Confusion between The Thin Red Line and The Big Red One by PF.B Hellqvist wrote:Eh? TRL took place in the Pacific, and there were losses.PF wrote:Trouble with Thin Red Line..one thing is that the squad stays together throughout the war...forgetting attrition losses such as disaease; wounds; MIA; POW; Shell shock; suicide...and just being worn out...especially poor is that the "German Tanks" are actually Shermans....
Worst War Movies?
Re: Worst War Movies?
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 3724
- Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 20:17
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
Re: Worst War Movies?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc6s2kP_kJM
Bad acting combined with low budget and portraying the enemies as idiots = awesome result.
Bad acting combined with low budget and portraying the enemies as idiots = awesome result.
There are words which carry the presage of defeat. Defence is such a word. What is the result of an even victorious defence? The next attempt of imposing it to that weaker, defender. The attacker, despite temporary setback, feels the master of situation.
Re: Worst War Movies?
I-I couldn't even finish watching that clip! What is the world coming too!?Peter K wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc6s2kP_kJM
Bad acting combined with low budget and portraying the enemies as idiots = awesome result.
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson
-Thomas Jefferson
- B Hellqvist
- Member
- Posts: 1073
- Joined: 29 Apr 2004, 01:45
- Location: Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Worst War Movies?
Neither could I. Plain awful! Slow-mo, dubbing/voice over of German lines, cheesy combat...ladymage wrote:I-I couldn't even finish watching that clip!Peter K wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc6s2kP_kJM
Bad acting combined with low budget and portraying the enemies as idiots = awesome result.
Re: Worst War Movies?
"Five for Hell" (1969), with Klaus Kinski.
It's a living hell.
Photo:http://trashfilmaddict.blogspot.com.es/ ... -1969.html
It's a living hell.
Photo:http://trashfilmaddict.blogspot.com.es/ ... -1969.html
" The right to believe is the right of those who don't know "
Re: Worst War Movies?
But everything can be improved:
Rock Hudson, in "Hornets’ Nest " (1970).
Photo:http://www.movpins.com/dHQwMDY1ODUw/hor ... 1911339520
Rock Hudson, in "Hornets’ Nest " (1970).
Photo:http://www.movpins.com/dHQwMDY1ODUw/hor ... 1911339520
" The right to believe is the right of those who don't know "
- B Hellqvist
- Member
- Posts: 1073
- Joined: 29 Apr 2004, 01:45
- Location: Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Worst War Movies?
Ah, the classic "MP-40-armed German with Kar98k ammo pouches" goof...
Re: Worst War Movies?
On the last message-yes no rifle ammo can fit in a submachine gun .....
Here's one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Across_the_Pacific
what a ridiculous ending-even for a B movie spy thriller@@@ had the bomber pilot were a DRESS UNIFORM With enough medals for HERMAN GOERING!
Here's one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Across_the_Pacific
what a ridiculous ending-even for a B movie spy thriller@@@ had the bomber pilot were a DRESS UNIFORM With enough medals for HERMAN GOERING!
- Gamle Lode
- Member
- Posts: 52
- Joined: 27 Mar 2014, 13:35
- Location: Finland
Re: Worst War Movies?
Generally, I wouldn't mind about the equipment being 'a little' wrong. I can tolerate Messerschmitt 108's being used as generic LW Fighters as in 633 Squadron (1964) and Valmet Redigos as generic Soviet planes as in Tuntematon Sotilas (1985)
I don't think Hollywood blockbusters, such as Pearl Harbor (2001), being totally bad since they are quite entertaining films actually. And I think Thin Red Line (1998) is maybe not excellent, but is quite ok.
But some items I truly hate are:
Käsky (2008) - for many reasons I now prefer to omit here.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0920461/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Tobruk (2008) - I think many people will watch this because of its misleading cover picture.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1224376/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2
and surprise surprise:
Memphis Belle (1990)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100133/?ref_=nv_sr_1
- just admit it, the story is awfully Disney and no fetisism about some real B-17's being used help avoiding the feeling of *beep*
I don't think Hollywood blockbusters, such as Pearl Harbor (2001), being totally bad since they are quite entertaining films actually. And I think Thin Red Line (1998) is maybe not excellent, but is quite ok.
But some items I truly hate are:
Käsky (2008) - for many reasons I now prefer to omit here.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0920461/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Tobruk (2008) - I think many people will watch this because of its misleading cover picture.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1224376/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2
and surprise surprise:
Memphis Belle (1990)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100133/?ref_=nv_sr_1
- just admit it, the story is awfully Disney and no fetisism about some real B-17's being used help avoiding the feeling of *beep*
Re: Worst War Movies?
Yeah the Memphis Belle....tries to have nearly an entire squadron of Planes go down....except iteslf on its last mission!!!
They didnt even include a 1945 film reneactment of the Belle Coming on its last mission....
They didnt even include a 1945 film reneactment of the Belle Coming on its last mission....
Re: Worst War Movies?
The absolutely worst war movie I've ever seen is "Tank Battalion", 1957, with a cast of unmemorable "actors", which also includes the now deceased Frank Gorshin and even Edward G. Robinson Jr. (yep, his son.)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051052/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
The acting is truly horrible. The story is practically non-existent.
The title "Tank Battalion" is laughable, because there is no battalion to be seen in this film anywhere. Time is spent almost entirely inside the supposed tank as the crew talks to each other amidst what is supposed to be combat.
As the film starts the crew and tank on in a battle area as the tank cruises along and the crew casually chat about home and women rarely looking out for the enemy. Within 8 mins they are back at the rear area depot for "repairs". For the next 48 mins they spend hanging about the depot, while the sergeant dates his nurse girlfriend and before the intrepid crew is back in the tank and in another "battle".
Then there are the usual technical mistakes, where stock file footage is used of tanks in the battle and they change from M41 "Walker Bulldog" to M4 "Shermans" and back again.
The set director of this film has obviously never looked at the inside of any tank in his life. The internal tank set is a joke. To top it off the hull machine gunner (Frank Gorshin) Is firing a .30 cal MG mounted on a tripod sitting on a nice shelf in front of him.
For the last 20 minutes or so... Once the tank joins an actual battle it gets quickly disabled by a hand grenade landing on the rear engine deck. The explosion disables the tank by "smashing a tie rod" and the tank can't get into gear. Really?
A North Korean machine gun crew has the tankers bottled up inside the tank. The main gun is conveniently out of ammo (this saves on production costs by not having to fire expensive 75mm dummy rounds for the film.) Of course, the enemy always attacks the tank from the front so the Gorshin can mow them down with is MG, but the situation is desperate and one of the crew gets gunned down going for help.
However, one of the tankers does manage to get away, get a spare part and manages to install this critical piece of hardware in the engine with his bare hands without any tools (Now there's a real man! ) just as the MG runs out of ammo.
The tank finally gets rolling and the sergeant kills off the North Korean MG nest by popping up and tossing a grenade out of the turret hatch as it rolls by as the tank heads off down the road...end of film.
It has been available on Netflix streaming for some time, but don't watch it. It's a complete waste of time. There is no tank battalion, no real action and no story.
I don't consider the info above a "spoiler", because you can't spoil anything this bad. This film "stinks on ice."
I give it two thumbs down and a negative 5-stars.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051052/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
The acting is truly horrible. The story is practically non-existent.
The title "Tank Battalion" is laughable, because there is no battalion to be seen in this film anywhere. Time is spent almost entirely inside the supposed tank as the crew talks to each other amidst what is supposed to be combat.
As the film starts the crew and tank on in a battle area as the tank cruises along and the crew casually chat about home and women rarely looking out for the enemy. Within 8 mins they are back at the rear area depot for "repairs". For the next 48 mins they spend hanging about the depot, while the sergeant dates his nurse girlfriend and before the intrepid crew is back in the tank and in another "battle".
Then there are the usual technical mistakes, where stock file footage is used of tanks in the battle and they change from M41 "Walker Bulldog" to M4 "Shermans" and back again.
The set director of this film has obviously never looked at the inside of any tank in his life. The internal tank set is a joke. To top it off the hull machine gunner (Frank Gorshin) Is firing a .30 cal MG mounted on a tripod sitting on a nice shelf in front of him.
For the last 20 minutes or so... Once the tank joins an actual battle it gets quickly disabled by a hand grenade landing on the rear engine deck. The explosion disables the tank by "smashing a tie rod" and the tank can't get into gear. Really?
A North Korean machine gun crew has the tankers bottled up inside the tank. The main gun is conveniently out of ammo (this saves on production costs by not having to fire expensive 75mm dummy rounds for the film.) Of course, the enemy always attacks the tank from the front so the Gorshin can mow them down with is MG, but the situation is desperate and one of the crew gets gunned down going for help.
However, one of the tankers does manage to get away, get a spare part and manages to install this critical piece of hardware in the engine with his bare hands without any tools (Now there's a real man! ) just as the MG runs out of ammo.
The tank finally gets rolling and the sergeant kills off the North Korean MG nest by popping up and tossing a grenade out of the turret hatch as it rolls by as the tank heads off down the road...end of film.
It has been available on Netflix streaming for some time, but don't watch it. It's a complete waste of time. There is no tank battalion, no real action and no story.
I don't consider the info above a "spoiler", because you can't spoil anything this bad. This film "stinks on ice."
I give it two thumbs down and a negative 5-stars.
If your sword is too short, take one step forward. - Japanese proverb
Re: Worst War Movies?
Fair movie is "The Young Lions" differs from the novel in the end is that Ackerman gets killed by the German who is then killed by ackerman friend Michael
The scene where a GI shots the KZ door lock with a mg--id this true?
By the way the German Mayor was played by John Banner-who not only was Jewish but had himself been inprisoned in a KZ camp before WW II-but had also been in the US Army Air Corps World War II! With his accent and facial features he always got typecast playing World War II Germans
Lastly what rally galling is when real events are fictionzed in Movie Versions so bad....the only impression you get of War is the movies....examples There was a 1950's movie of Rommel which in the begining had the failed British COmmando raid to capture/kill him---it shows about a dozen germans getting killed--the real number was only four.. and that likewise with two exceptions the entire commands were all killed and wounded/captured...then of course were the edison movie company films of 1898 Spanish AMerican War..a mixture of real scenes; ship models and filming in New Jersey for Cuba! Really galling were movies like {Bogart and Hepburn} "The African Queen" and {Roger Moore} "Shout at the Devil" which had fictionalized versions of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Lake_Tanganyika .. {personally I think they should have cast Sean Connery as 007 in The Man with the Golden Gun and Roger Moore as 007 in Diamonds are forever instead of the other way around-the orginal James Bond vs his creator cousin {Christopher Lee was a cousin of Ian Flemming}
The scene where a GI shots the KZ door lock with a mg--id this true?
By the way the German Mayor was played by John Banner-who not only was Jewish but had himself been inprisoned in a KZ camp before WW II-but had also been in the US Army Air Corps World War II! With his accent and facial features he always got typecast playing World War II Germans
Lastly what rally galling is when real events are fictionzed in Movie Versions so bad....the only impression you get of War is the movies....examples There was a 1950's movie of Rommel which in the begining had the failed British COmmando raid to capture/kill him---it shows about a dozen germans getting killed--the real number was only four.. and that likewise with two exceptions the entire commands were all killed and wounded/captured...then of course were the edison movie company films of 1898 Spanish AMerican War..a mixture of real scenes; ship models and filming in New Jersey for Cuba! Really galling were movies like {Bogart and Hepburn} "The African Queen" and {Roger Moore} "Shout at the Devil" which had fictionalized versions of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Lake_Tanganyika .. {personally I think they should have cast Sean Connery as 007 in The Man with the Golden Gun and Roger Moore as 007 in Diamonds are forever instead of the other way around-the orginal James Bond vs his creator cousin {Christopher Lee was a cousin of Ian Flemming}
Re: Worst War Movies?
I honestly can't believer people rate SPR as among the worst war movies made.
Seriously.
The opening scene on Omaha Beach is still the benchmark for battle scenes in all movies. The scene captures the chaos and slaughter of the battle very well if you compare it to first hand accounts. It shows how low level officers and NCO's had to organize the capture of the beach when things went to crap, in comparison to the longest day which had the generals on the beach getting things done.
And after that the film has many great/powerful moments or themes that are explored:
-You got the plot where Generals order that the last Ryan be saved, while the men who have to risk their lives question why their lives are worth risking for one man. The theme of what is a soldiers duty (phrased by Upam when reciting the line from the charge of the light brigade poem "Theirs not to reason why/ Theirs but to do and die") is explored a lot in this movie.
-You have the sniper scene, where one of the men tries to rescue a little French girl claiming it is the decent thing to do, with Miller angerly retorting its not their job to do the decent thing. Again exploring the theme of what a soldiers duty is and what the war is about.
-There is the one scene where Captain Miller and his squad is put up in a church for the night after one of the men get killed by a sniper. Miller tried to reconcile the responsibility of command and the guilt of losing men under his command in a conversation with his Sargent. Miller references a man who believe that for every man he lost, he had saved 10 under his command, and whether he himself (Miller) had saved a thousand men for the hundred who had died under his command.
-There is the machine gun nest scene as well:
--Miller wants to take out the nest so more men are not killed by it, but almost all the men want to bypass it and not risk their lives. The BAR gunner talks about how this is not their mission (to find Private Ryan), with Miller replying with anger that their job is to "win the war". Again this covers the theme of what a soldiers duty is: is it just to do your immediate mission or to do more?
--The attack results in the mortal wounding of the squad medic, who the squad OD's with morphine recognizing they can not save him. The death scene of the medic is incredibly powerful IMO, with him crying he wants to go home, and ending with him mumbling for his mother, and dying in a field hundreds of miles away from home. This scene is more powerful when remembering a previous scene where the medic talks about his single mother who would come home from work wanting to spend time with him, but he would pretend to be asleep so she would not bug him. He talks about how much he regrets that now that he is at war and cannot be with her.
--The soldiers, enraged by the loss of their friend, prepare to execute the surviving German in a rather harrowing scene that sees the POW begging for his life. The POW is let go in the end against the objection of several of the men, despite the men being unable to guarantee he will turn himself in (which he doesn't). This scene is very good at exploring the notion of revenge in war, and is a situation that was present in all wars where men want blood payment for the lives of their friends.
--Following this, Miller tells the squad his background (the company had a betting pool of a few hundred dollars for whoever found out what it was), how he was a teacher and has a wife, and how he wonders if she will recognize him when he comes home because of how the war has changed him.
-Earlier on, the men find a temporary hospital set up around crashed gliders. They are given a bag of dog tags, which three of the soldiers enthusiastically look through in the hopes they will find Ryan dead so they can end this mission. The men callously toss dog tags and make it a game to find Ryan's tag first, oblivious to the fact that each dog tag belong to a man who had died, and oblivious to the gazes of the battle scared para's walking by. It shows their desensitization to death, and it is only when they see the para's gazing at them do they realize what they were doing.
I could go on and on. Honestly a lot of war movies don't touch on these themes, or do so in a rather weak manner. A lot of people like to talk up the movie Stalingrad, but its pretty weak compared to SPR IMO. For example, none of the main characters are anything but good. They don't shoot POWs/Civilians, its other characters who do, or its the "NAZI" officer who forces them to. In comparison in SPR, many of the man characters can be cruel, or don't have issue getting revenge on POWs when their friends die.
I do think SPR is let down by the final battle scene, though its still an excellent scene, its very cookie-cutter action scene that takes away from the rest of the film.
Seriously.
The opening scene on Omaha Beach is still the benchmark for battle scenes in all movies. The scene captures the chaos and slaughter of the battle very well if you compare it to first hand accounts. It shows how low level officers and NCO's had to organize the capture of the beach when things went to crap, in comparison to the longest day which had the generals on the beach getting things done.
And after that the film has many great/powerful moments or themes that are explored:
-You got the plot where Generals order that the last Ryan be saved, while the men who have to risk their lives question why their lives are worth risking for one man. The theme of what is a soldiers duty (phrased by Upam when reciting the line from the charge of the light brigade poem "Theirs not to reason why/ Theirs but to do and die") is explored a lot in this movie.
-You have the sniper scene, where one of the men tries to rescue a little French girl claiming it is the decent thing to do, with Miller angerly retorting its not their job to do the decent thing. Again exploring the theme of what a soldiers duty is and what the war is about.
-There is the one scene where Captain Miller and his squad is put up in a church for the night after one of the men get killed by a sniper. Miller tried to reconcile the responsibility of command and the guilt of losing men under his command in a conversation with his Sargent. Miller references a man who believe that for every man he lost, he had saved 10 under his command, and whether he himself (Miller) had saved a thousand men for the hundred who had died under his command.
-There is the machine gun nest scene as well:
--Miller wants to take out the nest so more men are not killed by it, but almost all the men want to bypass it and not risk their lives. The BAR gunner talks about how this is not their mission (to find Private Ryan), with Miller replying with anger that their job is to "win the war". Again this covers the theme of what a soldiers duty is: is it just to do your immediate mission or to do more?
--The attack results in the mortal wounding of the squad medic, who the squad OD's with morphine recognizing they can not save him. The death scene of the medic is incredibly powerful IMO, with him crying he wants to go home, and ending with him mumbling for his mother, and dying in a field hundreds of miles away from home. This scene is more powerful when remembering a previous scene where the medic talks about his single mother who would come home from work wanting to spend time with him, but he would pretend to be asleep so she would not bug him. He talks about how much he regrets that now that he is at war and cannot be with her.
--The soldiers, enraged by the loss of their friend, prepare to execute the surviving German in a rather harrowing scene that sees the POW begging for his life. The POW is let go in the end against the objection of several of the men, despite the men being unable to guarantee he will turn himself in (which he doesn't). This scene is very good at exploring the notion of revenge in war, and is a situation that was present in all wars where men want blood payment for the lives of their friends.
--Following this, Miller tells the squad his background (the company had a betting pool of a few hundred dollars for whoever found out what it was), how he was a teacher and has a wife, and how he wonders if she will recognize him when he comes home because of how the war has changed him.
-Earlier on, the men find a temporary hospital set up around crashed gliders. They are given a bag of dog tags, which three of the soldiers enthusiastically look through in the hopes they will find Ryan dead so they can end this mission. The men callously toss dog tags and make it a game to find Ryan's tag first, oblivious to the fact that each dog tag belong to a man who had died, and oblivious to the gazes of the battle scared para's walking by. It shows their desensitization to death, and it is only when they see the para's gazing at them do they realize what they were doing.
I could go on and on. Honestly a lot of war movies don't touch on these themes, or do so in a rather weak manner. A lot of people like to talk up the movie Stalingrad, but its pretty weak compared to SPR IMO. For example, none of the main characters are anything but good. They don't shoot POWs/Civilians, its other characters who do, or its the "NAZI" officer who forces them to. In comparison in SPR, many of the man characters can be cruel, or don't have issue getting revenge on POWs when their friends die.
I do think SPR is let down by the final battle scene, though its still an excellent scene, its very cookie-cutter action scene that takes away from the rest of the film.
Re: Worst War Movies?
Yeah Saving Private Ryan..they meet up with the German who they captured..then let go..later he is sown directing some germans to shoot at the soldiers who released him..so when he is captured again..he is shot....based from a idea...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Pri ... of_history
Re: Worst War Movies?
Postscript:
Then there are movies/miniseries on World War II which are just...flawed...
Chaplin's "The Great dictator" flawed in its timing..1940...it would have been better say 1931-1932...
Hitchcock' "Notorious" flawed in its timing 1946...would have been better released 1944-1945...or to have had the Nazi Spy ring being a cold war enemy of the US racing for atomic/urnaiam secrets in a "Neutral" country....{there was a good 1945 film on breaking up of a 1940 Nazi Spy ring.."THe House on 95th Street"..{Even if was fictionalized}
mini series "Holocaust" flawed in having two different families one jewish one german/gentile...on opposite sides of World War II...Sobidor breakdwon did not happen this way...trying to sue one family to compress the total Shoah...just cant happen....
Then there are movies/miniseries on World War II which are just...flawed...
Chaplin's "The Great dictator" flawed in its timing..1940...it would have been better say 1931-1932...
Hitchcock' "Notorious" flawed in its timing 1946...would have been better released 1944-1945...or to have had the Nazi Spy ring being a cold war enemy of the US racing for atomic/urnaiam secrets in a "Neutral" country....{there was a good 1945 film on breaking up of a 1940 Nazi Spy ring.."THe House on 95th Street"..{Even if was fictionalized}
mini series "Holocaust" flawed in having two different families one jewish one german/gentile...on opposite sides of World War II...Sobidor breakdwon did not happen this way...trying to sue one family to compress the total Shoah...just cant happen....