Jlundberg | 05 Jan 2017 1:55 p.m. PST |
I have been watching some bad war movies -some from a cheap dvd set my wife gave me a couple of years ago and the bad ones seem to have some things in common. All Germans are armed with MP40's Uniforms are just wrong – in one the German "paratroopers" all wore Hauptman (Captain insignia) Tanks are just wrong – not the fake Tiger of Kelly's Heroes but Pattons or Sheridans Haircuts – mullets on WWII troops Stereotypes – All officers are medal hungry glory hounds, all NCOs are hardbitten and know more about running the military |
David Manley | 05 Jan 2017 2:04 p.m. PST |
Hollywood retelling of a historical event |
GarrisonMiniatures | 05 Jan 2017 2:10 p.m. PST |
Made in Hollywood is certainly a good starting point. |
Col Durnford | 05 Jan 2017 2:19 p.m. PST |
You only ever see 5 guys in the platoon (or was it a company) in the whole movie. Very wrong kit – WWII with FN or M-113. Uwe Boll – as in Tunnel Rats. |
Norman D Landings | 05 Jan 2017 2:27 p.m. PST |
None but the last point of the OP have got anything whatsoever to do with whether a film is "bad" or not. They have to do with whether a film is visually accurate or not. Warning signs for a "bad" war film: the plot conceit of having the central characters Trapped Behind Enemy Lines. This seems to be a recent trope among the straight-to-DVD bargain-bin offerings. When you read it on the back of the box, prepare for a zero-budget extravaganza with a cast of z-listers. (Note that movies with a plot concerning a Mission Behind Enemy Lines are subtly different, in that they usually feature team selection, training, infiltration, etc, and include some of the best WWII cinema.) Also; "Mockbusters"; Low budget knock-offs of recent blockbusters. "Ardennes Fury", anybody? |
Virtualscratchbuilder | 05 Jan 2017 2:35 p.m. PST |
When the tripods from the American battleships in Tora Tora Tora show up in some other naval battle movie like Midway…. or when the ship blowing up is obviously a Renwal model, like in In Harm's Way. |
Dynaman8789 | 05 Jan 2017 2:39 p.m. PST |
Bad acting, bad writing, bad cinematography. Patton is one of the finest war movies around and it breaks two of the rules – with the exception of Bradley not being a Glory hound. |
dwight shrute | 05 Jan 2017 3:14 p.m. PST |
exploding cannonballs , and Mel Gibson … |
Jlundberg | 05 Jan 2017 3:23 p.m. PST |
would go with explosive projectiles for any period prior to 1850. I would say that the visuals that I referred to earlier are signs of casual disregard and disinterest of the producers – which is also a sign of haphazard production and scant effort. |
Winston Smith | 05 Jan 2017 3:30 p.m. PST |
Hollywood retelling of a historical event. That's about it. I know we will have people chirping in here to ask why blah blah blah. The reason is simple. The purpose of a movie is to make money for the studio. Period. That means cutting expenses and maximizing sales. The typical customer is Larry who wants to get lucky tonight. He doesn't really care if the tanks are right or if the facings on the uniform are the right shade of green. Why do you think Hollywood should care? They are producing a product to make money. People who actually care about such trivia make up 0.02% of the movie going populace. Get used to if you aren't already. |
Tacitus | 05 Jan 2017 3:40 p.m. PST |
if it's domestic (US) and I've never heard of anybody in it, It is not going to be good… |
USAFpilot | 05 Jan 2017 3:41 p.m. PST |
Commanders in bad war movies are always stating the obvious. Like yelling "take cover" in the middle of your position getting bombarded. Kind of obvious, don't you think. Or "commence the attack", oh really, is that what we are here for, thanks for letting us know the obvious. Or yelling "retreat" after the battle in over and your side lost, no kidding. dumb da dumb dumb… |
John Treadaway | 05 Jan 2017 3:48 p.m. PST |
All of the above. Having said that, the country financing the film putting their own influences on it so that "extra characters" are inserted to allow appeal to a… certain audience really hacks me off. So as to avoid the dawg house for what might appear to be an attack – which it isn't – (and stretching this beyond war films) I'll include the 1986 Biggles film, the 'extravaganza' that was League of Extraordinary Gentlemen ("A modern day warrior, Mean, mean stride, Today's Tom Sawyer Mean, mean pride…") and we'll swing right back to the opening 'winning the Battle of Britain for the British' section at the start of the (already appalling) Pearl Harbour and let you all draw your own conclusions. John Treadaway |
David Manley | 05 Jan 2017 4:02 p.m. PST |
"The reason is simple." Why do you have to ruin things by bringing facts into play? :) |
Tomg333 | 05 Jan 2017 4:10 p.m. PST |
|
Nashville | 05 Jan 2017 4:53 p.m. PST |
sunglasses
wearing winter clothing and no cold breath coming from soldier's mouth
and , yes, Mel Gibson:
|
Grelber | 05 Jan 2017 5:02 p.m. PST |
Total lack of knowledge of how an army works. The latest version of Four Feathers had the British retreating and lots of troops straggling along, scattered all over. The men would have known this was a great way to guarantee they got killed by the Dervishes, one by one. There would also have been a rear guard to keep the Dervishes away from the main army. Of course, the British didn't historically suffer such a defeat. It seems to me war movies used to be proud to proclaim that their production was "The most realistic war movie ever!" You have to wonder what happened. Check the credits for Patton: Omar Bradley was the military adviser, so, yes, he came out looking pretty good. Grelber |
robert piepenbrink | 05 Jan 2017 5:14 p.m. PST |
The OOB looks like a totem pole. One Colonel, One Captain, One Sergeant. |
Gone Fishing | 05 Jan 2017 5:21 p.m. PST |
It's always surprised me how many WWII films get the hair wrong. First we had the mutton chops and shaggy hair visible in Cross of Iron and its ilk, and then the weird Nazi buzz cuts seen in films like Saving Private Ryan. The difficulty in getting proper tanks, even uniforms, I can understand, but haircuts? It just strikes me as odd. |
Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut | 05 Jan 2017 5:32 p.m. PST |
#1 sign of a bad war movie: you don't enjoy it #1 sign of a good war movie: you enjoy watching it |
nevals | 05 Jan 2017 5:35 p.m. PST |
For me is always the haircuts. Roman legionaries, Arthur's knights,Wild West cowboys, WW2 fighters- all brandishing the hair styles of the moment the movie was made. I heard Charlton Heston was a stickler for these things, especially for hair and facial hair. It had to be correct of the era. Apparently, Russell Crowe is the same. |
14Bore | 05 Jan 2017 6:07 p.m. PST |
It has to be plausible, no 2 guys vs a whole division. And my pet peeve wearing American helmets but only the inner shell, lots of movies do this. |
Mako11 | 05 Jan 2017 6:41 p.m. PST |
Usually, any remake of a previous one. |
Col Durnford | 05 Jan 2017 6:44 p.m. PST |
Iron Triangle – mostly good movie showing how the NLF/NVA operated, however… Jeff Bridges unit gets ambushed and he jumps on on top of a boulder in the middle of. stream yelling "take cover". |
Frederick | 05 Jan 2017 8:10 p.m. PST |
Stereotype characters – the evil Oriental/Russkie/Nazi/terrorist Recycling the same old tired scripts Massive close combat with the hero getting clobbered time and again and getting up (you know, getting hit in the head with a 2 by 4 slows most people down a bit) |
mandt2 | 05 Jan 2017 9:10 p.m. PST |
The cast includes all the most popular stars, singers, and Vegas performers (including at least one comedian), all playing themselves. |
Mako11 | 06 Jan 2017 2:36 a.m. PST |
Ones not starring John Wayne. |
etotheipi | 06 Jan 2017 3:27 a.m. PST |
Two words = "critically acclaimed." That means it met all the important historical, political, and military criteria of people who couldn't pass civics in secondary school. |
parrskool | 06 Jan 2017 4:58 a.m. PST |
|
ZULUPAUL | 06 Jan 2017 5:18 a.m. PST |
|
Grelber | 06 Jan 2017 6:09 a.m. PST |
Internal contradictions can be annoying, too. Like one character telling everybody they have to retreat, then showing us a map where they actually plan to get closer to the enemy. (LOTR, Théoden's proposed "retreat" from Edoras to Helm's Deep). Grelber |
redbanner4145 | 06 Jan 2017 6:09 a.m. PST |
All the tanks are Walker Bulldogs. |
miniMo | 06 Jan 2017 7:37 a.m. PST |
The reviews highlight that "the uniforms were very realistic" |
BlackJoke | 06 Jan 2017 7:52 a.m. PST |
Love interests dominating story, I mean this is a War movie not a chick flick. Competent peaple doing stupid stuff, I know it is often a plot device to move things in a direcction, but come on find a better way. |
Gunfreak | 06 Jan 2017 7:59 a.m. PST |
For Anciet/Medieval: Armor is only for show, You got a thick mail coat, gambison or full plate, then someone lightly taps you with a sword and you die instantly. As seen in almost every movie made. Everybody charging headlong into the other side, no formations no clear lines, no use of shields, basically football brawl with fake swords, as shown in almost every movie made. Troops training with shields, but when fighting enemies drop their shields(GoT is very bad at this) Hero taking of his helmet/not wearing a helmet so he looks cooler. For general war movies I will parrot every one using Thompson/MP40 Stormtrooper Germans(saving private ryan anyone?) Using Vietnam era hand signals during WW2(Saving private Ryan anyone? |
Weasel | 06 Jan 2017 8:37 a.m. PST |
|
Scorpio | 06 Jan 2017 9:20 a.m. PST |
Came to drag Mel Gibson, glad to see I am in good company. |
14Bore | 06 Jan 2017 3:59 p.m. PST |
Hacksaw Ridge was pretty good |
Herkybird | 06 Jan 2017 4:43 p.m. PST |
It 'Bombs' at the cinema! |
wrgmr1 | 06 Jan 2017 8:35 p.m. PST |
The good guys always hit. The bad guys always miss. Fury: two German pak 40's shooting at four Shermans on a flat open field miss every time. The two pak's get thumped after 2 or three shots. |