A War Movie to Avoid

[Ringneck]

With all the critsism about the romance angle in Pearl Harbor(which I didnt like, but thoguht they had enough other stuff going on to keep my attention) I thought I would bring up a war movie REALLY ruined by a romantic angle.  

Avoid "D-Day, 6th of June" at EVERY oportunity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    Story revolves around a British girl who has a boyfriend in the British Commandos (who goes missing), and an AMerican Ranger.   Of course the Commando turns up after she and the Ranger are starting to get serious and then both the Ranger and COmmando must fight a battle together.   Two or so battle scenes in the whole movie, and p**s poor authenticity (guys with submachine guns who wear cartridge belts for rifles, Americans carrying Brit rifles?).   The story is more involved than I wrote, but you get the picture.    

I give it zero stars, a rating I usually only use for George Thorogood songs....


BradLaGrange

[Warren H.]

Is this the one with Ed Harris as a German sniper?  If I'm thinking of the same movie, I hated the way they'd freeze frame on dying soldiers, to make it more "dramatic."  The reason Saving Private Ryan, The Longest Day, Patton, and other war movies worked so well was because it showed war as it really was: brutal, dirty, and ugly.  There's nothing dramatic about it, it's just horrible.

[Ringneck]

Warren, I think Ed Harris/Sniper movie is teh current "Enemy at the Gate", which actually is a far better than SPR in showing the grittiness.  Also shows the Soivets in a less than desireable light (remember they killed more of their own people than the Germans they were fighting!), somewhat on par wit hthe Nazi's they are fighting.  

With the exception of the D-Day scene SPR has little to offer.   The whole movie is pretty whitewashed and written/directed by people who were never there, never shot at, and have only vague ideas about war and the miliitary based mostly on ideas from other people who werent there either.  Most of the delimas the soldiers get in during the movie where they talk amongst themselves have them acting like upper middle class collage students today might re-act.   For instance the German, "Steamboat Willie",  at the radar station they decide they want to execute.  Had this happened in real life the descision would have been VERY quick, occuring during the fight.  Having him dig the graves(if they are so worried about gettign to Ryan, why dig graves?  they didnt when Carpazzo died), then get into formation so they can kill him like a firing squad.   Just silliness to try and further Speilberg's ideas about war.  

War is terrible, but it is also one of three constants in human life, the other two being sex and death.   Everything else is relative to the culture you live in, or an unavoidable off shoot of the three.  Deep down, most men and alot of women, on some level like it.  Its why people like Andrew and me were in the service, why others play and watch sports, play paintball, re-enact, watch wrestling, read books or watch documentaries on war.   Its ingrained.   A human, when under fire lives more and thinks more than he has in the whole rest of his life combined--it puts him to the test more than any thing else can.   And while many movies have over glorified the subject, remember that there is an honor, heroism, and pride in conflict, something that makes men better having been through it, otherwise the veterens (according to a recent VFW study) wouldnt overwhelming support brining back the draft.    

My guess on why Patton and the Longest Day's(and Battle of the Bulge's) success is that they give a higher moral meaning to the war.  In my view "Patton" specifically details the inevibility of war as part of being human(Patton's references to past wars, past lives as soliders)and then gives us a hero.   Remember Patton came out after the Tet Offensive in Vietnam (which we won, but were made to appear have lost by the media) when America was at a low point for national morale.   George S. Patton became a larger than life figure who pulled no punches and was uncompromomisably right even when he took action we wouldnt have in his place, even if neccessary(slapping a cowardly soldier prehaps).   Prior to the movie Patton wasnt nearly as famous--Ike, MacArthur, and Bradley  getting most of the spotlight, (Ridgeway and Abrams were fairly well known to having risen so high in the post war army), more of a second stringer in most peoples eyes(part of that due to his premature death).  

The movie "Dirty Harry" took a more cynical approach to this theme.  He is a Patton like figure stuck in the modern world dealing with problems in the older ways.  Harry has to deal with "liberal" laws reguarding treatment of criminals in the same way Patton has to put up with the politics of alliance so England and Russia can grab the brass ring sometimes.   Whereas Patton gets to walk off into glory at the end of his movie we see Harry giving up(throwing his badge away, there wasnt supposed to have been sequals).    

"The Green Berets" was John Wayne's stab along similar lines.  To put faith into the people RE: our actions in Vietnam.   It isnt nearly as good as movie because he tried to hard, its to Hollywood, and there is enough corn to sow a football field in there.      

To understand war as it was and is, I would suggest a reading of anything written by Ernie Pyle.  Mr. Pyle followed varous types of American units around as a corresondant and lived as tehy did.  You get no truer a picture than that.  Or read Auddie Murphy's "To Hell and Back"(the movie is good too, but NOTHING LIKE THE BOOK).   James Jones's "Thin Red Line" is also interesting.  Its fiction, but based on his expierences in teh infantry with the Americal Division on Guadal Canal

I cant really think of a movie that shows things very well.  THe D-Day scene in SPR is good, as I said, the origional Thin Red Line works too, the modern version is ot much like a student film that found a multi-million dollar budget---to be honest it was basically intended to be a "poem on film" from what I hear, but most people go in expecting a strit war movie and get dissapointed.  "The Story of GI Joe", if you can find it is allright, but has alot more flag waving than neccessary.

[Steve.]

Warren H. and Ringneck. - If your looking for a good, non-straight war movie, get hold of Sam Peckinpah's brilliant "Cross Of Iron" (1977). It is unlike any war film you will ever see. For a start it is set  in the "Forgotten war" - the eastern front - no heroic Brits or US troops, just a platoon of German soldiers in the big retreat, after the defeat at Stalingrad being pursued by a vengeful Red Army. It is truly nightmarish, Peckinpah recreates the savagery of that war aided by stunning camera-work and superb use of very limited resources. He portrays the smashing of the air of invincibility about the Germans, and their subsequent fight to stay alive (no "fighting for the culture of the west"). It includes little-known facts, such as the Red Army's use of whole regiments of women troops (often even more revenge thirsty than regular troops)and one scene in particular will have male viewers cringing. Try and find a copy - it's well worth it.

[Warren H.]

Yes, rare that you get to see the "evil" guy's POV.

[Scott]

A German film called THE BRIDGE is also good.

[BoyScoutKevin]

"A Cross of Iron" is a good war movie to see. Based on a book by a German author, whose name escapes me at the moment, called "Iron Cross." A good book, but one depressing to read.

[Steve.]

BSK - The author is Willi Heinrich. The German title of the novel is "Willing Flesh".

[Ringneck]

I really enjoyed "Cross of Iron", not "entertaining" the way most movies are, it was, for lack of a better, and more somber word, engaging.   The sequel, "Sgt Stiener", also retitled "Breakout"(might have been Break Through) is terrible though.  

"The Bridge" is excellent also.  Got tiring reading subtitles but hearing the movie spoken in German(I cant understand German though) added alot to the atmosphere of the movie.  Watching Panzerfausts get shot too was also exciting. The truly interesting part is that rather than US tanks disguised as Panzers, it had Panzers discribed as Shermans!

BradLaGrange

[Flangepart]

Cross of Iron is one cold blooded movie. And just so. Diden't James Coburn star in that? I forget.  For me, the best thing Bush could do for the regular G.I. or Jarhead, swaby or airdale, would be to put Col. Daved H. Hackworth in charge of kicking ass about getting what our people realy need. Fuel and ammo to train with, decent pay and housing, and mostly, some proper leaders.  He's been there, done that, and blew his nose on the t-shirt. Feathers would be ruffled! He takes no guff from smug politicos who coulden't find their own ass with both hands and  a searchlight! Corse...thats why it'll never happen.