War movies

[Serb]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Again, Serb, you have a very odd interpretation of space and time.

How can the Soviets learn to shoot retreating comrades when they were doing from almost the onset of the war, when your own source concludes the Germans never even thought about let alone made it policy let alone practiced it untill well after the Moscow retreat (which of course is what I said so your response is no rebutal)?

Have you noticed the date when oder 227 was issued?
From my knowledge, such penal units in Wehrmacht existed as early as invasion to Poland.
Enemy at the gates is total sh!t, because the director who shot it had no idea about the war on Eastern Front, was pig ignorant about the subject and just repeated cliches of your Cold War propaganda. That movie has nothing common with reality. It's a combination of complete ignorance and pure lie.
With the same success I can shoot a movie about American Civil War.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sandman
Hey, Serb, the Battle of Kursk article at Wikipedia probably needs the attention of a Russian nationalist.

It's more or less accurate, but still sucks of course.

[Dr Strangelove]

Is anyone familiar with The King of Hearts ? Then there is Kelly's Heroes. One might consider both of those to be more anti-war movies though.

[Colonâ„¢]

I think it's a bit ironic to call certain movies "anti-war movies" as they generally don't seem very good at depicting the horrors of war.

[Dr Strangelove]

Ah, you probably have never seen King of Hearts . Companies of British and German soldiers march into this unoccupied French town. Marching through in perfect order they pass each other without noticing, until one soldier accidently drops something and as he turns to pick it up he sees the enemy column only 50 feet away. He shouts the alarm, and both groups form neat ranks only a few feet from each other, then let loose with a withering fire that leaves everyone in both groups dead.

It's a great classic movie if you can find it. I heartily recommend it.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Serb

It's more or less accurate, but still sucks of course.

Really? Those casualty figures seem incredible...

[Colonâ„¢]

Watched the last 4 episodes of Band Of Brothers in one go last night. I actually felt relieved the series was running to an end because I was tired so many of the main characters died or got horribly injured. Especially Bastogne and Foy were harrowing to watch. I'm not sure how many made it alive all the way from Camp Toccoa to Austria but it can't have been many.

Also watched the Longest Day. Turns out I had watched it before (like 10 years ago) but I didn't like it anyway. The thick acting never quite convinced me and I never sensed something was going you wouldn't want anyone to endure. How often doesn't an actor turn his back to the rest, face to the camera, for some "this is a dramatic moment" monologue?
Maybe it's just the acting standards of the time, but it totally fails to do the trick IMO. Spielberg's trademarked sentimentalism may be cloy, but I think it does a far better job depicting war really is something horrible. It gave me a lot more respect for the generation that had been through it all.

[Arrian]

Band of Brothers was solid.
I liked Private Ryan - even if the ending was your stock Hollywood happy ending (as happy as can be in that situation, anyway).

My father, who was in WWII and at Normandy (D+1) as a merchant seaman said something along the lines of "It started off well, but ended up Hollywood." I liked it anyway.

Do not bother with the Patriot. It's American Braveheart. To quote a Scot I once knew "if it's not Scottish, it's ****e." In this particular case, that's absolutely true.

-Arrian

[BeBMan]

BTW, is "Windtalkers" a good movie? I've just seen they have it on tv soon.....

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
I think it's a bit ironic to call certain movies "anti-war movies" as they generally don't seem very good at depicting the horrors of war.

Saving Private Ryan does a pretty good job of it, so is Full Metal Jacket.

[Colonâ„¢]

Those 2 are movies I consider to be war movies doing a better job at being anti-war than anti-war movies.

[Arrian]

I AM IN A WORLD OF ****, AND I AM UNAFRAID.

M-I-C, K-E-Y, M-O-U-S-E...

-Arrian

[Chemical Ollie]

Most war movies rather show things that look cool on screen than depict realistic tactics and methods.

Some WW2 clitches that you only see in movies:

- When you fire a submachine gun, you raise it to your shoulder and aim, at least in distances larger than 10 meters to target. You don't fire from the hip, like in the movies.

- Slitting someone's throath is not a quick and silent way to kill him. He will struggle in desperate agony and make horrible gurgling sounds until his brain runs out of oxygen about a minute later. So sneaking up on sentries with a bayonet, as in the movies, is not a good idea if you want to stay undetected.

- When you mow down a bunch of gunfodder, not all of them will die instantly. Quite many will lay wounded and scream, and some might even fire at you. But in the movies, only the main characters die slowly.

Just a few examples. This list could go on forever...

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
- Slitting someone's throath is not a quick and silent way to kill him. He will struggle in desperate agony and make horrible gurgling sounds until his brain runs out of oxygen about a minute later. So sneaking up on sentries with a bayonet, as in the movies, is not a good idea if you want to stay undetected.

One of my biggest pet peeves about war movies (and really, just about all movies) is the "one shot, one kill" depiction of combat.

[Chemical Ollie]

Ooh, and the irony of Pearl Harbour: an ultra-patriotic American movie, released just after 9/11 2001, where the heroes are a bunch of pilots on a strategically unimportant suicide bombing mission.