics, there is only one method of warfare that works: play dead then suck punch. Every fight used that device.

I also get angered by the Sharpe TV shows which are almost movies, for too many reasons to tally.

Without hesitation, I have to go with Pearl harbor as being the absolute worst war movie I have ever seen, which is saying a lot.

There was this one 60's movie that I think was Italian made about the battle of Britian that I think was called "Eagles strike at dawn". It had Van Johnson in it and the RAF was flying ME-109's and the Germans had Hurricans. You really did not know who was who.

"You're upset about the lack of snow, but the "We can still ram 'em" line doesn't bother you?"

I actually pulled this off in a computer sim at Ft Knox. We had lost our gun in an arty strike – we were able to stalk another tank and ram them. Of course – they just backed up and shot us ;-)

God and Generals by far. I have personally trashed 3 DVD of this awful movie that were given to me as gifts.

Obviously no one here has a memory that goes back more than a few years.

"They died with their boots on"

"Santa Fe Trail"

Pick an "Alamo" movie.

"Dawn Patrol"

"Blue Max"

"Longest Day"

"Guadalcanal Diary"

"Raid on Tobruk"

Tons of anti-war war movies of the 60s and 70s. Things like: "The Charge of the Light Brigade."

Come to think of it – no good war movie has ever been done IAW historical accuracy. They're all crap as far as accuracy is concerned, best to just just sit back and pretend you're watching professional wrestling and cheer for your favorite hero.

No time, there isn't enough time to list them all. Awwwk! Never mind.

Many will drive me nuts, but, I try to focus on the parts that I like and forget the rest. I just try to park my brain and enjoy the entertainment.
I agree with others that Windtalkers is rather bad and I won't watch it again. The outer fort battle in "The Messenger" with the bowling ball chute (for lack of a better description) is a laugh, but, at least its not a cgi fest. Catch-22 has a great assemblage of B-25's, but I despise the book and the movie is just slightly better. The "Battle of Britain" is one in my collection and often watch it for specific scenes and turn a blind eye to background aircraft that are not the same as the one in formation in the forefront, but the same thing occurs in "The Blue Max". I like the Green Berets, mostly the first half, and I know people who were extras.
Yep, If I were flush with cash, I'd do a movie right, but until then, I'll make do with what is available.

"You don't mind them totally butchering history but you do mind them slightly changing the end of fiction."

I guess they got most of the story right in 300, whereas they deviated from the story so much in Troy that calling it "slightly changing the end" is absurd. It kind of a ruins a good bit of the point when the sinner in a morality play, of sorts, is not punished.

Paris dies a pretty ignoble death in the story of Troy, and he should, he violated his hosts, he started a war, he repudiated his wife all for hubris.

There was a very real xenophobia in Greece and especially in Sparta. If that came across in the movie then the movie did a good job of portraying reality.

It was also the story as told by a Spartan to a group of other Spartans before a battle. I would say, in that circumstance, you need to allow for some exaggeration. If they faced monster riding men before, what threat were a bunch of men now?

In truth, except for the stuff added with Gorgo, that wasn't in the comic, and the weird stuff about the ephors 300 pretty much stuck to the story of the battle of Thermopylae. It seems that most of the people who didn't like it didn't really understand it or were the same types of rivet counters that John is talking about above.

As a Vietnam vet – I think "Apocalypse Now" and "the Deer Hunter" were a joke – true rubbish. "We Were Soldiers" was not too bad and I liked "Gods and Generals".

Shocked to see that no one has mentioned the lack of beards in Zulu .
Luckily they haven't noticed that films are full of people pretending to be someone else, what's the problem with a fake tank ?

in fact every war movie I saw

I'm suprised that nobody has mentioned Gladiator yet.

Anything by a director that want to show war, any war is bad and soldiers are victims.

The 300 with the giant Xerxes is over the top. I recently researched this era and found Xerxes actually not such a bad guy compared to Spartans. He ended up getting killed by the head of his own body guard (I guess he was an immortal).

For TV shows the Rat Patrol was the worst. Jeeps with machineguns destroying halftracks and tanks.

M*A*S*H* – Someone's idea of the Vietnam War, thinly disguised as the Korean War.

Kelly's Heroes – The whole "what is this war about" nonsense sticks in my craw. Again, it's not Vietnam, it's ing WWII. A lot of GIs may have been less than thrilled about being at the sharp end, but they certainly knew why they were there. Liberating Europe is a pretty unforgettable mission statement. I also cringe at the notion of whole units going AWOL without higher ups taking notice.

Come on, Kelly's heroes isn't a war movie, it's an action comedy set in WW2, Were eagle's dare same thing, action flick set in WW2

[I couldn't get through more than 15 minutes of "Wind Talkers". ]

Seconded. There is probably a great movie in the story of the wind talkers. 'Wind Talkers' was not that movie.

This thread has reminded me how much I miss the Movies board.

I have to be honest and say I can sit through most war movies again and again and would watch any of those already listed if the alternative was – X-factor, Britains got talent, dancing with the stars, etc, etc, etc,

There are times I can actually feel me brain melt after witnessing any of this celebrity driven pap…….. Thankfully my wife doesn`t watch them either (or soaps for that matter) so unless we`re over friends I don`t have too.

There is probably a great movie in the story of the wind talkers. 'Wind Talkers' was not that movie.

What did you think was wrong with 'Wind Talkers'? Other than being disjointed.

Battle of the Bulge because of the US tanks. Its a shame, quite a good film apart from that.

Gladiator – there, I said it. How come with all the money on hand Ridley couldn't get them to make actual Roman uniforms instead of bizarre composites with helmets out of the English Civil War? Would it have cost any more? Would it have looked worse somehow? Many of the uniforms in the original 60's version are far more accurate.

I see poor old Mel Gibson is getting stick, and well deserved too.

"The Patriot" was indeed shameful in it's distortion of history.

Even better was naming "Braveheart" after Robert the Bruce, who of course was "Braveheart" and not William Wallace.

Maybe Mel was on the sherry when he made these given his later revelations, who knows.

The biggest surprise in recent movies is that a lot of heroes have different accents, when I grew up all the great heroes had American accents, even Genghis who was six foot four (apologies to the Duke, not one of his better choices), although Errol made an effort!!

In terms of me as a wargamer-saddo, as opposed to 99% of the film going audience( see JTOFM above), I don't think I've ever seen a war film which truly delivered. There are plenty which I liked bits of, and most of those which come close tend to have very little combat in them.
I quite liked "The Thin Red Line" though…..

Nothing unusual in my choices really; 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot'. Many reasons have been given above and I can add the most personal:

1. I am British.

2. I am Scottish.

3. I am a historian.

It is the wilful ignorance of the history that truly gets me especially in the case of William Wallace where the true story was even better.
Surprising cavalry with pikes! Who are we kidding? Clever tactics at Stirling BRIDGE. Now that's a good story!

Poorly made films are depressing but don't make me mad. For an all time stinker, track down "Ships With Wings" – I defy anyone to spend money, watch it and not get depressed by its sheer awfulness.

It takes deliberate distortion of facts to make me angry about a film. Notable examples include Objective Burma, U-571 and the Patriot – see Artilleryman's reason 1.

Saving Private Ryan.

Do the "Hollywood" Rangers and the "Hollywood" Paratroopers really need to face up Tigers and Waffen-SS to be heroic?

"Hannibal the Conqueror" with Vin Diesel. It didn't come out yet but it makes me mad already.

Pearl Harbour was very annoying but then came Fly Boys and Red Baron. Then there's Alexandra. How could they turn the such a adventure filled life story into such a bore?

When you think on it, there should be a compulsory requirement with certain movies for a big disclaimer at the start – full screen – pointing out that this is historically inaccurate and bears little or no resemblance to any persons living or dead other than the odd name and place – which isn't properly depicted either.

With ridiculous and offensive films – back to Mel again – there should be another screen which indicates that history has been totally distorted to increase revenues and provide a ripping yarn.

Maybe Mel should make a new film involving the history of war against the Aborigines, set in 1800 or thereabouts, in which the land and mineral rich Aborigines, dressed in leather (with jack boots) and wearing futuristic outfits atop heavily converted trucks, attack (in their thousands), or indeed infect(germ warfare – nice twist – maybe small pox) the beleaugered "Oz Family Gibson" (in a church), who are merely trying to fight for justice and their divine rights?

Sounds like a cracker to me

[What did you think was wrong with 'Wind Talkers'? Other than being disjointed.]

A fair question. First, it starred Nicolas Cage. He is a one note actor. He can ONLY do the tortured soul, agonizing about all the killing and death he has encountered, which he can only escape by going on a killing spree. While sad.

Second, it was not about the Wind Talkers, but about Cage's bodyguard role. And the terrible secret he carries that his job is (dramatic chord) to stop his Windtalker falling into enemy hands. Cue much agonizing as he realises he may have to kill his charge to prevent that. Well d'uh. I am sure the Windtalkers knew they were not to be captured. I just think that while the movie was called Windtalkers, it just wasn't their story.

Third, frankly memory is failing now. I can recall thinking 'this is crap' at many points in the movie. But mercifully I can't remember most of the crap itself. I will not be watching again to refresh my memory.

Someone above said "There is probably a great movie in the story of the wind talkers. 'Wind Talkers' was not that movie"

I thought the same about "Flyboys" = the history of the Escadrille Lafayette is just "boys own" stuff, some of the guys involved are just a pulp writers dream.

problem is, in a couple of thousand years archaeologists are going to get hold of a DVD war movie and think it was historical fact…

/giggle whish I could be there to take a look at their faces!!

The problem with Windtalkers is that it's not war, is a happy little blood fest, 250 pound bombs make explotions the size of roman candle, Main cannon on battle ships with 16in cannon have tiny tiny explotions, all guns are fired from the hip, Native americans passing as Japanese, silly acrobatics wealding a .45

It's just an insanly silly movie, that I can't take seriously, it like they tried to make the silliest and worst warfilm in history.

Oh dear, I obviously don't have much taste as I quite like most of the films mentioned alrady, even the much maligned The Thin Red LIne as it has some beautiful images an dphotgrpahy in it.

Films based on books/comics (like 'Castle Keep', '300') will always be a bit patchy at the cinema, depends how good the adapatation is.

BoB in the sun? well, it was filmed in Spain, so no worse than Richard III with Bosworth fought amongst the orange groves.

The converted Tigers in SPR were made of metal, not plywood. I climbed on one of them at Duxford.

Anyway, films which make me mad….

'Come and See' by Elim Klimov, always puts me in a blind rage about the evils of nazism. What it is designed to do of course, and very effective it is too.

The worst war film ever made is 'Breakout', the follow up to 'Cross of Iron'. Bizarrely it has an all star cast and tries really hard, but it is just dreadful. I'd rather have my wisdom teeth pulled out again that sit through that, especially the awful 'theme' which is played every time Robert Mitchum makes an appearance.

I can forgive flag wavers and history re-writes, there is no such thing as objective history anyway. If there was, our historical debates on TMP would be short indeed. In any case, films aren't documentaries and aren't intended to be, they are entertainment.

Anyway

I get mad from a different PoV.

During 'The Great Escape', I'm always shouting at the tv when the German policeman says 'Good luck,' in English, to which Gordon Jackson replies, also in English: 'Thank you very much.'

Sad but true, but some part of me hopes that he won't say it.

I think one of the best war films ever made was not made by the Americans, and it was made way back in the 60's. The Russian made, "War and Peace"

For a movie of its time it FAR exceeds anything Hollywood can produce even now and it was done with REAL people and NOT CGI.

If you get the chance go take a re-look at it once again, you will be amazed and what these guys achieved over 40 years ago.

YouTube link

They are only movies not worth the emotion of anger. Their only purpose is entertaining the genral public, making money for the studios, and sometimes political comentary.

I do regularly snicker about the inaccuracies and quietly bemoan to my friends, Wife and children. If I think it is going to be really bad then I wait until it is in the dollar theatre so my money loss is less.

What was that stinker with Jon Bon Jovi and the Enigma machine, there are some good films too. Das Boot is great.

Mel Gibson films are usually , and the one that tends to make me maddest is Braveheart, mainly because I refuse to see The Patriot.

Though isn't We Were Soldiers absed on an eye-witness account? In which case did that charge actually happen?

And I'll point out, just to be controversial, that few if any of the officers portrayed in Gods & Generals owned slaves….

But for me, its U571. Is the US Navy so short of tales of heroism that Hollywood has to use other peoples? Didn't go down well here at all….

'633 Squadron' – just a straight rip of of 'Star Wars, a New Hope'.

People whimper about BotB and the tanks – but no one yet has moaned about the Germans getting beat by Mr Fonda and his flaming Barrells of Death?

Pat

Can't watch Blackhawk Down for reasons already stated. Just makes me mad.

You can nitpick lots of movies. I have developed a thick skin and a high level of acceptance as long as they are trying and not preaching. Kelly's Heroes is fine when they are NOT preaching to me about the evils of war against the Nazis!

Want to slam Pearl Harbor but can't since they achieved their objective, which was to make a chick flick that guys would go to.

Nitpicking movies for the story is lame. If they rewrite history that is one thing. If they just tell a story that is set in the period that is another. They are not making a documentary. They are ENTERTAINING.

But it still bugs me that in Avatar the big military armored suits have to carry their weapons in their hands!