SPR the best combat film? It wasn't bad. It had some really good points. The
first 10-20 minutes were... amazing. Horrifying. I think maybe close to
the actual horrors of being there. And he did justice to the realities of
conflict by having the US guys gun down surrendering Germans and loot the
dead (no shot at our US friends, just the Tuffley-esque comment about no
one wearing a white hat). Some of the vehicles were real, and the faked ones
were reasonably well done (not quite the familiar panzer Chaffee we've seen in
so many other period flicks or M3 "German version" halftrack). The characters
were mostly interesting, even if the mission was a bit
bird-brained (ended up wasting a bunch of lives to save one... not what
I consider wise policy). HOWEVER, they gave in to some cliches. The sniper
shooting the other through his optics.... I've seen this in N bad movies
before. And for some reason, in the climactic battle scene, despite the
director having some nice touches (the use of the 20mm AA gun), yet again
German veterans were treated as idiots. They suddenly forgot how to use cover
during an assault (must have finally recalled their "Imperial"
stormtrooper schooling). The last attack was like in so many movies -
the opponents were cheapened in order to make it a shooting gallery. So the
movie, which I liked a lot and found hard to watch (the beginning was very
real), gets an 8.5 from me.
Now, most films don't rate even close to that good. A couple of other good
"combat" films were Cross of Iron (you want to see close combat? watch the
scenes where Russians are overrunning German positions) and Stalingrad
(foreign film) gets an honourable mention for its room to room fighting and
the depiction of German morale (I've talked with a family friend who was a
survivor - 3 men out of his Battalion survived as far as he knew). All's
Quiet on the Western Front might also get some sort of nomination.
There have been a number of horrendous films (for various reasons - the
tactics employed, the vehicles badly done up, etc) such as the Dirty Dozen
(and the sequel especially) and possibly the worst rendition of a historical
situation I've ever seen, Battle of the Bulge. In most cases, these movies
were not even a serious attempt at historical accuracy (either in terms of
personalities, tactics, or equipment). They were "fluff". And some of them
were almost painfully funny, while not trying to be.
YMMV.
For Sci-Fi "combat" films/segments, I think Aliens was pretty good
(thought the Laser Disk version with the Sentry guns and some other scenes was
better) though the sergeant who collected the ammo should have been smacked
and the Marines' tactics weren't bright (though that was the point). The
combat scenes from the future in T1 and T2 were pretty good. Not too many
other good sci-fi combat segments I can think of (not counting some
chunks out of B5). Many bad ones (Moon 44 leaps to mind, as does pretty much
any Imperial Stormtrooper appearance).
> "Thomas.Barclay" wrote:
> SPR the best combat film? It wasn't bad. It had some really good
Even the less than real parts of SPR including especially the last fight at
REMEL still blow away most any other hollywood attempt out there. Feel free to
name rivals. Sure it's not perfect compared to the real thing and it is a
MOVIE not a documentary so I don't see cliche's as being a bad thing. But
compared to anything else out there SPR is it. With "Winter War" a very close
second.
> director having some nice touches (the use of the 20mm AA gun), yet
There are numerous examples of supposedly veteran units on the German side,
switching to more aggressive tactics and even seemingly suicidal tactics. Some
of the counter attacks attacks on the first day of the DDay landings. For
example during Anzio, even veteran/crack units like the fallschirmjaeger
and panzer units like HG were using almost massed wave attacks with their
infantry to try and break through the beachhead. Much to the amazement of the
allies repulsing those attacks. In the Bulge, as a rule most all of the small
unit offensive actions used by the Germans, especially the SS units were
poorly handled. They may have been veteran units in mane and in a sprinkling
of leadership, but with a high majority of green troops and leaders after
repeated horrendous losses. Heck even in Normandy you take a unit like 12SS
panzer division, any given platoon was only two or three casualties away from
having nothing but highly motivated, but very low experience mob of troops.
Even in Normandy, desperate german attacks in places like Mortain, Falaise,
resulted in the very tactics that were portrayed in the film.
> opponents were cheapened in order to make it a shooting gallery. So
You rating is irrelevant unless some other movie gets higher than an 8.5 for
it's combat action. No argument that SPR is not an EXACT replica of combat
action from front to back and the the plot is perfectly done and devoid of
plot devices and clichés (by the way is that supposed to be bad?)
> Now, most films don't rate even close to that good. A couple of other
All's
> Quiet on the Western Front might also get some sort of nomination.
Cross of Iron is a great flick, (I practically have every line memorized) but
if you're going to sit there and tell me that's somehow less hollywood than
SPR, than pass my a toke of that pipe. ("I'll show you where the Iron Crosses
grow <grin>) And Stalingrad, (Which was allright but...) I wouldn't even put
in the same league. It does get high marks for all the tanks they use in that
panzer attack, but the city fighting scenes could have used at least one guy
with military experience advising them for a day or to. Hell their
city-fighting
tactics were even worse portrayed than than the Remel Germans in SPR! And as
for room to room fighting, they hardly show any! For a better Stalingrad movie
watch the 1959 original "Stalingrad: Dogs Do You Want to Live Forever" which
is in B&W has a good story and lots of sliced in actual combat footage which
woorks well.
SIDE NOTE: THERE IS A NEW STALINGRAD MOVIE IN THE WORKS!
> There have been a number of horrendous films (for various reasons -
But that's still a fun movie.
> situation I've ever seen, Battle of the Bulge. In most cases, these
The Panzerleid in itself redeems the entire film. (Ok well, maybe not)
> For Sci-Fi "combat" films/segments, I think Aliens was pretty good
The
BTW these scenes also exits in the DVD version which has like 14 minutes of
extra footage.
> combat scenes from the future in T1 and T2 were pretty good. Not too
Still, if I have to take my kid to ONE film and say, son, this is more or less
what combat is like, then I will show him SPR, in it's entirety.
Cheers...
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:18:59 -0500, "Thomas.Barclay"
> <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> wrote:
> SPR the best combat film? It wasn't bad. It had some really good
I feel it was the best combat film I've seen, and I have seen some of the
others. It's the first film that I've ever seen where cowardice was shown not
so much as a personality flaw but as a defence mechanism. Sure, you can get
mad at Upham (I know I was!) but on the other hand, part of me kept saying,
"God, you really can't fault him for wanting to just dig a whole and
disappear...".
I liked the fact that people didn't just die quietly or quickly. Death was
usually a painful, lingering thing.
It had its faults, but I think its faults were far less than other films I've
seen. Do NOT get me started on "Thin Red Line"...
I've always enjoyed "Das Boot". "Stalingrad" is also good, if a bit meandering
at the 2/3 mark. I got an eerie feeling of deja vu while watching
"Glory".
"Gettysburg" wasn't bad, but it wasn't about the battle, it was a retelling of
Schaara's "The Killer Angels". Now, "The Killer Angels" is a fine book, but
historically it perpetuates some aspects of the battle that have since been
denounced. It doesn't talk much at ALL about the battle on the Union right,
and when it does it blames Ewell (I've been on Culp's Hill... I don't think
Ewell could have dislodged the 11th Corps after it dug in on the first
day).
It doesn't blame Longstreet enough, by any means. And it also misses the whole
travesty that was Dan Sickles on the Union left.
Which is one of the problems with war movies. They hardly ever let silly
things like history get in the way of a good action sequence or some
interesting story telling. "The Longest Day" is a prime example (how they
could ignore the Canadians on Juno beach, a beach only slightly less nasty
than Omaha, is beyond me).
> For Sci-Fi "combat" films/segments, I think Aliens was pretty good
Those scenes are on the extended special edition video and the DVD version,
too. I'm trying to think of other sci-fi movies and very few deal with
combat in space in a reasonable way. "Enemy Mine" has a lovely opening shot
showing the aftermath of a space battle. The Terminator movies you mentioned.
There is
a demand for a properly done sci-fi combat film, but it hasn't been made
yet.
In message <fsg2dscloa56q9atq49qb92d4okl0qed3c@4ax.com> Allan Goodall writes:
> It had its faults, but I think its faults were far less than other
I'll bite. Mail me off-list, if you don't want to vent in public.
I didn't bother seeing SPR since I'd heard it was a typically saccarine piece
of Speilberg twaddle (this is the man whose Holocaust film has the Jews get
out alive, the man whose slavery film had the slaves get away free) and I
really cannot abide Tom Hanks. I saw good reviews for TRL, saw it and enjoyed
it very much. Actually, I saw dozens of bad reviews for TRL on the 'net, which
all seem to revolve about them *not* portraying the Japanese as inhuman
killing machines... which seemed like a patently silly complaint.
Ironically, I suppose, "Zulu" remains my favourite war film, and that does
rather portray Zulus as people are want to portray the Japanese.
[...]
> There is
Now they've done Starship Troopers... isn't it about time they did Forever
War?
> Now, most films don't rate even close to that good. A couple of other
All's
> Quiet on the Western Front might also get some sort of nomination.
Okay, so "Stalingrad"'s not that great? I was thinking about doing a Wargamer
Movie Night" with some of my friends. Sorry to ask, but what's "Cross of Iron"
about?
If you are looking to chose between Cross of Iron and Stalingrad, definately
grab Cross of Iron (though Stalingrad isn't that bad). It's basically a german
recon platoon lead by a hard bitten veteran sergeant who is having major
"issues" with their new aristocratic-Cross-of-Iron-seeking company
commander while everyone is trying to survive a general withdrawl in the Army
Group South
AO. Excellent action, great story, Sam Peckinpau-violence (some brief
nudity). In every unit I've ever been in, memorizing the script by heart has
been pretty much SOP.
Los
> Ted Arlauskas wrote:
> >Now, most films don't rate even close to that good. A couple of other
watch the
> >scenes where Russians are overrunning German positions) and
All's
> >Quiet on the Western Front might also get some sort of nomination.
> Ted Arlauskas wrote:
watch the
> >scenes where Russians are overrunning German positions) and
All's
> >Quiet on the Western Front might also get some sort of nomination.
Cross of Iron is Eastern Front WW II with James Coburn as a battle seasoned
NCO. I've seen it once many years ago and the Soviet tank overrun attacks are
still fresh in my memory.
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0074695
On this topic I recomend "The Beast", Russian tank crew cut off in
Afghanistan.
adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca on 04/16/2000 03:55:40 PM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Aron Clark/AM/Avid)
Subject: Re: Combat films
> Okay, so "Stalingrad"'s not that great? I was thinking about doing a
Don't let them put you off. Stalingrad may not be that realistic a
representation of the historical battle, but it isn't sucky as a movie to sit
around with at a Movie Night with your friends. It's worth renting, at
the very least. Like Los said about SPR - it's a MOVIE, not a
documentary...
And rent Das Boot in the original German (with English subtitles) if you
can find that version - I saw it in the theatres when originally
released and it blew me away. More so the German version than the dubbed one.
And I recommend avoiding the special edition extendamix version of Das Boot
-
the extra footage doesn't add anything to the story.
And rent "The Odd Angry Shot" if you can find it. It's an Australian film
about the involvement of Australian troops (the Aussie SAS and others) in the
Vietnam war, and I think it's great. Very different from American films of
that type. Again, I have no idea about it's historical "accuracy", but it is a
good film. I wonder what Owen and the other Australians onlist think about it?
And then, if you're doing a "wide spectrum" set of themes on your movie night,
there's Zulu. Gotta love that film! And Michael Caine, in his first major
role, is wonderful.
Lot's to choose from.
Have fun.
Adrian
> adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> And rent Das Boot in the original German (with English subtitles) if
And
> I recommend avoiding the special edition extendamix version of Das
You're right, the "director's cut" doesn't add anything to the story. The
story in "Das Boot" is rather simple and it would be difficult to add to it
without actually taking something away from it. The real strength of "Das
Boot" is in its realism and in the film's ability to capture the mood and
feeling of being in submarine warfare. The "director's cut" does the original
one better. It's available for purchase at Suncoast Video: director's cut,
German with subtitles, widescreen format.
-Mike
> If you are looking to chose between Cross of Iron and Stalingrad,
> grab Cross of Iron
One very good Combat film is "Die Bruecke" - The Bridge.
What's that godawful film involving US teenagers valiantly repelling the
Forces of Darkness (Cubans and Russkis) who invade the US? Red Dawn?
Anyway, this is the same sort of idea. But the highschool kids have had some
military training, it's Germany 1945, and the invaders are a very professional
but lacklustre bunch of US veterans. The kids do pretty well, all things
considered. One makes the mistake of firing a "recoilless" AntiTank projector
from inside a room, with predictable consequences. The grizzled veteran who's
supposedly in charge gets shot by some MPs as he's coming back with dinner as
a deserter (The MPs skedaddle just before the Amis attack, they're not
stupid). But the kids do repel the attack on the small bridge they're supposed
to be guarding, despite a very, very competent attack by the small group of US
troops (who basically bypass them instead, why take casualties over a
meaningless bridge when the war's nearly over? there's a hundred bridges just
like this one, but unguarded).
A very dark film, with very good (if predictable) combat sequences, the US
fights very much by the "Manual of Small Unit Tactics" of the time. They take
very few casualties (evacuating the wounded), whereas the untrained but
intelligent
In a message dated 3/16/00 8:17:36 PM Central Standard Time,
> db-ft@westmore.demon.co.uk writes:
<<
Now they've done Starship Troopers... isn't it about time they did Forever
War?
> [quoted text omitted]
They are bookend books, why not bookend movies?
> In message <38D18732.A7DDCF85@ptdprolog.net> Michael Sarno writes:
I'm finding this a very curious thread. My recollection of Das
Boot is that it first appeared in the UK as a TV mini-series of
maybe four-to-six hours total length. It was marvellous.
I really think that this is the best way to film novels, or to do
any intelligent story justice. The two-hour Hollywood format has a
standard template to which all scripts must be normalised and this usually
cuts the bollocks off any novel worth reading.
I'm sure all our local libraries have at least one "how to write a
script for Hollywood"-type of book, probably written by Syd Field.
Read it and weep.
Well, hell, what do you expect? If the non-technerd guys who make WAR
films have a hard time getting ground combat right, how do you expect the
SciFi guys, who already have a hard time getting SPACE combat right, to do any
better?
Whoops, I went and did it, tried to be funny.... *waiting for beat-down*
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 18:55:40 -0400, adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> And rent Das Boot in the original German (with English subtitles) if
And
> I recommend avoiding the special edition extendamix version of Das Boot
I actually didn't mind the extended edition. Bear in mind, though, that the
original was a TV mini series in Germany cut for theatrical release.
The current DVD version, which I have, is the extended version, but gives it
in widescreen with the option of English or German with English subtitles.
That is worth getting!
Loved Gettysburg, Loved Killer angels even more. But I've since been disavowed
of many of my own misconceptions about the battle that I gained from that
book. (Being a Civil War rookie and all). However, I think that, like SPR, the
great thing about this movie is not it's historical or technical accuracy or
inaccuracy, it's the portrayal of the humans involved in the events that stay
with me, nt the events themselves. (Although I felt Shaara was a tad too harsh
on Lee, especially on the personal level.)
Brian B
----Original Message Follows----
From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@interlog.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Combat films
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 15:55:43 -0500
"Gettysburg" wasn't bad, but it wasn't about the battle, it was a retelling of
Schaara's "The Killer Angels". Now, "The Killer Angels" is a fine book, but
historically it perpetuates some aspects of the battle that have since been
denounced. It doesn't talk much at ALL about the battle on the Union right,
and when it does it blames Ewell (I've been on Culp's Hill... I don't think
Ewell could have dislodged the 11th Corps after it dug in on the first
day).
It doesn't blame Longstreet enough, by any means. And it also misses the
whole travesty that was Dan Sickles on the Union left.
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:58:05 -0800, Aron_Clark@digidesign.com wrote:
> On this topic I recomend "The Beast", Russian tank crew cut off in
Yes, I'll recommend this too! Now, I'm not sure the T-62 (T-72?) in the
film was historically armed with a flamethrower, but the movie is one of those
little known gems. I really liked it!
Another film, that's rather controversial, that I liked was "On A Midnight
Clear". It's about a group of above average intelligence US recruits operating
as an intelligence/reccon unit during the Bulge. I enjoyed the character
play,
but the homo-erotic undertones of one of the scenes near the end (which
I actually took to represent more of a Christian baptism and cleansing) has
turned off some...
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:17:55 PST, "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> However, I think that,
I think Speilberg got that part of the film from his chief technical advisor,
Stephen Ambrose. I read Ambrose's book "D-Day" (I have yet to read
"Citizen Soldiers") and it's an easy, thought provoking read. EVERYONE on this
list should read it.
> (Although I felt
He was. Lee was definitely off his game that day. I'll never forget the
revelation I had at Gettysburg the first time I visited. I looked across the
field from Cemetary Ridge to Seminary Ridge and thought, "What the Hell was
Lee thinking?" when he ordered Pickett's Charge (more accurately termed
Longstreet's Assault). The next day, I stood on Seminary ridge near the
jumping off point of the North Carolina regiments and though, "Damn. From here
it looks feasible." It really did...
Shaara didn't put enough blame on Longstreet. He put a little too much on Lee.
He should have put more emphasis on the crap that Sickles did to the right of
Little Round Top (which would have blunted his literary assertion that Little
Round Top was the "all or nothing" break point for the Union, rather than just
the most precarious of about 4 locations along the Union line on Day 2). If he
recognized Sickles, though, he'd have to recognize Longstreet's screw up on
the second day that had Longstreet jump off too late to take Little Round Top
unopposed. Shaara was too hard on Ewell, and all but ignored A. P. Hill's
corps.
A very good piece of literature; a very poor piece of history. I'm now going
to start reading Shelby Foote's novel "Shiloh", having just visited that
battlefield. I have a suspicion that Foote will be more accurate in his novel.
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 02:49:18 GMT, db-ft@westmore.demon.co.uk (David
Brewer) wrote:
> I'm finding this a very curious thread. My recollection of Das
It was. *S* As far as I know, the mini-series never made it across the
ocean, but instead landed as a theatrical movie. Later, a video (and
laserdisc, and now DVD) "director's cut" version put back a lot of stuff (I
think it doesn't add much, but it does seem to make the narrative move more
smoothly).
> I really think that this is the best way to film novels, or to do
You can't do a 400+ page novel as a 2 hour movie without either ripping
stuff
out or completely re-adapting the thing. Even if you don't like his
fiction, Stephen King is a classic study in this. Movies of his books,
particularly his larger books, have usually been awful. The Stand wasn't bad,
but that was
because they too the 1200+ page book and made it into a mini-series. The
two best films adapted from his books, "Stand By Me" and "Shawshank
Redemption" were both taken from novellas of no more than about 150 pages
(they are "The Body" and "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption"
respectively, both in the collection "Different Seasons").
Wow, good insight. Now answer me this, because I've heard both opinions, and
don't know what to think. Was he too harsh on Stuart, or right on?
In a message dated 3/16/00 11:38:18 PM Central Standard Time,
> bbilderback@hotmail.com writes:
<< Wow, good insight. Now answer me this, because I've heard both opinions,
and don't know what to think. Was he too harsh on Stuart, or right on?
> [quoted text omitted]
Stuart was so busy showboating by trying to ride around the Union Army (for
the second time) he left Lee blind during the battle. He should have been
roughly handled he wasn't doing his job.
In a message dated 3/16/00 7:01:12 PM Central Standard Time,
> Aron_Clark@digidesign.com writes:
<< On this topic I recomend "The Beast", Russian tank crew cut off in
Afghanistan.
> [quoted text omitted]
Damn! I love that movie!
"Out of fuel, become a pillbox. Out of ammo, become a bunker. Out of time,
become heroes." Russian tank commander in the Beast.
John
> At 7:48 PM -0500 3/16/00, Los wrote:
Is the movie Stalingrad at all related to the 1948 novel of the same name by a
German author whose name escapes me at the moment (as does my copy of the
book). It actually managed to have an uplifting ending, despite a rather grim
(but accurate) depiction of the alst few weeks in the pocket.
> Michael Llaneza wrote:
> Is the movie Stalingrad at all related to the 1948 novel of the same
I don't believe I read the book in question (have read a lot about Stalingrad
though) however there's not much about the end of the movie that leaves you
uplifted, though it is a good ending.
> Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:37:33 PST, "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Wow, good insight. Now answer me this, because I've heard both
Shaara was pretty well bang on with Stuart. Stuart took the attack at Brandy
Station (where the Union cavalry, using new tactics, for the first time fought
just as effectively as the Confederate cavalry) as an insult. He rode around
the Union army, seizing guns and supplies (most of which he later abandoned)
as a show of what he could do. The problem was that he left Lee without an
inkling of where the Union forces were on the other side of the Blue Ridge
Mountains. The result was that Lee stumbled into the battle at Gettysburg with
no idea of his enemy's dispostion. If he had known, Lee would have most likely
attacked the Union more strongly on the first day (ordering his generals to
push hard, as opposed to giving them leeway in his orders) or moved to more
advantageous ground for him. In particular, he really wanted to put himself
between the Union army and Washington, forcing them to fight on ground of his
own choosing. Stuart's mistake made this impossible.
To be honest, though, you can't overly fault Stuart and Longstreet for what
they did, because the seeds of the defeat in the Gettysburg campaign were sown
in the victory of the Second Manassas campaign. Stuart did the same sort of
end run around Pope's Union army just before the battle of Cedar Mountain and
leading up to Second Manassas. Likewise, Lee ordered Longstreet to assault the
Union flank at Second Manassas and Longstreet balked for a few hours.
The difference was that Stuart's end run in 1862 threw Pope into a tail spin
and the Union general reacted to Stuart and pulled back to where Jackson's
corps was waiting. And with Longstreet, his delay resulted in him crashing
into the Union flank at exactly the best time to cause a massive collapse of
the Union left.
So, the same thing happened in the 1863 campaign, with both generals (Stuart
and Longstreet) having made the same decision -- but with a far
different
outcome -- a little less than a year before. But Meade wasn't Pope (and
to be fair, when Stuart started his ride it was the inferior Hooker who headed
the army, not Meade). He wasn't about to pull back his army to beat on Stuart.
Pope showed little ability at ordering cavalry, while the Union horsemen a
year later were much improved.
Longstreet, on the other hand, deserves a little less consideration. The
tactical situation at Gettysburg was far different from 2nd Manassas.
Longstreet delayed, and that delay caused him to lose Little Round Top.
Ironically, if he had NOT delayed, Sickles wouldn't have had the chance to
move as many men into his forward position and would thus have been in a
better position to defend himself from Longstreet.
If Longstreet had done his job, the Union would have probably pulled off of
Cemetary Ridge defeated but perhaps in good order (or it would have turned
into a nasty rout... or Syke's Corps moving up would have pressed Longstreet's
men on Little Round Top and much the same result, would have occurred... hard
to say). If Stuart had done HIS job, Gettysburg wouldn't have been the site of
the battle.
My personal feeling is that Longstreet lost Little Round Top, which was the
key to the battlefield. I think Syke's Corps would have blooded Longstreet's
men on Little Round Top, perhaps stopping Longstreet from decisively firing
artillery down on the entire Union line, but without dislodging him. That
night, Meade would have had little choice but to pull from Cemetary Ridge and
defend elsewhere, with the Confederacy having one another victory at a cost it
couldn't afford.
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:57:40 GMT, db-ft@westmore.demon.co.uk (David
Brewer) wrote:
> I didn't bother seeing SPR since I'd heard it was a typically
Well, I wouldn't call it saccharine. I suppose you could guess whether Private
Ryan is saved or not based on the fact that it's a Speilberg movie, but other
than that, it is hardly saccharine. In fact, most of the main characters are
dead by the end of the film. Don't think of this as a movie by the guy who
made ET, think of this as a movie by the guy who made Jaws.
> I saw good reviews for TRL, saw it and enjoyed it very
"Thin Red Line" I thought did a good job of depicting the Japanese from the
point of view of the soldiers fighting them. You don't actually see many
Japanese up close. The depiction of the stunned Japanese prisoners was well
done, I thought.
My complaints with the movie have little to do with historical accuracy. They
are mostly story telling problems.
My biggest complaint is the main plot. Actually, the main conflict, the really
interesting one, between the company commander and Nick Nolte's general
character is a good one. The way it builds, unfolds, and is resolved
is very good. Only one problem: this plot is resolved with still 1/3 of
the movie left to go. It's as though Mallick didn't know what to use as the
main thrust of the movie. I realize he was basing the film on a novel, but
this was THE central conflict of the film. It's the only conflict that isn't
entirely internalized within a character. It's the conflict that grabs you
most effectively, is most effectively written, is most effectively
acted...
and when it ended I had a big gap open up before me. The rest of the movie
just isn't that interesting. There isn't any sense of purpose or direction to
the characters after that.
Far too much of the film is dedicated to beautiful filmwork that does nothing
to propel the story. The opening sequences, for instance, make a lovely
travelogue of Guadalcanal and the islands there about, but it does nothing but
chew up celluloid. The characterization that it shows could have easily been
done with half the footage. This is a minor thing, really. I didn't mind it.
What I really minded was that having done this beautiful work at the beginning
of the movie, he continued to do it throughout, stifling any sense of pace. I
can see why the art school critics loved the film. From a cinematography
standpoint it's awesome. Unfortunately, that comes at the expense of pace.
I saw the film with two friends: Michael, a military history buff like myself
and a movie reviewer for CBC radio, and Chris, also a military history buff.
After the film, we got into a debate as to whether two of the characters were
actually one character. In the end, we decided that there were two characters
(the one pining for his wife, and the one who was frolicking at the beginning
of the movie). But the fact that we were confused enough that we could have a
meaningful discussion as to what scenes involved which character shows a lack
of distinction between the two. The actors are physically similar, but worse,
the characters speak with the same
"voice".
This is a big failing throughout the film. ALL the characters have the same
"voice". The soliloquy by Sean Penn's character sounds like the internal
musings of Nick Nolte's character, which sounds like the tortured soul of yet
another character. It's as though everyone speaks the same way as everyone
else inside their head. Or outside, for that matter. Compare this to Saving
Private Ryan and there is no comparison. In Ryan, each character is
distinctive, in voice and nuance. Not so in TRL. This may have been
deliberate, but it didn't work for me.
While we're at it, the long expositive talking of the characters on the nature
of life, death, and war wore thin after a while. It was nicely said (for the
most part), but more than a bit indulgent. By the end of the film I was
thinking, "Yadda, yadda, yadda, get on with it...".
Finally, there was the "Dear John" scene. Dear John letters are a combat film
cliche. It's like the partner in action movies who is looking forward to a
vacation while his wife is pregnant and he's days from retirement. You KNOW
he's going to buy it. In WW2 films from the 40s onwards, you know the guy who
talks about his wife incessantly is going to get a Dear John letter by the end
of the movie. Well, perhaps the book that Mallick adapted was the source of
this cliche, but it didn't stop him from rising above it. If anything, he's
done the definitive cliche: slow motion scenes of his wife on a swing, for
God's sake. When the "mail call" was sounded while the troops were resting, I
thought to myself, "Oh, no... he wouldn't!" Yes, he did. The character with
the wife on the swing gets a Dear John letter. He couldn't even change it
slightly to avoid cliche, like having her run over by a bus, or come down sick
with the flu or something. No, she runs off with a pilot (or was it a navy
man, don't remember...).
Those are the faults I found in the film, and the reason I haven't picked it
up on tape or DVD. The reasons I'm tempted to pick it up, though, are the
reasons many people liked the film. The cinematography is gorgeous. There is
one beautiful scene with a squad of men moving over a hill on the way to
reconnoiter a Japanese bunker. They travel hunkered down through the tall
grass. The grass is whipped by wind, and the billowy clouds above scud along
in the wind. The troops move in the same direction, flowing with the wind. The
clouds block the sun, sending patterns of light and shadow over the
hill. The shadows must have swung the exposure by about 2 f-stops, but
Mallick (or his cinematographer) kept the whole, splendid scene in perfect
exposure. It's the most beautiful scene I've ever witnessed in a war movie,
and almost worth seeing the whole film for.
The acting is very good. Nick Nolte deserved an Oscar for his roll.
(I'll
forgive Mallick his one close up of Nolte where Nolte is back lit and you can
see that he has a pierced ear; not exactly what you'd expect in a WW2
general.) The central plot and conflict is VERY well done. I'm not sure why he
felt he had to make the company commander of European descent instead of
Jewish (as is true in the book) but he did. If it was simply for casting sake,
it was a good choice as the company commander is played by an excellent actor
(who's name escapes me). Sean Penn was understated, but he's a good actor when
the script allows him to be, and fit right in. The other cameos were a tad
intrusive, I thought.
The combat sequences didn't have the same realism as those in Ryan, but that
was just a cruel fortune of timing. If Mallick's film had come out first,
people would have talked about the realism in TRL... until SPR came out. It's
not as gory as SPR, and you don't get the feeling of bullets whizzing over
your head (or beside your head) but the sequences were pretty good.
So, that's my review of "Thin Red Line". It has some masterful stuff in it,
but I found it deeply flawed. Rearranged, and tightened, and it could have
been a classic war film. In the end, though, it felt too existential for a war
film (which, again, might be Mallick's point). The pacing was off, what he had
to say about humanity and killing had been said elsewhere and much better
(TRL's long posturing poetics doesn't compare to the descent into
madness of "Apocalypse Now"), and the story really ended 2/3 of the way
through the film. But the acting is excellent and the cinematography
wonderful. I might get this on DVD if only because it's easier to
self-edit
it by jumping from one chapter to another.
In a message dated 3/17/00 7:52:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
los@cris.com writes, about Stalingrad the movie:
> I don't believe I read the book in question (have read a lot about
An excellent (and appropriate) ending.
To join the fray: My favorite War movies, in no particular order-
Saving Private Ryan
Kelly's Heroes (okay, not THAT realistic, but fun--and at least the US
tanks were Shermans and the Tigers weren't too bad)
The Warlord (Chuck Heston as a Norman--cool)
Zulu Zulu Dawn A Bridge Too Far Heartbreak Ridge (hey, again not that
realistic, but it's the Marines and
supposed to be CLNC--even though it obviously wasn't filmed there)
The Longest Day (not realistic for the most part, but I always get a kick out
of the fact that the Pegasus Bridge Ox and Bucks commander was played by a man
that was actually there)
The Iron Cross (even though the ending sucked donkey parts--very '70's)
Stalingrad (even though they used the wrong kind of T-34)
and, not quite qualifying as a movie--the entire Richard Sharpe
collection.
There's a few more tickling around the back of my mind, but they won't come
out right now. The sad thing is that there's not one Sci-fi flick among
them! Why? Because there hasn't been a really good scif-fi war movie
made--well, The Empire Strikes Back was close (to a war movie, that is).
Rob
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 21:47:54 EST, RWHofrich@aol.com wrote:
> Heartbreak Ridge (hey, again not that realistic, but it's the Marines
Not that realistic??? It is SO unrealistic as to be hilarious. The Grenada
raid was a horrible botch up job... but this film isn't about Grenada, it's
about some fictional event they call Grenada. See "Secret Armies" by James
Adams, it has a very good chapter on the Grenada raid.
Well, since you mentioned A Bridge Too Far, I'll toss in The Bridge on the
River Kwai. Another good one is Murphy's War, with Peter O'Toole, though it
is a re-telling of Moby Dick. Gallipoli's another good one. I
personally loved SPR, though I don't know if I'll ever be able to watch it
again, it really tore me up. I was crying before they even swithced to 1944. I
also love Kelly's Heroes, if nothing else but for it's irreverent poke at
bureucracy. But my favorite war film of all times is a short film,
called "Josef Schulz." It's about a German Soldier during the invasion of one
of the Eastern European countries, I can't remember if it's Poland or Russia,
but it's excellent.
I think I mentioned "Glory", "Zulu" is a favourite. I've always had a
particular fondness for "Apocalypse Now". Most of the combat films listed have
been 19th century, forward, so here are some films from an earlier era.
I'm quite a samurai movie fan. I just got The Samurai Trilogy on DVD and have
never seen it. However, for small unit action it's hard to beat "The Seven
Samurai". If you like your samurai movies more like westerns, there's the
incomparable "Yojimbo" (though "Yojimbo" is actually from the 19th Century
just prior to the Meiji Restoration). "Kagemusha" has some wonderful combat
sequences, but those found in "Ran" are much more intense (and colourful...
Kurosawa was almost blind when he made "Ran" and yet the colours are
fantastic). "Ran" is essentially a retelling of King Lear.
The Brannagh version of "Henry V" does a wonderful job of evoking Agincourt.
Okay, the history in "Braveheart" had problems (the battle of Stirling Bridge
with no bridge???) but it's hard to match it for sheer bloodletting.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> I'm quite a samurai movie fan. I just got The Samurai Trilogy on DVD
I'm going through a huge Samurai phase right now (reading a bunch of Turnbull
stuff and painting minis). Make sure you watch "Heaven and Earth" (Kuruzowa)
which has even more large scale combat than Ran.
> What's that godawful film involving US teenagers valiantly repelling
Red Dawn it was, and it wasn't that bad- much better than Starship
Troopers anyway. It had a wonderful of showing some very nice looking Soviet
AFVs
(the semi-T-72's looked pretty sharp and the BRDMs and BMD's were VERY
nice
:)
I can name a few more-
Roughriders (TNT movie- the uniforms and equipment were great, and the
story was pretty good, if not completely accurate:)
ANZACS (An old flick with every American's favorite ozzie- Paul
Hogan. I loved the characters and thought the uniforms
and equipment were first rate- and the tactics looked
rather accurate and kept up with the changes in technology. The 'love'
story was kinda disjointed, but hey- they covered '14-18 in
about 3 hours, so something has to loose;)
The Light Horsemen (Okay, so I like flicks about Australia in WWI;)
A good flick too with a decent story- and the
cavarly charge in the end was very cool!)
Battleground (A WWII flick set in the REAL Battle of the Bulge and
revolves around a single squad of glidermen. There
really wasn't much fighting in the movie, but it hit me
as being really accurate- all of the marching around,
digging in, and a few short and sharp fights. The characters were really good
and you grew to like them as people as the movie went on. Not a bad flick at
all)
It's not a Samurai movie (Despite the title), and it's not a war movie, but
your comment here made me think of Ronin" with DeNiro. Really good,
suspenseful flick. ("So, what color IS the boathouse at Hereford?" "How the
**** should I know?")
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 06:07:38 -0500, Los <los@cris.com> wrote:
> I'm going through a huge Samurai phase right now (reading a bunch of
(Kuruzowa)
> which has even more large scale combat than Ran.
"Heaven and Earth" was directed by Haruki Kadokawa, not Akira Kurosawa. I have
it, given as a present by friends, but I have yet to watch it! (I had
misplaced it for a while.) It's now on the top of my "to watch" pile! I wonder
if that's the samurai movie the filmed in Alberta...
I've always been in a samurai phase. I'm so disappointed in most skirmish
samurai rules that I've been writing a set of my own. Actually, right now it's
mostly a whole slew of additions and adaptations to Jon's FMC rules (hence,
it's on topic!!!). I'm thinking of making it a "plug in" for most any
renaissance/middle ages skirmish game and see what happens...
If you're looking for terrain bits, check out Armourcast. I bought a bunch of
their stuff at GenCon last year. They make a marvelous Japanese bridge, and
their walled inclosure is a great addition to a Hovel Japanese house. The
torii speaks for itself. *S*
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 06:13:04 PST, "Scott Case" <tgunner@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Red Dawn it was, and it wasn't that bad- much better than Starship
I liked it when it came out, but I was pretty young then. I saw it on TV
recently. Ouch! Aside from it being mostly preposterous, it doesn't actually
have any kind of climax. The movie ends with a "and the US pushed the nasty
Soviets off America's shores, and the world lived happily ever after".
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Allan Goodall wrote:
> I think I mentioned "Glory", "Zulu" is a favourite. I've always had a
The book 'Vietnam at the Movies' - very good, BTW - slags 'Apocalypse
Now' on a number of fronts, but it's still one of my favourite movies. Great
lines ("I love the smell of napalm..." etc), good visuals, and great
soundtrack...
> I'm quite a samurai movie fan. I just got The Samurai Trilogy on DVD
The WW2-era Laurence Olivier 'Henry V' is almost as good as Branagh's.
The scenes early in Agincourt, with massed volleys of arrows whistling towards
the French, is worth the cost of renting it. Branagh's characters are better,
though. (Branagh himself, as HenV, is brilliant, as usual.)
> Okay, the history in "Braveheart" had problems (the battle of Stirling
"Send in the Irish!" In our local gaming group, that's become the stock phrase
for any rash or sucicidal charge, especially by inferior troops...
:>
> ("So, what color IS the boathouse at Hereford?"
I'm going there tomorrow I'll let you know but IIRC white.
Cool, that would be an interesting fact to know.
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 08:00:40 PST, "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> It's not a Samurai movie (Despite the title), and it's not a war movie,
Not a bad movie, if a little heavy on car chases.
I love the 40 Ronin miniatures painted and on display in the "safe house".
Which reminds me of a wargaming connection in a particular movie. "Murder at
1600" (which I have yet to see) starring Wesley Snipes was filmed in Toronto.
In the movie, the main character is doing a diorama (apparently for a
wargame?) of 1st Bull Run. The figures used in the diorama, and there are a
couple thousand of them, are mostly Old Glory, if I remember, with some other
manufacturers.
How do I know? The diorama was commissioned by the film company and painted by
the owner of our local miniatures store, Crossed Swords, and some regulars. I
was actually asked if I could join in, but I was too busy when they were doing
it. A little part of me regrets not painting up some figures for them. They
used the Dixie card game's 1st Bull Run set as a model for the regiment
uniform colours. The diorama was built in pieces, packed, and sent off to the
set. The store has some pictures before it was sent off.
The diorama's fate? It was blown to pieces in the movie.
Now all we need is for Jon's figures to appear in a movie! Quick, someone call
Hollywood!
> On 17-Mar-00 at 20:12, Allan Goodall (agoodall@interlog.com) wrote:
My biggest complaint was the charactarizations. At no point did I give a rats
fanny about any of the characters. I didn't empathize with them, I didn't even
have much sympathy for them. What this has to do with GZG games I have no
idea. Anyone tried running the hill takeover with SG?
In a message dated 3/18/00 11:01:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> bbilderback@hotmail.com writes:
> It's not a Samurai movie (Despite the title), and it's not a war
"How
> the **** should I know?")
I liked that one a lot as well, though the gun play when the team ambushes
their target is a bit amateurish (a lot of opportinities for friedly fire
casualties the way they executed it) but for Hollywoood--quite good.
Rob
And now to get this a little on-topic:
anyone try this for FMA?
In message <qji6ds8tkbmujqis0sk2pt4m2bertpgvel@4ax.com> Allan Goodall writes:
> Okay, the history in "Braveheart" had problems (the battle of Stirling
Is sheer bloodletting alone considered admirable? The battle scenes in
Braveheart have about a zero corelation to everything I've learned about
medieval warfare.
For an excellent (and non-silly) pre-19th century battle scene I'd
recommend Depardieu's "Cyrano de Bergerac". Overall, an excellent
demonstration of how a film can be sentimental without being awful.
Heaven and Earth was indeed filmed in Alberta. If anyone knows where I could
snag a copy I'd appreciate hearing about it.
BTW, AEG is releasing a skirmish level game that's compatible with L5R RPG and
Clan War, if anyone's interested in skirmish level samurai rules.
Bill
Allan Goodall
<agoodall@int To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
erlog.com> cc: (bcc: Bill
Brush/NET/UNL/UNEBR)
Subject: Re: Combat films
03/18/00
12:33 PM
Please
respond to
gzg-l
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 06:07:38 -0500, Los <los@cris.com> wrote:
> I'm going through a huge Samurai phase right now (reading a bunch of
(Kuruzowa)
> which has even more large scale combat than Ran.
"Heaven and Earth" was directed by Haruki Kadokawa, not Akira Kurosawa. I have
it, given as a present by friends, but I have yet to watch it! (I had
misplaced it for a while.) It's now on the top of my "to watch" pile! I wonder
if that's the samurai movie the filmed in Alberta...
In a message dated 3/18/00 8:13:27 AM Central Standard Time,
> tgunner@hotmail.com writes:
<< Red Dawn it was, and it wasn't that bad- much better than Starship
Troopers anyway. It had a wonderful of showing some very nice looking Soviet
AFVs
(the semi-T-72's looked pretty sharp and the BRDMs and BMD's were VERY
nice
:)
> [quoted text omitted]
Red Dawn wasn't so bad, a little jingoistic, but that's what you expect from
movies about your country being invaded. Still, the "guerrillas in the
mountains" angle was interesting especially since it took place in the US,
which hasn't been invaded since Panch Villa. I always wondered what a modern
war fought in the US would be like, since we have some incredibly built up
areas, and some pretty desolate ones, too.
John
Which is one of the things I enjoy about my alternate timeline. The US is
neither a superpower nor part of a larger superpower, it's somewhat
Balkanized. Of particular interest to me is the potential for some intersting
brushfire wars and even higher intensity conflicts amongst the nations carved
from the western US, including Deseret (a Mormon theocracy which holds most of
Utah, Southern Idaho, Southwestern Wyoming, and bits and pieces of Colorado
and Arizona), Cascadia (The Pacific Northwest, an northern California), The
New Bear Republic (Most of California and Nevada), and Kingdom 4 (A White
supremacist state holding tenuously to Northern Idaho and parts of Montana).
There's some pretty rugged country represented
there...
Brian B
----Original Message Follows----
From: JohnDHamill@aol.com
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Combat films
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:46:23 EST
Still, the "guerrillas in the mountains" angle was interesting especially
since it took place in the US, which hasn't been invaded since Panch Villa. I
always wondered what a modern war fought in the US would be like, since we
have some incredibly built up areas, and some pretty desolate ones, too.
John
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:43:16 -0600, bbrush@unlnotes.unl.edu wrote:
> BTW, AEG is releasing a skirmish level game that's compatible with L5R
The problem I see with this is that for a proper samurai set of rules, you
need to handle the unique command control and morale effects of the samurai.
You could use almost any combat system, but it's the command control and
morale that sets it apart. This was why I didn't get into Clan Wars. I saw
nothing in them that were specifically Japanese in flavour (admittedly, after
a short perusal). I worry that an AEG samurai skirmish game would just be
another skirmish game but with Japanese armour and arms.
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 02:14:59 GMT, db-ft@westmore.demon.co.uk (David
Brewer) wrote:
> Is sheer bloodletting alone considered admirable? The battle
It is when you're a Scotsman. *S* Yes, it has little to do with what I learned
about medieval warfare, myself. But it was kind of fun. *S* And at least as
accuarate as some of the other films listed on here...
In a message dated 3/20/00 10:03:05 PM Central Standard Time,
> db-ft@westmore.demon.co.uk writes:
<<
For an excellent (and non-silly) pre-19th century battle scene I'd
recommend Depardieu's "Cyrano de Bergerac". Overall, an excellent
demonstration of how a film can be sentimental without being awful.
> [quoted text omitted]
What a marvelous film, Why not add "The Last Valley with Omar Sharif to this
list. The filmic version of the hell of the Thirty Years War is a worthy film
by about any criteria.
> Okay, so "Stalingrad"'s not that great? I was thinking about doing a
Don't let them put you off. Stalingrad may not be that realistic a
representation of the historical battle, but it isn't sucky as a movie to sit
around with at a Movie Night with your friends. It's worth renting, at
the very least. Like Los said about SPR - it's a MOVIE, not a
documentary...
And rent Das Boot in the original German (with English subtitles) if you
can find that version - I saw it in the theatres when originally
released and it blew me away. More so the German version than the dubbed one.
And I recommend avoiding the special edition extendamix version of Das Boot
-
the extra footage doesn't add anything to the story.
And rent "The Odd Angry Shot" if you can find it. It's an Australian film
about the involvement of Australian troops (the Aussie SAS and others) in the
Vietnam war, and I think it's great. Very different from American films of
that type. Again, I have no idea about it's historical "accuracy", but it is a
good film. I wonder what Owen and the other Australians onlist think about it?
And then, if you're doing a "wide spectrum" set of themes on your movie night,
there's Zulu. Gotta love that film! And Michael Caine, in his first major
role, is wonderful.
Lot's to choose from.
Have fun.