"which war film gets you mad?" Topic

I dunno, folks who have sunk lower have made comebacks. Plus, he is really stinkin' rich, so he can finance on his own, up to a point.

Yet another reason to despise Braveheart-

I went to have a look at the Wallace monument just by Stirling, only to be faced with a statue of Mel bloody Gibson, and a buch of tourists going 'Gee, William Wallace really did look a lot like Mel'.

(Facepalm!)

What about Love and Death? The Russian uniforms should have had red facings-not black. And the cannon that Woody Allen was shot out of-it was totally inaccurate.

Then of course there is "Revolution," in which all the Brits are evil child-molesters and the Americans are all noble and patriotic to a country that doesn't exist yet. Starred Al Pacino and Natassia Kinski, both totally mis-cast (Kinski as the 'fiery Irish lass?' – she's beautiful, but not, repeat NOT Irish-looking).

In a lot of ways it seems like a dry run for "The Patriot."

But even this stinker has an excellent battle scene, so it isn't a total waste of time. Just a 95% waste of time.

Dam Busters. Myth making around the pointless slaughter of Bomber Command's finest (mostly Aussies and Canadians) to prove that the RAF's strategic bombing force wasn't just a waste of time. (Like the actual raid itself.)

Gallipoli for its rascist stereotyping of the Turks, who fought bravely.

Battle of the Bulge. Von Mantueffel and Bruce Clark were at the gala first showing. Clark wouldn't comment and VM called it an insult to all who fought on both sides.

Dunno why everyone is so down on Pearl Harbor. Watching Kate Beckinsale prance around in her nurse costume is worth paying the price of admission.

Twice!

She could stick her finger in my neck any day.

Unfortunately she usually appears alongside a lump of wood known as Ben Affleck. That in my view should mean you get your admission fee back…twice!

One that many of you may not have seen "Dieppe" which painted Canadian soldiers as lazy drunken womanizers who died like sheep to make Montbatten great.

I can put up with (most) historical innacuracy, even the adjustment of a story line, as I watch most war movies on TV these days for amusement. But what really gets my goat, every time I see it, is that American Heavy Cruiser pretending to be the Graf Spee in Battle Of The River Plate. I know the allied ships were all played by the real ones, or near relatives, and that the Graf Spee no longer existed, but surely something better could have been worked out? After all, Sink the Bismark used some really good models (pre CGI)

Yes, Windtalkers was truly awful. Thankfully, I had the sense not to even see The Thin Red Line.

I agree with a few other that, despite it being an excellently made film, the watching Black Hawk Down does make me angry knowing that those men went through all that for nothing.

I'm not sure all the people complaining about The Patriot have actually seen it. While I agree it wasn't very good, I certainly don't remember it portraying the British as all being stupid and evil. In fact, there was only one character in the movie that was really evil. He was the villain of the movie. That's how movies, and stories in general, usually work. Someone is the bad guy.

Dam Busters. Myth making around the pointless slaughter of Bomber Command's finest (mostly Aussies and Canadians) to prove that the RAF's strategic bombing force wasn't just a waste of time. (Like the actual raid itself.)

Atleast 'Dam Buster' used real Lancasters. I wonder how they'll manage with the remake that is planned. Although the project seems to have stalled.

Since my father was one of Bert Harris's 'Old Lags' I would point out that the actual raid was not in accordance with RAF bombing doctrine from February 1942 and was another example of resources being squandered on a 'panacea target' that Harris so frequently condemned.

Captain Gideon:

So you're saying that 633 Squadron is a rip off of Star Wars, a New Hope.

But it should be the reverse since 633 squadron came out in 1964, so who's ripping off who?

These are not the film clips you are looking for…:

YouTube link

The only bit that I always notice in "Waterloo" is when Napoleon is seen riding along the line from a distance and one of the cardboard cutout figures is leaning at an absurd angle to it's right. With all those extras – and I read somewhere that there was about 5 extra additional of battle footage never used (I would buy the special director's cut in an instant if they were ever found/remastered – whatever they do) – how did they still manage to have a cutout out of place at such a momentous scene?

Compared to some of the dross out there "Waterloo" is nowhere near the top of the list IMHO.

I don't know why people don't seem to like the Thin Red Line…Yes it was slow, yes the action anly came in fits and starts but maybe that was because the Director was trying to be accurate!!! Remember war is 90%+ boredom and 10% terror--which that film quiete rightly portrays….

And while the Dambusters raid wasn't the panacea that some thought it was it did disrupt industry quite a bit and for the losses taken did kill quite a few Germans…And the whole (rolls eyes) Canadians and Aussies sacrificed rubbish is nearly Mel Gibson level of sillyness--I think you will find those Canadians and Aussies VOLUNTEERED!!!(Twice--once to serve in the RAF and then for 617 sqdrn)….

Avatar and the Patriot are probably the worse. The Patriot for the battle scenes alone- their so rubbish they could almost make me cry with rage.

A lot of war films are rubbish – I can forgive politics I don't like, poor weapons & uniforms etc (to a degree anyway). Not poor acting or completely silly battles- unless it's meant to be silly for silly people (stuff like Rambo- I know not to watch such crud).

Except the new Four Feathers- complete intellectual crud. And a miles worse story that doesn't stack up- unlike the orginal- even if you don't like it.

SPR is also completly rubbish when Americans can turn themselves is human motar batteries and Germans run like action men in stupid straight lines.

Speaking of Braveheart… here's the genius Stewart Lee risking life and limb doing a Scottish gig

YouTube link
Skip to 3:50 for the Braveheart bit

…and one of the greatest b/c it has to be one of the finest depiction of one the worst plans in modern military history….

A Bridge TOO FAR.

U-571 . . . Hollywood rewrites history <sigh>. Quelle surpise!

Wow, four pages in one day; all repetitious ranting about the same handful of films.

I like war movies, period. The more shooting and killing and exploding buildings and vehicles and strafing aircraft, the better. Plot be damned. As a kid plot bored the hell into me; especially the romantic drivel like that in the middle of 633 squadron. I clearly recall sighing impatiently. The torture scenes were cowardly, nightmarish stuff: let's get to the flying and shooting and bombing, NOW! ferpetesakes!

But I can't think of any off-hand that actually make me mad (angry?) to watch. Braveheart is the closest, I guess. See, I just repeated the rant. Oh well….

First off, any war film made during WWII is suspect. The recent ones I do not like are:

Battle of the Budge – In Spain, in the summer, etc.

Gods and Generals – How do the same guys who made Gettysburg make this turkey?

The Green Berets – Sun sets in the East?

Pearl Harbor – Modern ships painted white? Active duty American Army Air Corps officer transferred to the RAF to fight in the Battle of Britain, before the U.S. is in the war!

300 – Based on a very bad comic book. The Spartans didn't wear armor?

Thin Red Line – A few good scenes but a boring film.

Cromwell – This film tries to pass itself off as being historical. Cromwell is portrayed as a great hero. Charles the 1st made him do it.

U571 – This is so implausible. If you're going to make up history at least make up good history.

Lawrence of Arabia is one of my all time favorite movies. The American Film Institute list it as number 7 in its list of the 100 greatest movies.

link

Waterloo is great because there is not a better film about a Napoleonic era battle. I love it and watch it quite often. I am aware of it's draw backs but I don't care.

Gettysburg is great because it is the best film about a civil war battle. I thought Jeff Daniels should have gotten nominated for best supporting actor. It is actually based on a book, a work of fiction. Fiction or not it is my all time favorite ACW film.

Saving Private Ryan – The plot is so stupid and I have issues with it, but the first twenty minutes makes this movie a classic. First thing, blow up the damn bridge!

By the way, why isn't this topic posted on the general board? No big deal, just strange.

A film that made me mad was City of Life and Death, and it was very well made.

I just watched and really enjoyed 'The Red Baron' the German film from 2008 about Manfred von Richthofen, it was so much better than that turkey 'Fly Boys' with hackneyed dialogue, inconsistency of the plot and glaring historical errors.

"Apocalypse Now: Redux".

Start with a great film, with Oscar-winning direction, cinematography, story, and performances, that perfectly embodies the prevailing contemporary view of that war.

Pick up a few boring scenes the editor rightfully left on the cutting room floor; splice them back in as a "bonus". Ruins the whole picture.

Cromwell – This film tries to pass itself off as being historical. Cromwell is portrayed as a great hero. Charles the 1st made him do it.

To some of us he is a great hero.

Dam Busters. Myth making around the pointless slaughter of Bomber Command's finest (mostly Aussies and Canadians) to prove that the RAF's strategic bombing force wasn't just a waste of time. (Like the actual raid itself.)

And the basis for that amazing assertion is……?

Cromwell – This film tries to pass itself off as being historical. Cromwell is portrayed as a great hero. Charles the 1st made him do it.

To some of us he is a great hero.

HERE HERE Old Bear!!!

Where Where? ;)

Captain Gideon:

So you're saying that 633 Squadron is a rip off of Star Wars, a New Hope.

But it should be the reverse since 633 squadron came out in 1964, so who's ripping off who?

You just watch yourself. I'm a wanted man. I have the death sentence on twelve systems.

Pat

Old Bear

To some of us he is a great hero

Hear, Hear again!

Pat

300 is dire, Pearl Harbor is almost is bad but U571 should be banned if for nothing other than the mockery it makes of the true story that its inspired by.

what gets me mad is cliches and dumb actions by characters. i can get over a bad movie.
of the movies that
the son/best buddy dieing, the preacher getting shot but heroically throwing the gun to mel to kill the baddie in patriot

300 to me was just boring. the average spartan is a killing machine and no 100 persians could kill any…well except if one horseman rides alone from a mile away staight at them

the tom cruise in Japan movie where cruise is utterly destroyed…yet wins at the end

of course u571 had too many depth charge scenes which i found annoying,

oh and any movie where they shoot the dog to show how evil/callous/mean the bad guy is

To some of us he is a great hero

And again…

Any film which relies on mere spectacle, loads of explosions, eaxaggerated/implausible actions by the characters riles me a bit. As do ones which ignore the importance of one clear perspective on the events, but jump from one character to another.
Hence I love the Audie Murphy Red Badge of Courage: a great book, well filmed with sensitive acting.

Yosemite Sam's portrayals of Royal Navy Captains as brutal thugs infuriate me.

And his role as a Hessian in the American Revoilution was particularly galling, with the incorrect facing colors.

to some of us he is a great hero

Indeed, greatest Englishman ever. Jack.

Abel Gance's "Battle Of Austerlitz",a relooped v.o. on Jack Palance(as Weyrother),and some other bits that only had me watching it out of curiosity.

I think this thread has wandered from what films make you mad to what films are so inaccurate as to be unwatchable.

Blackhawk Down makes me so mad, for the sacrifices for nothing for people who instantly turned on the people there to help, I can't watch it.

I can sit through bad movies and suspend believe, ignore errors, etc. and still be entertained.

Blackhawk Down does not allow that. It is just a reminder of real good guys and real heros getting the short end for people who would rather starve than be saved.

BBC America is running a bunch of films now that recognize the Brits are always cast as villians in American films because they have cool accents. And yes Hollywood does think that Americans will not go see a movie without an American or 5 in it, even if it something Americans were nowhere near.

We have to have big fireballs in our explosions (What really drove me nuts in Windtalkers were the insane explosions. We watch the news so we know what a real bomb going off looks like Hollywood!), Americans as the good guys, battles where people die horribly or spectacularly, and a hot babe to distract from the other stuff. Get all that in and you have a winner.

Rallynow:
By the way, why isn't this topic posted on the general board? No big deal, just strange.

It is.

Another turkey……….Attack on the Iron Coast.

The Lancs used in The Dambusters weren't Lancs BTW, they were Lincolns.

I'm a Royalist…down with Oliver Cromwell, England's one and only (hopefully) Dictator.

I'm a Royalist…down with Oliver Cromwell, England's one and only (hopefully) Dictator.

He could have been king if he had wanted. As a royalist what would you have said then? The bloke was a better ruler than the majority of our kings.

criticism of battle of the river plate? surely not, its one of the best films of an historic incident ever made, and made by one of the best film making teams ever – it's not their fault they couldn't get the actual ships for the sea sceens – any other film maker back then would have used models in a big tank for the whole thing, Powell and Pressburger wanted a proper ocean feel, and those where the ships which they could get.

Since we are alll over the place with this thread, I'd like to plug the russian ww2 film 'star'. not a great film, but it does have the one essential thing which every russian film about the GPW must have !

Abel Gance's "Battle Of Austerlitz",

I jsut bought this turkey because I was told it had battle scenes equal to Waterloo. Half this movie is Napoleon dancing with various mistresses!!! Plus no English subtitles!!!!!

(everyone dies)

The Lancs used in The Dambusters weren't Lancs BTW, they were Lincolns.

For the flying sequences they used four of the final production Lancaster B.VIIs, had to be taken out of storage and specially modified by removing the mid-upper gun turrets to mimic 617 Squadron's special aircraft.

A number of Avro Lincoln bombers were also utilised as "set dressing."

See Garbett, Mike and Brian Goulding. The Lancaster at War. (p.142-3)

Well, I liked the Dambusters and we win without a Yank in sight (I think).

Keraunos, I wasn't critisising the film, which ranks one of my favourites, just that my teeth grind everytime I see that cruiser. I could always shut my eyes when it's in longshot I suppose.

Cromwell -Our Chief of Men

U-571 – merely stealing men's stories and despising their heroism in the name of Hollywood America

The Patriot – evil – glorifying a man who was actually a slave owner and enemy of any kind of real freedom.

I hate all films based on either being 'chippy' about another nation (Mel Gibson and James Cameron stand up), or on glorifying one's own nation unhealthily. War films are particularly prone to this. War films made in the US seem to be usually both. This makes films like 'Platoon' shine. Personally, I think Black Hawk Down is in the same more balanced mould.

As soon as a war film is pathetic enough to need a 'baddy' it has descended to the level of 6 year olds in the play ground. Although the dramatic tension is good in say, 'Cross of Iron', having a baddy from your own side is nearly as pathetic as demonising the opposing side. US films tend to prefer the external baddy – either British or someone talking like a Brit. European films prefer the self-hating or class warfare route. Mel Gibson sometimes manages to combine both aspects – a triumph of resentment over reality.(although I do love Apocalypto and the Mad Max outings.)

Finally, I dislike lack of even-handedness – If you notice for instance , Australian troops in films are never portrayed as having Australian officers, since all errors and crimes have to be committed by Brits – vide 'Breaker Morant', 'The Light Horsemen', Gallipoli' etc etc.

Hi

I love how these threads have brits whining about being portrayed as the bad guys in the American Revolution! Who would have guessed? I mean, where is the american made movie about the american revolution with the stance that the whole thing was a mistake? Stupid americans!

Sarcasm aside, consider all the british movies that lecture stupid americans about needing to sacrifice for Jolly Old England. "Yank in the RAF" anyone? Noble british and self centered Yanks who only show for the money? Ya' That's a fair portrayal.

Rocky

"How I Won the War" An anti-war comedy starring John Lennon. Proved that anti-war films aren't funny and that John Lennon can act about as well as Keanu Reeves.

The Lancs used in The Dambusters weren't Lancs BTW, they were Lincolns.

For the flying sequences they used four of the final production Lancaster B.VIIs, had to be taken out of storage and specially modified by removing the mid-upper gun turrets to mimic 617 Squadron's special aircraft.

A number of Avro Lincoln bombers were also utilised as "set dressing."

See Garbett, Mike and Brian Goulding. The Lancaster at War. (p.142-3)

I stand corrected. I hadn't read that page since the book was published a long long time ago, but having dug it out of the bookcase thats what it says. I remember reading somewhere else that they used Lincolns in other shots though.
Anyway apart from that it has at least contributed one of the most memorable cinematic musical scores to our culture .