> At 10:57 12/04/01 -0500, you wrote:
I seen the trailer for Pearl Harbor and can only hope the movie isn't just a
bunch of Americans 'sucking it up' after being 'surprised' by the faceless
Japanese, the movie poster I've seen shows no names of actors who I might
guess portray 'Japanese characters'. Since it's a Jerry Bruckheimer, Micheal
Bay effort and based on their previous efforts I don't hold out much hope, if
they run true to form expect to see lots of well presented, big budget style
encouraging the audience to wave the flag with a lump in their throat.
Me, I don't dislike/like Americans or Japanese, I just dislike 'crap'
film making.
[quoted original message omitted]
Derek,
I completely agree with you. I hope the film is well made and not just a macho
american can do pic. Though I do not hold high hopes <G>. I would not mind
seeing a portrayal from the Japanese side. Would make an interesting change
from most of the Pearl Harbor coverage I have seen.
Bob Magic-San Makowsky
[quoted original message omitted]
Yes that's true. But it was clearly stipulated in the closing credits as the
film ended that the first Enigma was captured by the British. And that three
were captured in WW2, two British and one US crew, noted by ship and date.
U571 was darn good war adventure flick nonetheless. After all whop's screaming
out loud about how inaccurate Where Eagles Dare was or Kelly's Heroes? Yet
both were excellent war movies.
Los
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 08:45 14/04/01 -0400, you wrote:
Read the article and I'm yet to see anyone put forward a 'Japanese' character
of note. It's important to remember that the American movie industry makes
films for AMERICA and other markets are just a bonus. In fact it just
confirmed my suspicions of the makers using the 'Titanic' factor, some of the
posters I have seen suggest it and the article confirms it. To me it suggests
the makers of the film don't have a high opinion of the target audience.
> Los wrote:
Yes, but sometimes their criticism is justified. <grin>
No Doubt we could all sit here and name war movies from all over the world but
that's not really the point.
The point here is that millions of dollars are spent making a movie which is
based on all the indicators is going to be crap. The two guys responsible for
this film Jerry Bruckheimer and Micheal Bay basically 'style' their way
through their films giving little substance to the stories they are telling
(Top Gun and Armageddon are two examples). For once they appear to have a
decent story and what's the plan, use a young
couple and their romance to grab the audience, like I said this displays
just how poorly the film makers regard their potential audience.
Unless there's Tit and Bum, the leading man's balls clicking from side to side
in time with the soundtrack and a whole sleigh ride of effect shots
then Bruckheimer and Bay will shoehorn them in at the expense of the story and
make it look good too.
For a WWII film with a difference check out -Grave of the Fireflies. A
Japanese animated flick.
Or for 'Human Drama' that figures so prominently in the marketing of 'Pearl
Harbor' check out a made for BBC TV affair called 'All the King's Men' ( I
think?) the story about a company raised on the King's estate during WWI, went
to the Dardanelles and never came home.
> Los wrote:
> p.s. I agree that one should bnot set their hopes very high for Pearl
Huh?!?!?
A film based on We Band of Brothers?
That would rock! I love the B25s
> Jeff Miller wrote:
> Huh?!?!?
Um, I think he's referring to the HBO program based upon Ambrose's book "Band
of Brothers" about a parachute company in the 101st AD.....
Mark
> That would rock! I love the B25s