08 Nov 09
Originally posted by trev33🙁 Too much info! There was no need for the wheel chair part! :'(
Apocalypse Now was a good one... certainly the best vietnam film. "don't look at the camera, keep on fighting' 😵
but my favorite is schindler's list
Yes, it may have happened...... ooops.. there was no Auschwitz was there, according to neo-nazis??
Superb music, hallowing and accurate, maybe..... but as a war film? Does it qualify? Wasn't it more of a documentary of events, as opposed to down right battle in the field?
08 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFit seems the WW2 veterans disagree with you, as they said it was the first time a movie looked anything like what they experienced...
I felt Saving Private Ryan was dishonest...
outside the hollywood classics that have been mentioned already, the soviet 'idi i smotri' (come and see) is widely regarded as the best war movie ever. even the best movie, period. well, be that as it may, and it certainly isn't my choice for best movie ever, but it's a damn fine movie:
"Come and See (English subtitles).
A feature by Elem Klimov made from the script by Ales Adamovich. It was released in 1985 and ranks among the most horrifying war films. It`s not only about the war of 1941-1945 exactly, but about any war, its devastating force sweeping away the natural course of things. The film is based upon documental facts and `The Khatyn Story` by Ales Adamovich. The authors describe the place and events which became a symbol of national tragedy. The hero of the film is Flyora, a sixteen-year-old boy that turned to the woods to help the partisans. At the beginning he is just a kid. Then he lives through the horror of the Nazi executions and becomes amazingly grown-up, and even old. The war had distorted the once tender childish facial features - it`s all wrinkles now. The altered face of Flyora is the face of War. The authors were so true-to-life, uncompromising and austere as to portray in the centre of the film not some grown-up man, but an unexperie nced kid with his childhood still here. The title derives from from The Apocalypse of John, Chapter 6: "And I heard one of the four living creatures saying, as with a voice of thunder, "Come and see!" © MOSFILM, 1985. © BELARUSFILM, 1985."
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7E798237FFD2C2AD&search_query=come+and+see
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19036
08 Nov 09
Originally posted by mikelomit was a film... it was set during a war = war film, no?
🙁 Too much info! There was no need for the wheel chair part! :'(
Yes, it may have happened...... ooops.. there was no Auschwitz was there, according to neo-nazis??
Superb music, hallowing and accurate, maybe..... but as a war film? Does it qualify? Wasn't it more of a documentary of events, as opposed to down right battle in the field?
just because it didn't involve people blowing the shit out of each other doesn't mean it isn't a war film.
Originally posted by mikelomdude, it's about colonisation, imperialism and civilisation. ivory trade and exploitation in 19th century congo. all that thinly veiled as a vietnam movie.
Wasn't it more of a documentary of events, as opposed to down right battle in the field?
edit: oooh... you're talking about schindler's, right... I'll wake up any moment now...
well that's a p.o.s. movie. I have no idea why people insist on suffering through spielberg movies. they're boring and filled with silly sentimental crap like cute little innocent children. he could put in goddamn puppies just as well.
08 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFYep. I remember the publicity and hype campaign that surrounded the film well. In saying that I thought the film was dishonest, I'm clearly delving into something other than how the movie "looked". Strangely, in a subsequent post ( "...I have no idea why people insist on suffering through spielberg movies. they're boring and filled with silly sentimental crap..." ) you seem to have the same estimation of this director/producer as I do.
I felt Saving Private Ryan was dishonest...
Originally posted by wormwood
it seems the WW2 veterans disagree with you, as they said it was the first time a movie looked anything like what they experienced...
08 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFyep, I'm not a veteran nor a spielberg fan. but I just think that saying 'dishonest & sentimental' about that particular film, in the light of the veteran comments, doesn't seem to be very accurate.
Yep. I remember the publicity and hype campaign that surrounded the film well. In saying that I thought the film was dishonest, I'm clearly delving into something other than how the movie "looked". Strangely, in a subsequent post ( "...I have no idea why people insist on suffering through spielberg movies. they're boring and filled with silly sentimental crap..." ) you seem to have the same estimation of this director/producer as I do.
08 Nov 09
Originally posted by wormwoodhe became more like that as time went on. his first feature, Duel, doesn't have any schmaltz at all. Jaws was low on sentimentality too.
well that's a p.o.s. movie. I have no idea why people insist on suffering through spielberg movies. they're boring and filled with silly sentimental crap like cute little innocent children. he could put in goddamn puppies just as well.
08 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodInaccurate as it may bem, I don't have any other opinion about the film than that. Best I can do. Give my regards to "the WW2 veterans" next time you poll them. 😀
yep, I'm not a veteran nor a spielberg fan. but I just think that saying 'dishonest & sentimental' about that particular film, in the light of the veteran comments, doesn't seem to be very accurate.
08 Nov 09
Originally posted by wormwoodThere does seem to be a lack of Brittish in that particular movie.
yep, I'm not a veteran nor a spielberg fan. but I just think that saying 'dishonest & sentimental' about that particular film, in the light of the veteran comments, doesn't seem to be very accurate.
08 Nov 09
Originally posted by wormwoodRec'd for this brilliant paragraph. Well put.
well that's a p.o.s. movie. I have no idea why people insist on suffering through spielberg movies. they're boring and filled with silly sentimental crap like cute little innocent children. he could put in goddamn puppies just as well.
Schindler's List was truly boring, but I'll concede that there are some parts of that film that I have never forgotten.
I'm very interested in Come and See, I might acquire that at some point in the near future.
Saving Private Ryan is a problem for me. On one hand the cinematography and the special effects make it look more realistic than any other film I've seen. On the other hand it's so horribly inaccurate that you want to slash the seats. D-Day involved the invasion of Normandy by the Allied forces, consisting of British, Canadian, Free French, Australian, Polish, Belgian, Kiwi, Dutch, and Norwegian soldiers, and American soldiers too. The whole film made it look as though the US, who had just entered the war, were doing it all singlehandedly.
You would think that a small detachment of US soldiers that marched all the way through to Ramelle during Operation Overlord would have met some British paratroopers along the way?! And the final battle was nuts. The Germans would never roll an entire division into a deserted town like a parade, walking straight into an ambush. They would send scouts first.
Nevertheless, the 24 minute opening scene of the landing at Omaha Beach was probably the best portrayal of battle ever put on film.
08 Nov 09
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundSo what if some veterans thought the movied looked realistic - the beach assault sequence in particular - who would disagree? But some realistic - indeed, harrowing, breathtaking - scenes do not expunge the general dishonest, cloying nature of the film.
There does seem to be a lack of Brittish in that particular movie.