"which war film gets you mad?" Topic

"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
"

There is a diffrence between showing americans as self centerd, and making a movie that shows british troops acting like the SS commiting warcrimes, and the ing movie is shown in history classes to american children.

Bearing in mind the "mad" word – which I think is used in the American sense, rendered as "angry" over here – what does consistently irritate me in many films/movies is the use of "England" or "English" when the correct terms would be "Britain" and "British"; not many English regiments wore the kilt, for instance…

Robert – you are absolutely right. I'm guilty of it myself in daily conversation. Many/most Americans use the terms interchangeably, even if they know better.

ditto with using "Russian" and "Soviet" as the same thing.

The Last Samurai.

There have been films where I looked at the screen and said "Whaaa??", but I'm usually pretty patient with this sort of thing.

The Last Samurai had me yelling at my TV. A lot.

I mean i was okay with the film deciding to bend history and say that the Japanese hired US Army officers to update their military, instead of the Prussians they actually hired. That's fine. (Yet I hate that U571 subs in Americans for Brits – why is that?)
But from there on the historical butchering gets to be just too much.
From portraying the rebels as the Noble Good Guys to the rediculous battle scenes, pretending that the samurai were cleaving to tradition and using swords instead of the rifles and cannon that they had readily taken to… it just made me a little nuts.

My wife quietly left the living room about halfway through.

I would like to see a good movie about British burning of the white house, I had some ancestors in that one!!! Huh yes?

I notice a couple of positive comments for Apocalypto.

Have to say, much as I think Gibbo is a and having approached the movie with something less than an open mind, I did enjoy that one!

I enjoyed The Last Samurai and albeit historicaly inaccurate it was a very good film.

Captain Gideon

I agree with most of the sentiments expressed here, except that I think "M*A*S*H" and "The Longest Day" are great films, and I won't hear a word said against "Kelly's Heroes". I can't remember objecting very strongly to "The Thin Red Line", but then I can't remember much about the film at all. I doubt I would like any of Mel Gibson's films, but as I've never seen any, that's just an informed and almost certainly correct guess.

There is something about Viet Nam that seems to encourage Americans to make utterly dreadful films. "Platoon" -- self-indulgent piffle. "The Deer Hunter" -- total drivel. "Apocalypse Now" started well, but the second half was dire. "The Odd Angry Shot" is the only really good Viet Nam film I've ever seen, and that's Australian. The general standard of US film-making about VN makes "The Green Berets" look almost adequate, and at least it has a catchy song.

Now, looking along my DVD shelf, what nonsenses have I subjected myself to recently?

The first category is the "utter dreck" class, films with no redeeming features whatsover:

1. "Come and See". An absolutely awful film, I have no idea why people rave about it. Gurning at the camera does not constitute acting, and what on earth was that astral tarsier doing?

2. "Pearl Harbor". Yes, I know everyone else has panned it, but it still needs more panning. How can you can make a film with planes and Kate Beckinsale dressed as a nurse in it that isn't worth watching? I despair.

3. "Red Baron". Planes, Lena Headey dressed as a nurse, and still duller than dishwater.

4. "The Mark of Cain". Not worth the 2.99 it will cost you from the remainder bin, unless, for some reason, you wish to confirm an insane prejudice that all soldiers are really spam-headed fascistic marmosets.

The second class is the "I really wanted to like it, I hate being so disappointed" category.

5. "Saints and Soldiers". A pointless film that left so little impression on me that I may at some point be forced to watch it again to remind myself exactly why it was so dull.

6. "Attack on Leningrad". Hurrah! At last, a film on the siege of Leningrad! So why does the main character have to be an American girl reporter? Quite a touching final scene, I suppose, but it could very easily have been ten times better.

7. "The Hurt Locker". Not a bad film, but -- why must people rave about it so?

8. "The Bridge" ("Die Brucke") -- Again, not a bad film, but why must people rave about it so? Whatever effusions the critics may, errh, effuse, I don't think it shows much of the "horror of war" to see a group of sketchily-trained young men conduct a pretty successful "die in place" defence against enemy armour. And I'm sure they could have done better than those horrible Shermans.

All the best,

John.

Gallipoli – For tha same rason Sparker points out, "Heroic ANZACS sent to their deaths by blundering Pommy prats". (And I'm an Aussie)!

In the Valley of Elah (spelling?) – All US soldiers serving in Iraq come home as souless psycopathic killers,… (Buy what can you expect from a movie with Susan Sarandon

More to follow,….

I love how these threads have brits whining about being portrayed as the bad guys in the American Revolution!

Yeah, god forbid we could get a balanced view when we can have one-dimensional stupidity.

Wow, I seem to have arrived late here.

300 – is very possibly the worst film ever made. What was with the Persian ninjas ? And why in the name of Zeus did every man in Sparta choose a black leather posing pouch to go to war in ?

Much preferred Troy, which stuck pretty well to the plot of the book without going all Ray Harryheusen and having the gods appear in person. Loved the little touches like Achilles heel.

Gallipoli I have always liked, but the portrayal of British troops in it, even if it is only brief has always riled me.

Braveheart I dislike, and I have refused to watch the patriot and most likely never will. Same with the Wind that Shakes the Barley.

Other than that I like plenty of historically innacurate movies, Zulu, Waterloo, Saving Private Ryan, Stalingrad, Enemy At the Gates, One Mans Hero, Gladiator et al

Thin Red Line doesnt make me angry just bores me rigid.

In Braveheart the surprise we have pikes makes me see red.
No way are you going to wait until the final second during
a charge of heavy horse to set pikes. They should have rode right over the Scots. Of course that would have been the end of the movie. I still think the king had some entertaining
lines.
By the way, how come in Star Wars the Stormtroopers can't
hit the side of a barn but yet obiwan said only Imperial
Stormtroopers are so precise. And how can a little teddy bear hurt
a stormtrooper in armor with a rock?

Just thought I'd ask.

I enjoyed The Last Samurai and albeit historicaly inaccurate it was a very good film.

I agree, I really enjoyed it too. But I'm a sucker for Samurai movies (I have my own little collection). Historical issues aside, the movie had a message to say, and wasn't a pointless action flick. I think it speaks a lot for modern Japan: the mixture of ultra-modern, while still having a deep appreciation of the past and elements of culture that are distinctly "Japanese." I also think the comment about Cruise's character winning is off-base; the movie was really about Watanabe's character Katsumoto, and it was he that won in the end, and he had to die to do so. Cruise was merely the vehicle (or the caretaker) of this legacy, the voice in which Katsumoto could communicate to the Emperor. Dying in order to reprimand his lord (the Emperor) was, from my Western perspective a very Bushido thing to do…

Damon.

Damon what you said sounded very good and I fully agree with what you said.

Captain Gideon

""Attack on Leningrad". Hurrah! At last, a film on the siege of Leningrad! So why does the main character have to be an American girl reporter?" Obviously John you haven't actually seen it as if you had you would know the "American" reporter is actually British…for some reason at IMDB or on the box it says Yank!!!!

Noticed a couple of digs a '300'.

Its an animated comic book guys – lighten up!

The only real crime is that it used subject matter we are all familiar with and not something from a 'Conan' book!

Never saw the makers claiming new incite into the Greek and Persian Wars anywhere.

I see every did, however, love Captain Corelli's Mandolin!

Poor misunderstood Italians just waiting to change sides!

I thought I was impatient with historical inaccuracies and distortions until I read all this lot! (My own personal favourite among "things I love to hate" is the use of recognisable statues in the backgrounds, even though they're centuries out of date – Thorwalsen's "Hebe" in a scene of a Roman villa, for instance. Nevertheless, the Archaic Apollo that Achilles sets about in "Troy" is convincing, despite this.) It did seem ridiculous that the Spartans, soldiers and all as they were, decided to do without armour, but at least the film indicated that they had some allies at Thermopylae; and why did Gibson's Scottish nobles affect the same leather-bound nonsense, rather than being in heraldic drapery which would indicate their closeness to the English ruling class, too?

Last Samurai really touches a nerve with me. It's part of a genre called "Ugly American Meets Noble Native Culture". I'm sure you can name more movies like it, but the point of departure is based on the concept that America is bad. American culture is in large part a patchwork of other cultures, but it's not worthless in and of itself, and there have been significant unique American contributions that other cultures enjoy as much as we do. It's all part of White Guilt.

Preach mode off, I just can't stand to watch those movies.

Mad Max: When will they finally get post-apocalyptic dress right and even a small child can see those vehicle markings are completely wrong :(

Noticed a couple of digs a '300'.

Its an animated comic book guys – lighten up!

I probably wouldn't have liked the comic either then :-)

It felt like the trailer part of a computer game, but just very, very long.

>Historical issues aside, the movie had a message to say, >and wasn't a pointless action flick.

"Dances with Samurai" was yet another attempt to make western progress seem mean and unfeeling, whereas the backward, feudal Samurai were stand-ins for the Hollywood Indians in Dances with Wolves.

A good western? Try Ulzana's Raid or Jeremiah Johnson.

As far as really bad war movies go, most people have touched on the ones that make my head hurt.

As an AWI reenactor, The Patriot aka "Lethal Musket" is especially egregious.

""Come and See". An absolutely awful film, I have no idea why people rave about it."

John, you obviously have no soul:) The column of partisans slinking through the whispering forest…..the tracer fire shredding the cow at night….the tension as to what the BV141B was going to drop next, leaflets? bombs? paras?…poor raped Mother Russia, bruised and bloodied yet defiant. I especially liked the whingeing SD officer with his pet marmoset, and his villager incinerating pal with the cool haircut who managed quite a good sub Amon-Goethe speech.

They also had a Konsomlets, don't see those every often.

Dances with Samurai? you might be right but it was a better film than Dances with Wolves IMHO.

Captain Gideon

One thing: the accusation that The Last Samurai was a western about White Man Guilt, but subbing Japanese for Indians can be a meme generated by biases brought into the movie. Personally, I hate westerns: I never watch them, I never game them, and have no interest whatsoever in ever experiencing the history or the culture of the "Western." I even hate country music. But more importantly, I was never exposed to those sorts of movies or ideas.

When I watched the movie, I saw something different, and a different message, because I had a different perspective on it.

Damon.

Last Samurai really touches a nerve with me. It's part of a genre called "Ugly American Meets Noble Native Culture". I'm sure you can name more movies like it, but the point of departure is based on the concept that America is bad.

I love how these threads have yanks whining about being portrayed as the bad guys in the Indian wars! Who would have guessed? Touche!

>I hate westerns: I never watch them, I never game them, >and have no interest whatsoever in ever experiencing the >history or the culture of the "Western." I even hate >country music. But more importantly, I was never exposed >to those sorts of movies or ideas.

Well, I can see how you missed the comparison, then. There are a lot of bad westerns out there and a few very good ones.

>I love how these threads have yanks whining about being >portrayed as the bad guys in the Indian wars! Who would >have guessed? Touche!

I guess that explains that idiotic remake of the Four Feathers. Cultural/civilizational clashes are always ugly, but the historical record shouldn't be distorted to make the "History of Us" crowd feel better.

Wow. I admit to not reading everything here, but Platoon? You know, the one where every crime ever committed by any army anywhere is lumped into one little group of American GIs in less than two hours? Yeah that one.

Stinking feces.

And yeah, I'm one of the "Hollywood sucks" people, except for a few directors. Eastwood, Bay, and contrary to some of the ranting on page one of this thread, Gibson.

Don.

My favourite Vietnam flick is often ignored – "Go tell the Spartans" with Burt Lancaster.

I`ve always considered it a clever, inspired movie, neither preachy nor Gung Ho…….

I say again, I do miss the movies board….

Hi

Gunfreak, are you willfully misunderstanding my point?

Movies are not a substitute for history. Movies CAN inspire students to go "look it up". Tell me you have never had a movie inspire you to learn more?

As I said, my middle son had no interest in the period of "the patriot" saw the combat sequences as "horror" but was inspired to learn more.

I usually think in terms of "seeing things on screen that I have only imagined. Troy? Kinda ignored both the source work and the history. But seeing a thousand triaconters and pentaconters on the water was alone worth the price of admission TO me. Extra credit for seeing not one by TWO greek women wearing "Priam's Treasure"(way out of period). Or the city itself (Troy 7a?).

Or the dredful "Alexander" at least had some cool Phalanx's on screen and a lovely backdrop of Babylon.

See, we are not the audience, and we already usually know the story. I didn't want to see Titanic because I knew the story and knew that there was nothing "cool" to see on screen.

Do you see the difference?

Rocky

RockyRusso – if a film portrayed the US Marines as a bunch of murdering rapists, my instinct is that you'd hate the film….

Hence why we think The Patriot is a disgusting waste of celluloid.

My favourite Vietnam flick is often ignored – "Go tell the Spartans" with Burt Lancaster

Agreed, an excellent little movie that was overshadowed by the Big Budget, Big Name films like Platoon and Apocalypse Now.

I may have to go find a copy to rent now.

By the way, how come in Star Wars the Stormtroopers can't
hit the side of a barn but yet obiwan said only Imperial
Stormtroopers are so precise.

Two factors. Stormtroopers are trained to stand and fire, not run and gun, so their shot scars very rarely show a traversal smear. That is where Obi-Wan's comment comes from.

Secondly, from the computer game Dark Forces, the standard Stormtrooper Blaster has an "auto-target" function built in that scatters the shots randomly to compensate for the Troopers lack of traverse fire training and/or the really bad helmet visibility. The target can't dodge based solely on where the barrel in pointed. Acting as a squad level wall of fire, you get results like the taking of the Blockade Runner, in which they don't need to see, just hose the corridor down with shots. Against a moving target, like Han Solo running around the Death Star like a madman later in the same movie, the handful of Stormtroopers who can stop long enough to draw LOS to him (remember, they don't run-and-gun) have to function closer to snipers, and they have the wrong gun for that.

Two factors. Stormtroopers are trained to stand and fire, not run and gun, so their shot scars very rarely show a traversal smear. That is where Obi-Wan's comment comes from.

Secondly, from the computer game Dark Forces, the standard Stormtrooper Blaster has an "auto-target" function built in that scatters the shots randomly to compensate for the Troopers lack of traverse fire training and/or the really bad helmet visibility. The target can't dodge based solely on where the barrel in pointed. Acting as a squad level wall of fire, you get results like the taking of the Blockade Runner, in which they don't need to see, just hose the corridor down with shots. Against a moving target, like Han Solo running around the Death Star like a madman later in the same movie, the handful of Stormtroopers who can stop long enough to draw LOS to him (remember, they don't run-and-gun) have to function closer to snipers, and they have the wrong gun for that.

This advanced civilization that creates spaceships the size of cities can't develop a weapon or train a soldier to hit a moving target? I don't know how they held together as long as they did!

Also, maybe you can explain what a "taversal smear" is. I'm guessing that you're saying that if I move my weapon while I'm shooting it, the hole will be elongated somehow, rather than a circle or oval. That'd be a pretty slow-moving round.

WARNING: May contain unbelievably contrived Russian pun.

Martin Rapier wrote:

""Come and See". An absolutely awful film, I have no idea why people rave about it."

John, you obviously have no soul:)

We'll come to that in a minute.

The column of partisans slinking through the whispering forest…..

Slinking? Galumphing. The tactical movement in most films is quite dreadful, with "The Odd Angry Shot" an honorable exception.

the tracer fire shredding the cow at night…

The tracer was the only good bit of the entire film, but I object to cruelty to animals.

.the tension as to what the BV141B was going to drop next, leaflets? bombs? paras?…poor raped Mother Russia, bruised and bloodied yet defiant.

I am not entertained by either suspense or horror, and it just isn't news to me that the Germans behaved jolly badly.
So what is the author trying to say here? I don't much care for "Shooting Dogs", a film about a smaller-scale but comparably-vile episode in history, but at least John Hurt can act, and the author seemed to have something to say about cowardice and redemption, which sort of element I couldn't see in "Come and See".

I especially liked the whingeing SD officer with his pet marmoset, and his villager incinerating pal with the cool haircut who managed quite a good sub Amon-Goethe speech.

Astral tarsier, not marmoset.

Now, as to this allegation that I have no soul. I studied Russian literature for my first degree, and I acquired a lasting appreciation of Pushkin, Tolstoy, Bulkgakov and, especially, Lermontov. One of the things you'll notice about these people is that they mostly wrote short books, and have a fine, crisp, almost military prose style (no coincidence that most of them were soldiers, I suspect). The people I objected to were the prolix, self-indulgent, and to my mind mentally ill writers like Dostoyesvsky and Gogol on his bad days. If Dostoyesvsky is supposed to have soul, you can keep it.

While I was doing my first degree (French, as well, and, yes, I hated Proust) I was also in the UOTC, and, thanks to an odd conflation of circumstances, had been enrolled for the Certificate of Military Training before being strictly qualified for it. In order to get my cert B, and be eligible for CMT, I had to qualify on the Clansman radio and the GPMG. The Clansman was easy, no training necessary, just look at the buttons and press what looks right, the voice procedure was the same as I already knew. The GPMG, however, was rather different from the LMG I was used to. So, to sort out these irregularities, our "Q" agreed to give me a private lesson on the GPMG in exchange for the usual beer fee. However, the only time he was available clashed with a planned seminar on Russian poetry. I notified the lecturer of the clash. He stared out across the rolling fields of the Ukraine -- well, Streatham Court, anyway -- with the faraway look of a tortured poetic soul (he tended to do that quite a lot). Then, with a sigh, he said sadly "So, John, you think that learning to use a machine-gun is more important than Russian poetry?"

What could I say? I said "Yes, I do."

So you could say [here comes the immensely contrived Russian pun] that if I do have a soul[1], it is only a little one[2].

All the best,

Ivanushka Durachyok

[1] Dusha
[2] Dushka (the nickname for the DShK 12.7mm)

The other thing that does not make sense is that the Stormtroppers were clones of Bobba Fett, selected because he was top bounty hunter. Yet another let down from George Lucus I fear. Still we got two fun movies out of a set of six so it can't be all bad…

I'm going to stand up for 'Come and See' but then I'm a fond of partisan movies, it was certaily better done than 'Defiance'.

Following on from the above, Pushkin was trained as a miltary engineer, Lermontov (one of my favorite authors) was a cavalryman.

I will defend one only peice of writing by Dostoyevsky; 'the speech of the Grand Inquisitor' from 'The Brothers Karamazov'.

It's my personal belief that the Imperial Stormtroopers were modelled after German soldiers in 1950s WW2 films. They also famously couldn't hit anything and displayed no knowledge of basic tactics.

And then there were the Imperial Walkers, the Least Efficient Combat Vehicle Ever, with the possible exception of the Tsar tank: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Tank.

This advanced civilization that creates spaceships the size of cities can't develop a weapon or train a soldier to hit a moving target? I don't know how they held together as long as they did!

Also, maybe you can explain what a "taversal smear" is. I'm guessing that you're saying that if I move my weapon while I'm shooting it, the hole will be elongated somehow, rather than a circle or oval. That'd be a pretty slow-moving round.

Remember: Clones. Numerous. Expendable. Fearless.

Blasters are energy weapons using either laser or plasma (which is why Vader was able to absorb/block Han's shots in V) with enough of a "burst duration" that a moving firer will move ("traverse") the barrel and smear the power out over a larger area. On a body that won't matter a lot, but against armor you'll want all the energy in one spot, explaining the training.

Imperial Walkers, the Least Efficient Combat Vehicle Ever

Think of them as Assault APCs, not MBTs.

Think of them as Assault APCs, not MBTs.

Doesn't matter if they are Armored Trach Collectors, the propulsion system is not only extremely vulnerable, but the ground-pressure ratio must be out of this world (ha ha). They probably sink several feet into the ground with every step. That's after breaking through all the ice and snow of Hoth.

Give me tracks for moving over snow, whether we're talking MBT, APC or pleasure vehicle. The Empire would have been better served by a couple of battalions of T-34s.

Star Wars is a stupid fantasy movie. You can justify anything from the color of their armor to speculate if they wear boxers or briefs no big deal.

Probably the use of the word 'stupid' is inappropriate to anything which has generated so much financial success. Put iut this way – I'd kill to get that level of a stupid idea just the once in my life.

Equally though it seems a little pointless discussing the weapons and tactical doctrine of soldiers who don't exist, especially when such things do not seem to have been of any significant priority to the bloke who created them. Perhaps all will become clear once they are remastered in 3D?

"They probably sink several feet into the ground with every step"

Which strangely enough as never stopped anyone gaming Mech Warrior, or whatever, which features 50 ton bipeds!

"Thin Red Line doesnt make me angry just bores me rigid."

We call it "The Thinly Read Script" around here.

I guess that explains that idiotic remake of the Four Feathers. Cultural/civilizational clashes are always ugly, but the historical record shouldn't be distorted to make the "History of Us" crowd feel better.

I was being ironic. In case you didn't realise it was a cut and paste of Gunfreaks comment just swapping brit to yank! While I take your point about not distorting history pointing out that that the civilisation that was being brought to the savages wasn't of universal benefit and maybe they were happy as they were is not a bad thing of itself.

"I was being ironic. In case you didn't realise it was a cut and paste of Gunfreaks comment just swapping brit to yank! While I take your point about not distorting history pointing out that that the civilisation that was being brought to the savages wasn't of universal benefit and maybe they were happy as they were is not a bad thing of itself."

My irritation isn't with movies with a message "Your culture sucks" its the ones with the message "My culture sucks". Native cultures have been romanticized to the point where we forget how miserable they could be. How'd you like to be a peasant in Japan during the samurai era vice a samurai? Zulu is an excellent example of a movie where neither culture was judged.

BTW, if you want a movie about British Empire guilt I'd make one about the Opium wars. Patriot's got nothing on them.

The Chinese already have done an Opium Wars film – complete with the usual array of self-hating lefty-luvvies playing the British parts.

For teaching purposes, I recommend documentaries. Secondary students will eat movies up and spit them out, especially bad ones, like there's no tomorrow.

I think for the most part they actually prefer real footage and/or actual photographs combined with serious narrative.

<<BTW, if you want a movie about British Empire guilt I'd make one about the Opium wars. Patriot's got nothing on them.>>

A classic example of how modern thinking is misapplied to past events. 19th Century attitudes towards opium were far more ambivalent than they are today – many prominent western physicians of that time believed opiates were beneficial to human health (I believe the US Surgeon General was recommending daily doses of laudnum [sp?] in the 1880s). There was also the issue of protectionism and free trade; not the main issue, granted, but still an important one vis-a-vis the development of world trade.

<<…..complete with the usual array of self-hating lefty-luvvies playing the British parts.>>

Yes – doubly ironic given that particular group's association with drug-dealing and apparently endless inability to escape the level of punishment dealt out to us plebs.