The Ultimate WW2 movie thread

DID YOU LIKE WINDTALKERS

  • YES

    Votes: 5 27.8%
  • NO

    Votes: 13 72.2%

  • Total voters
    18
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
413
Reaction score
0
Location
Fairfax, Va
Re: Re: High Definition WW II Movies

Originally posted by RichardS
I remember going to see Battle of the Bulge in the drive in. Battle of the Bulge is NOT good history; but it is a fun movie to sit back and have popcorn and the beverage of your choice with. I hope they returned the Panzer Leid scene/song back to the movie.

Cheers!
:toast:

:horse:
It is the unedited theatrical widescreen version. The same glaring historical inaccuracies, but in crisp detail.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
413
Reaction score
0
Location
Fairfax, Va
Re: High Definition WW II Movies

Originally posted by Lance Williams
For those of you who have satellite high definition TV, HD Net Movies has been running "The Battle of the Bulge" and "None But The Brave" this week. Its shown in its theatrical release format of 2.35 to 1. The quality is stunning, but it still can't make Spanish tanks in German markings look any better.
A few additional war movies HD Net Movies is showing this month include: "The Green Berets", "Hamburger Hill", "Heaven and Earth" and "The Night of the Generals".
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
0
Location
Staten Island, NY
Re: Re: High Definition WW II Movies

Originally posted by Lance Williams
A few additional war movies HD Net Movies is showing this month include: "The Green Berets", "Hamburger Hill", "Heaven and Earth" and "The Night of the Generals".
The Night of the Generals, Peter O'Toole.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
413
Reaction score
0
Location
Fairfax, Va
Re: Re: Re: High Definition WW II Movies

Originally posted by Iron Mike USMC
The Night of the Generals, Peter O'Toole.
That's the one. Not strictly a war movie, but more of a whodoneit with a war setting.
 

jguritza

Member
Joined
May 1, 2004
Messages
462
Reaction score
0
Location
Akron, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
I saw the movie when it first came out and was not immediately blown away. I plan on watching it again this weekend. I was always under the impression it was a Hollywood Anti-War movie.

I remember getting the book a long time ago but I have never read the book. I was told to read the book before I saw the movie.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
413
Reaction score
0
Location
Fairfax, Va
Originally posted by jguritza
I saw the movie when it first came out and was not immediately blown away. I plan on watching it again this weekend. I was always under the impression it was a Hollywood Anti-War movie.

I remember getting the book a long time ago but I have never read the book. I was told to read the book before I saw the movie.
That's probably a fair accessment. I don't think the director would be classified as a conservative.
 

BarcelonaBlom

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
0
Location
Pensacola, FL
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by daemonofdecay
The most striking scene to me was later in the film when the soldier was sourounded by the Japanese infantry, and after a few seconds still tries to fire his rifle. Very touching, imo.

I liked it, but it did seem a bit too slow and emotionaly oriented. But then, look at Apocalypse Now. To me, both films are along the same lines.
It was but I think that so far it best represents the combat on Guadal (with the advance on those bunkers)
 

BarcelonaBlom

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
0
Location
Pensacola, FL
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by Keef
I interviewed Tom Selleck for Armchair General while he was on set for this movie. The interview will be printed in issue 3... available June 1. Based on my conversation with him they are doing a really good job. Tom is a real history buff and he is taking this role very seriously. I say give him the benefit of the doubt and support A&E's decision to spend some serious $ making this movie by watching it, and if it's good buy the video or DVD. We need to reward companies who take a gamble on making good quality Military History programming.
:thumb:
I got mine 2 days ago!.... Amen to that Brutha Keef!


Can I get a Huzzah!!???
 

Stage

Member
Joined
May 21, 2004
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Location
St. Louis, Mo. USA
Country
llUnited States
Ummmmmmm......it was Ok?

The Japanese actors were AMAZING! The look of absolute defeat combined with the fury of being defeated was so well done by the actors.

What I didn't like was the long interior monologues and the fact that the G.I's were always able to kill their targets with one shot seemingly.

By the way, what the Hell is Sean "Anti-War" Penn doing in a war movie?:rolleyes:
 

BarcelonaBlom

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
0
Location
Pensacola, FL
Country
llUnited States
This captures what I think of the movie quite well:
The greatest fault of The Thin Red Line was its timing - it was released at around the same time as Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. While most people dismissed The Thin Red Line as the `other' World War II movie of 1998, it's actually a very different kind of film - the film itself is not hurt by similarity to Ryan but was hurt commercially due to the misconception. It's easy to forget that Red was nominated for seven Oscars. This is an extraordinary film that can stand well on its own next to Ryan.

Saving Private Ryan was significant in that it visually depicted war in a realistic, gritty way. The Thin Red Line's focus is more philosophical. It is about the contradiction between the beauty of nature and the destructive nature of men. The movie cuts continuously between the external struggle of American GIs fighting to take a crucial hill from Japanese occupation on Guadalcanal - and more importantly, the internal chaos of war as every man tries to come to his own terms about matters such as morals, death, God, and love.

Unlike in Saving Private Ryan, there is nothing patriotic about this movie. In fact, there probably has never been a more anti-war film. The fighting men here are disillusioned, lost, and frightened. They don't fight for their country or "democracy" - they fight because they have to. The only priorities are survival, and - for the more humane - caring for their comrades. Renowned composer Hans Zimmer - who won an Oscar nomination for his work-captures the grim mood perfectly and allows us to hear the men's thoughts.

The characters are portrayed by a strong ensemble cast. Acting is uniformly excellent, especially Nick Nolte as Colonel Tall, who is the unfeeling commander of the ground offensive on Guadalcanal. Thoroughly unlikable, he is the closest thing to a villain in the movie. After studying war for an untold number of years, Tall sees Guadalcanal as his chance to prove himself and move up in the ranks - the men are only a tool to accomplish this goal and expendable. In one crucial scene, he orders a captain (played by Elias Koteas, in another outstanding role) to lead his men to a frontal assault against a Japanese controlled hill. When the captain suggests a more logical alternative, the colonel screams: "You are not gonna take your men around in the jungle to avoid a goddamn fight!" To this, the captain replies, `I've lived with these men, sir, for two and a half years and I will not order them all to their deaths.' Later, when the hill is taken, he is dismissed of his duties as Tall sees him as a threat to the successful achievement of his goal. Certainly, not every commander must have been that coldhearted and selfish, but surely some were, though not necessarily to that extreme.

While the acting is very good, much of the cast is relatively unknown and it can initially be hard to distinguish the characters from each other as they may appear to be very similar. They are all about the same age, have dirt smeared over their faces, and wear helmets and the same military garb. Also, the stars in this movie have very small roles. George Clooney and John Travolta are credited with starring roles while really little more than extras - clearly for marketing purposes. You will not see more than two minutes of each.

One of the main themes of the movie is the contrast between nature and men's destructiveness in war. The director, Terrence Malick, hired cinematographer John Toll to capture this on camera, and towards achieving that goal they couldn't have been more successful. The almost surreal scenery is nothing short of stunning and has the same visual impact as any special effect. The beauty of nature is always present, even when it is a setting for battle of destruction, and death.

Though the battle scenes fall short of the frightening realism in Saving Private Ryan, they are heads and soldiers above every previous attempt. One truly gets the sense that war is a chaotic, often hopeless environment where it is only a matter of luck whether you survive or get killed.

`How did we lose the good that was given us? Or let it slip away? Scatter it carelessly ... trade it for what has no worth?' The film is filled with such poetic questions as to which there are no real answers. This is definitely not a party movie. There isn't anything uplifting about it - it is downright depressing. Asides from entertainment value, however, this is a film that makes you think.
 

PvtManaCoB3MD

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Location
St. Louis, Missouri,
Country
ll
Apart from a few scenes and good music, this movie, regardless of Saving Pvt. Ryan, didn't do it for me. I know that some of the older Pacific theater movies are a bit cheesy, but Thin Red Line doesn't even compare to them. I have no bias towards the Pacific theater, but I, like many are more fascinated by the european theater. Maybe because I hate hot weather....anyway, despite some cheese factor, Guadalcanal Diary is a better film.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
413
Reaction score
0
Location
Fairfax, Va
Originally posted by Patrocles
I never watched "Enemy at the Gates." What are the opinions of this film. The sets/fx in the clips looked quite realistic. [/B]
Some of the action scenes are very well done. In particular the special effects in the Volga river crossing are dead ringers for actual footage I've seen. The computer graphics of Stukas and PzIIIs are also well done, for those two machines it may be as close as we'll come to seeing a real one. Those are the good parts.

The movie is based around a single character who is mentioned in a few paragraphs in the book and a love story is tied in as a subplot to the actual battle (ala "Pearl Harbor"). These are the not so good parts.

I've seen the DVD as cheap as $9.99 and for that price its worth having, just skip to the good scenes and avoid the drivel.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
413
Reaction score
0
Location
Fairfax, Va
Originally posted by BarcelonaBlom
This captures what I think of the movie quite well:
The greatest fault of The Thin Red Line was its timing - it was released at around the same time as Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. While most people dismissed The Thin Red Line as the `other' World War II movie of 1998, it's actually a very different kind of film - the film itself is not hurt by similarity to Ryan but was hurt commercially due to the misconception. It's easy to forget that Red was nominated for seven Oscars. This is an extraordinary film that can stand well on its own next to Ryan.

Saving Private Ryan was significant in that it visually depicted war in a realistic, gritty way. The Thin Red Line's focus is more philosophical. It is about the contradiction between the beauty of nature and the destructive nature of men. The movie cuts continuously between the external struggle of American GIs fighting to take a crucial hill from Japanese occupation on Guadalcanal - and more importantly, the internal chaos of war as every man tries to come to his own terms about matters such as morals, death, God, and love.

Unlike in Saving Private Ryan, there is nothing patriotic about this movie. In fact, there probably has never been a more anti-war film. The fighting men here are disillusioned, lost, and frightened. They don't fight for their country or "democracy" - they fight because they have to. The only priorities are survival, and - for the more humane - caring for their comrades. Renowned composer Hans Zimmer - who won an Oscar nomination for his work-captures the grim mood perfectly and allows us to hear the men's thoughts.

The characters are portrayed by a strong ensemble cast. Acting is uniformly excellent, especially Nick Nolte as Colonel Tall, who is the unfeeling commander of the ground offensive on Guadalcanal. Thoroughly unlikable, he is the closest thing to a villain in the movie. After studying war for an untold number of years, Tall sees Guadalcanal as his chance to prove himself and move up in the ranks - the men are only a tool to accomplish this goal and expendable. In one crucial scene, he orders a captain (played by Elias Koteas, in another outstanding role) to lead his men to a frontal assault against a Japanese controlled hill. When the captain suggests a more logical alternative, the colonel screams: "You are not gonna take your men around in the jungle to avoid a goddamn fight!" To this, the captain replies, `I've lived with these men, sir, for two and a half years and I will not order them all to their deaths.' Later, when the hill is taken, he is dismissed of his duties as Tall sees him as a threat to the successful achievement of his goal. Certainly, not every commander must have been that coldhearted and selfish, but surely some were, though not necessarily to that extreme.

While the acting is very good, much of the cast is relatively unknown and it can initially be hard to distinguish the characters from each other as they may appear to be very similar. They are all about the same age, have dirt smeared over their faces, and wear helmets and the same military garb. Also, the stars in this movie have very small roles. George Clooney and John Travolta are credited with starring roles while really little more than extras - clearly for marketing purposes. You will not see more than two minutes of each.

One of the main themes of the movie is the contrast between nature and men's destructiveness in war. The director, Terrence Malick, hired cinematographer John Toll to capture this on camera, and towards achieving that goal they couldn't have been more successful. The almost surreal scenery is nothing short of stunning and has the same visual impact as any special effect. The beauty of nature is always present, even when it is a setting for battle of destruction, and death.

Though the battle scenes fall short of the frightening realism in Saving Private Ryan, they are heads and soldiers above every previous attempt. One truly gets the sense that war is a chaotic, often hopeless environment where it is only a matter of luck whether you survive or get killed.

`How did we lose the good that was given us? Or let it slip away? Scatter it carelessly ... trade it for what has no worth?' The film is filled with such poetic questions as to which there are no real answers. This is definitely not a party movie. There isn't anything uplifting about it - it is downright depressing. Asides from entertainment value, however, this is a film that makes you think.
There is nothing wrong with a movie making an anti-war statement, nor is there anything wrong with a movie that doesn't depict every character as an ardent patriot. The problem I have with this movie is that Guadalcanal was NOT the batlle to show these tendencies.

The Marines and later in the battle Army soldiers were not draftees who may or may not have wanted to be in the military. The combatants (especially the Marines) were hardened professionals who would have displayed little (if any) anti-war sentiment. You talk about surreal scenery and poetic questions, these are simply not topics the forces on Guadalcanal would have had flowing thru their brains. These are also not topics considered in the book that "inspired" the movie.

The veterans who were asked their opinions on the History Channel's "History Vs. Hollywood" said simular things to say about this movie. There is nothing wrong with story Terrence Malick wanted to tell, he just told it in the wrong context..
 

Janos

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2004
Messages
354
Reaction score
0
Location
Combat Military Training Center, Hohenfels, Bavari
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by Thomas McPeek
STalingrad is a good movie but I still like Das Boot better. Have not seen Cross of Iron yet.:sleep:
Cross of Iron is a good movie. There's another one that focuses mainly on the home front, but with war at the ends called something like A Time for Love -- where a German soldier goes back home on R+R and finds his hometown blown all apart and full of Party spies. He goes back and the end and he has gotten soft. A Russkie partisan plugs him in the back.

JS
 

Thomas McPeek

Member
Joined
May 15, 2004
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Location
ONTARIO,OHIO
Country
llUnited States
Thanks Janos I'll have to check out Cross of Iron and the other movie A Time for Love. Willi Heinrich wrote the book Cross of Iron I haven't read that one yet, but I did read his other book Crack of Doom, fiction about the German Army retreat through eastern Europe late in 1944. Heinrich was a German Army officer during World War Two:sleep:
 

Patrocles

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
6
Location
Chicago, IL
Originally posted by Thomas McPeek
Thanks Janos I'll have to check out Cross of Iron and the other movie A Time for Love. Willi Heinrich wrote the book Cross of Iron I haven't read that one yet, but I did read his other book Crack of Doom, fiction about the German Army retreat through eastern Europe late in 1944. Heinrich was a German Army officer during World War Two:sleep:
You have to see "Cross of Iron." Great cast, good action scenes, and directed by Sam Peckinpah!! (love his directing style). For me this film bears up to repeated viewing very well compared to, say, Saving Private Ryan. SPR is more gory but CoI has teh better script, acting, and editing (peckinpah is a master with the use of slow motion in action films!).

Thanks for the line about Crack of Doom. I will have to check it out.
 

Medic

Recruit
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
Hope i get more then one vote.
I know as soon as I put these down i will think of others.
1. Tora Tora Tora
2. Patton or Bridge on River Kwai (could not decide)
3. Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan
4. Kelly's Heros (just cause)
5. Winds of War
6. Schindler's List
7. the Dirty Dozen
8. The Big Red One (older version)


Please give me time and I can think of several others
 
Top