The Best War Movie

[Pekka]

I got so excited that I just had to start watching apocalypse now redux.. The start of the movie is one of the best ever. A jungle and everything is still.. doors playing on the backround, and then chopper flies over the jungle and napalm is in the air, huge fires all over the jungle and right at the cue the singing starts in the song 'this is the end...' .. it's a thing of beauty.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
surprised no ones mentioned "Gladiator" while its not really a war movie, the opening battle scene is a very realistic recreation of Roman tactics. Far more realistic than the portrayal of Roman politics in the rest of the film, of course.

I have to disagree: the roman army of the period was still a army based on legions: in that battle scene the cavalry is shown as the main striking arm, with the infantry as support, and as that, mainly using archers: that is not accurate at all: In fact, I cvan;t even remember that many legionares on foot using short stabbing swords but spears, and they barely use their shields!

[Sir Og]

When you are tolking about war movies, especialy about WW2 movies you should mention Come and See/Idi i smotri . The movie depicts the atrocities of the nazis in USSR during the war. The images are very strong and show the full horror of WW2.

[Arrian]

All Quiet on the Western Front
Oh, What a Lovely War!
Das Boot
Hamburger Hill*
FMJ
Apocalypse Now Redux
Good Morning, Vietnam!
Bridge on the River Quai
Glory

I'm sure I missed a couple. I'm leaving movies like Braveheart out of it. Dunno why, I just am.

* - I've only seen part of it, but it was the last part, and it was enough. I got the point(lessness).

FMJ is more entertaining in the beginning, and gets wierd at the end, but it's good nonetheless.

Good Morning, Vietnam is similiar in that it's funny as hell in the beginning and then gets heavy.

BotRQ was good largely because of Alec Guiness. I can't help but smile when his character switches over to "Right! We're going to build this bridge, and do it properly!" mode. It's just so... British.

Glory, for similar reasons as LotM. Along the same lines, I enjoyed The Tuskegee Airmen.

I liked Saving Private Ryan, and I think the battle scenes were well done, but it gets to "Hollywoody" at the end.

Never saw Black Hawk Down, and am surprised it even got mentioned. Is it worth watching? I expected a flag-waving pukefest.

-Arrian

[Urban Ranger]

Full Metal Jacket. Apocalypse Now is good too, but not as good overall. Also, The Killing Fields.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Never saw Black Hawk Down, and am surprised it even got mentioned. Is it worth watching? I expected a flag-waving pukefest.

It's a wonderful movie, IMO. Not very flag-waving either. Sure it focuses on American forces, but there isn't like an Iwo Jima moment or anything.

[Q Classic]

Bridge on the River Quai

should be Quai --> Kwai.

I've only seen Apoc Now Redux. It's good.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by VetLegion

...anyone seen that one where a russian T-72 is fleeing afghanistan, chased by the locals? interesting.

I am pretty sure you are talking about The Beast of War. Went straight to video (at least in the UK) but is a good movie. Was actually filmed in Israel with a captured Soviet tank (if I remember the credits).

The Muj characters are a bit like cardboard cutouts but the Russian characters are actually quite different. Liked it a lot - but if you want run-of-the-mill Hollywood, look elsewhere.

FMJ is my favourite war movie. Much more impact than Apocalypse Now. The latter is the better movie (more story, hughly better sound and slightly better directed) but FMJ just haunts me.

Das Boot was EXCELLENT, the bits I saw of it. The BBC chopped it into little bits for broadcast and I still haven't seen the beginning. What I did see I liked a lot.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I don't know if this counts as a war movie but The Man Who Would Be King was really good.

great film, have you ever read the book?

pork chop hill was ace too

one film i really loved was a french film from the 20s or 30s, but i can't remember the name of it for the life of me what it's called. a group of french soliders takes a group of germans prisioner, but they get trapped in a bunker. while they wait for help, they get talking and discover they are more divided by their social class than thier nationality.

blackhawk down is so-so.

[Japher]

Has anyone mentioned "Gettysburg" or "Jamestown"?

I haven't seen them, but I really like Civil War era movies and would like to see more... I did watch Gangs of New York the other day, and while not a war movie was set during that time. I liked the 'air' of the movie, but I thought the plot was crap and could of been dealt with better (pretty much there was to much sex for a gang movie)...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I have to disagree: the roman army of the period was still a army based on legions: in that battle scene the cavalry is shown as the main striking arm, with the infantry as support, and as that, mainly using archers: that is not accurate at all: In fact, I cvan;t even remember that many legionares on foot using short stabbing swords but spears, and they barely use their shields!

In the film they held the infantry in the center, in front of the archers and catapults, which were used to soften the attacking Germans. then used cavalry sweeping from the flanks to mop up. Infantry in full testudo defensive formation. Not a typical engagement to be sure, but not unrealistic, and since the idea was to show the main character as a particularly creative general, its seems reasonable that he use a different battle plan. Hes using combined arms, and the roman army of the period was certainly equipped to do so.

[Arrian]

should be Quai --> Kwai.

Yeah, yeah. I realized that after I left to go to lunch. I knew someone would point it out before I got back and could edit it.

-Arrian

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Never saw Black Hawk Down, and am surprised it even got mentioned. Is it worth watching? I expected a flag-waving pukefest.

It's a wonderful movie, IMO. Not very flag-waving either. Sure it focuses on American forces, but there isn't like an Iwo Jima moment or anything.

I highly recommend the book. Excellent, one of the best I've ever read. The story is told very matter of factly, no Bull ****, adn its MUCH easier to follow than the movie. The author, David Bowden, poured hundreds of hours into research of the battle, and the resulting story is like you are there watching the battle unfold before your eyes. I dont know how people could have enjoyed that movie had they not read the book before hand, i would have been utterly confused.

Why did they have to cast Josh Heartnet?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



In the film they held the infantry in the center, in front of the archers and catapults, which were used to soften the attacking Germans. then used cavalry sweeping from the flanks to mop up. Infantry in full testudo defensive formation. Not a typical engagement to be sure, but not unrealistic, and since the idea was to show the main character as a particularly creative general, its seems reasonable that he use a different battle plan. Hes using combined arms, and the roman army of the period was certainly equipped to do so.

i agree

[cinch]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Full Metal Jacket. Apocalypse Now is good too, but not as good overall. Also, The Killing Fields.

YES, The Killing Fields was a fantastic movie. Ngor, Waterston, and Malkovich were all brilliant. Great choice.