War movies

[Sanis Prent]

Windtalkers? :x

[ReaperFett]

Was a fine War movie.

[Ishiva Ruell]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
Windtalkers? :x

:lol Well... I enjoyed Cage's performance and grew fond of the character he portrayed.

[ReaperFett]

As did I. Woo has a way of making characters like that :)

[Sanis Prent]

It wasn't really comparable to any good war movies, IMO. Maybe on par with the Thin Red Line, which had great cinematography, but a blah story.

[JonathanLB]

I BARELY gave Windtalkers three stars, but it was such a disappointing effort from John Woo -- perhaps his worst film. I enjoyed Broken Arrow more than I liked Windtalkers, and that film also was quite disappointing. He's way too good of a director to be wasting his time on that. It really makes me mad because he is one of the greatest foreign directors in film history. The Killer is just an amazing film, Face/Off was a masterpiece in the action genre with two incredible performances. That showed everything good that Woo knows how to do, but his U.S. films have not been as good as his work in Hong Kong. M:I-2 was great, IMO, but not a masterpiece by any means.

[Oriadin]

1. AOTC
2. Signs
3. TTT
4. Changing Lanes
5. Minority Report
6. The Bourne Identity
7. Spiderman
8. We Were Soilders
9. Nemesis
10. Van Wilder

Ive seen most films released this year but were still waiting for some of the oscar contenders like Gangs of New York, Chicago and Catch me if you can which I am most looking forward to seeing.

[ReaperFett]

I think Windtalkers is second US films wise for Woo, only beaten by Face/Off. Cage was born to be in Woo films :)

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
It wasn't really comparable to any good war movies, IMO. Maybe on par with the Thin Red Line, which had great cinematography, but a blah story.

'Windtakers' was one of the worst(IMHO of course) films I saw of last year. Don't even compare it to 'Thin Red Line'. :p

I loved Malick's film.

[Oriadin]

I thought Windtalkers was fairly good. I wouldnt mind watching it again. I couldnt care less if I never saw the Thin Red Line again though. I was extreamly disapointed in that film.

[CMJ]

Not another TRL debate...I'll just shut up and let the topc die. :x

[ReaperFett]

TRL was a good film :)

[Diego Van Derveld]

It had its moments, that's for sure. The score and cinematography of that movie raise serious benchmarks for all movies. I just didn't really like the story that much.

[Ishiva Ruell]

I did not care at all for TRL mostly because of the story, acting, and script (save for Nic Nolte). Very unoriginal and unimpressive! I have watched too many episodes of Combat! But the cinematography was marvelous, can anyone recall where Malick filmed it?

Great war films are Full Metal Jacket by Kubrick, Platoon by Stone, and Saving Private Ryan by Spielberg (the latter just for revealing the true unforgiving horror of war). I also felt We were soldiers was quite a surprise and so was Windtalkers.

[ReaperFett]

Saving Private Ryan was overrated :)

[Ishiva Ruell]

I would have to disagree! SPR was one the most powerful depictions of combat and soldiers ever caught on film! Tom Hanks was superb! If you want to speak of marvelous cinematography, this film hands down takes the cake!

I fergot another film in my previous list... Apocalypse Now!

[ReaperFett]

It was an action film welled up by Hanks and Spielburg mush :)

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
TRL was a good film :)

Yes, it was. :) Nolte was great.


Originally posted by ReaperFett
Saving Private Ryan was overrated :)

SPR was good. Hanks was overrated. :)

[Sanis Prent]

I'll disagree with Fett there. Although Band of Brothers makes every war movie look like kids playing with plastic toys in a sandbox.

[Ishiva Ruell]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
It was an action film welled up by Hanks and Spielburg mush :)


:lol Well it is a war movie depicting infantrymen during WWII. But it did something most other war films have failed to do --- give a real, unromantized look at war without disassociating the horror and violence nor leaving both estranged. (At least not at the expense of just pure shock ... most notable are Apocalyspe Now and Full Metal Jacket.) That is one reason, IMHO, TRL is so unremarkable... because it is just very typical. Too typical!

[CMJ]

What?!? "Thin Red Line" (the '97 version)is one of the most atypical war films ever made....

GUH! Let's not have another thread disintegrate into a debate over that film. We've had a few others over the years do so.

Back to the original topic of the thread...Best films of 2002. :p

[JonathanLB]

CMJ, you gotta know when your opinion is in the extreme minority on these issues ;) I've not seen the movie, but seriously almost EVERYONE thought it was absolutely a total boring piece of crap. I will see it myself to judge on my own, but clearly you're the only person on earth who thinks it is great, just like I'm the only one who likes "They" :)

"Saving Private Ryan was overrated"

No kidding. One of the most overrated movies in history. Hanks is good, Spielberg is good, and technically the film is very well done as far as sound, cinematography, and other details like that, but the story is TERRIBLE for a war film! It's incredibly shallow with no messages whatsoever, no great goals, it's just totally unappealing. All they are doing is going to "Save Private Ryan," I mean jesus, I could have thought up a plot that inane. It gets 3 stars for brilliant technical work, but no film with such a thin plot can earn more than that.

[JMK]

The point of SPR, and it's plainly obvious, it to depict the horrors of war. Something alot of people of our generation have not experienced. Any WW2 vet will tell you how well Spielberg retold the their tales of frontline warfare, if that's not a great message for us to keep, then nothing is. Alot of us take for granted what they did, and if SPR is how we need to be alerted to it, then more power to Spielberg. SPR is not overrated at all.

[CMJ]

My opinion on TRL is in the minority I admit. Though you exaggerate mightily when you say I'm the only one on earth who thought it was great. :p I could find reviews and essays that make similar claims about the film - if you really want.

But enough of that. This is a good thread, and I wish it had not been hijacked. :\

[ReaperFett]

I didnt overly see any "horror of war". I saw a bloody beach landing and then a quite dumb plot. Band of Brothers showed horror far more, and was entertaining also.

[JMK]

I'd rather take the opinions of the WW2 vets who claim its the closest depiction of warfare that they've seen, thanks.

[ReaperFett]

I'd rather make my own opinions, thanks.

[JMK]

That's fine, as long as you've got the first hand experience. :p

[ReaperFett]

Or maybe they havent watched many WW2 war films. Or maybe SOME said that, but not others. Im sure they could have found people say the same about Pearl Harbour.

[JMK]

True enough, however, my point was that SPR doesn't necessarily carry a moral, but as a reminder of what many young men went through. I think blood-red ocean water and strewn body parts and soldiers calling for their moms is pretty frightening stuff. IMO Spielberg delivered 100%

[ReaperFett]

30 mins maketh not the film :)

[JMK]

The first 30 and the last 45 go a long way though...

[ReaperFett]

last 45 was just action film stuff

[JMK]

Where all the guys on the mission were smoked. Not so typical IMHO.

[ReaperFett]

Any action film with a team will have casualties :)

[Sanis Prent]

SPR was an overlay of two true stories, merged together to create historical fiction. The story of a family full of brothers dying IS true, although not in that context. Actually happened aboard the cruiser U.S.S. Juneau, in the Pacific theatre. It sank, and among the hands lost at sea were the five Sullivan brothers. The event set a precedent, forbidding relatives from serving together in combat. This story was adapted and overlaid into the Normandy assault. I fail to really see what people disliked about it. The story, although not a true one, is supported enough, and the research that went into it is excruciating. If you see Dr. Ambrose as a consultant on a movie, rest assured, its in the bag.

Band of Brothers takes the feel of SPR, and carries it to the Nth degree. Except this time, its just about the most unflinchingly true story told on screen. The book its based on is written by Dr. Ambrose, from accounts of the actual soldiers who fought in the conflict.

[Figrin D'an]

I read Ambrose' book before I saw the Hanks/Spielberg "Band of Brothers" project, and I must agree... the historical fact and accuracy is amazing.

SPR was good... not great, but good. I agree that Band of Brothers in far superior. But, that's also 10 hours of plot and character development, as opposed to the 2:45 of SPR. That can make a difference.

Windtalkers was blah... the story of the Navajo code talkers is a very good one, and that film didn't do it justice. I expected more.

[JonathanLB]

Who cares how realistic SPR was?! That is not important at all! I don't want realism like that in movies, I want good storytelling. Films are NOT about realism. That's why Catch Me If You Can is so great, because Spielberg took a real story and and made a MOVIE about it that is not by any means entirely true. It's true enough, though, and that's what matters.

There are probably 100 better war films than SPR, maybe even more. I haven't seen them all yet, hehe.

"I didnt overly see any "horror of war". I saw a bloody beach landing and then a quite dumb plot."

Exactly. All I saw was this disgusting bunch of blood and guts all over in the first half hour that frankly made me sick. If that's what he wanted to do, then he succeeded, but guess what? If the director of Jason X was trying to make a horrible film, he succeeded too, does that mean that I should like it because the director accomplished his goal? Hell no. SPR was what it was, which is a plotless wonder of technical achievement. It shows the "horrors of war" alright, but I'd rather just see a film that gave you the general idea without showing a guy with his intestines falling out saying, "I want my mommy!" That's just frickin' disgusting. We all already understand, those of us who went through grade school, how horrible World War II is and how many people died serving their countries. You can get this same idea in Schindler's List, which is not that gory or disgusting. I mean it's totally disgusting in the sense that you think, "Ugg, how could they do this to so many people?!" but it's not disgusting in showing you graphic gore and bloodshed because it is black and white and it doesn't dwell on gore.

SPR was a disgusting film that, despite the realism, relies far too much on effects and not enough on plot and story.

CMJ, I was just joking with you :) Who knows, I may see the movie and join your side of the battle, or I may see it and renounce my faith in your film tastes! Haha, j/k ;)

[Sanis Prent]

And you call TPM a masterpiece, hahaha.

[JMK]

Bingo! :lol

[Sanis Prent]

Seriously though, all you've brought up is the vague "oh the plot was bad". What about it was bad, then?

[ReaperFett]

Because you take the best of a company, and do what with them? Oh yeah, you march them off to pick up some whiney little guy where noone knows what he looks like, noone knows where he is, or if he'd even go. Couldn't they have found something more intresting than that?



Windtalkers was blah... the story of the Navajo code talkers is a very good one, and that film didn't do it justice. I expected more.
I'll watch the history channel if I want a documentary :)

There's too kinds of war film. You have the fun ones, like The Dirty Dozen, Windtalkers or Kelly's Heroes. Then you have the accurate ones, like The Longest Day. SPR for me was in the middle. It pretended it was ana ccurate one, but wanted to be a fun one. It should have gone into one category, IMO.

[Jedieb]

SPR was a very good war film IMO. They only fault I have with it was that the cast was too old. (Something I've heard many vets remark while still giving the film high praise.) The one war film that has I've most identified with is Full Metal Jacket. The best Basic Training movie EVER made! The second half of the film doesn't hold up nearly as well for me. Apocalypse Now is great as well, but it has problems with its ending. Once Sheen finds Brando there's really nowhere for the movie to go. But the ride to that ending is just awesome.

[Sanis Prent]

Apocalypse Now is good, but I wouldn't really classify it as a serious introspection into the Vietnam War. Its an allusion of a cinematic scale. They basically took a pre-existing story, set in the Congo in the late 19th century, and transposed it into Vietnam. Even keep the same names in parts :)

If you like Apocalypse Now, I strongly encourage reading "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad.

[Ishiva Ruell]

I'll admit that SPR is abit weak on plot yet it does not detract anything from it's ambition and message. This is not your traditional heroic war flick but a movie that takes itself far more seriously. IMHO, Spielberg made a powerful statement with this film. It's very grim, dark, and moving as it is fascinating.

[ReaperFett]

I agree about your comment on Apocalypse Now. Pre-Brando I like it a lot. post-Brando............mneh.

[JMK]

I like to laugh at the part where Morpheus gets his entrails blasted all over vietnam! That's hilarious, and who can forget Robert Duvall's famous line?

[ReaperFett]

..Which one?




















;)

[Ishiva Ruell]

Probably... don't ya love the smell of napalm in the mornin.

The surfing scene was way over the top but a great movie nonetheless.

Now to switch the subject abit, what actor do you feel put forth the best performance in a war movie?

My top choices are Tom Berrenger in Platoon and Christopher Walken in the Deerhunter.

R. Lee Ermey (sp?) in Full Metal Jacket was pretty darn good too and as was Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now.

[ReaperFett]

Dafoe, Sheen and McGinley in Platoon.

But top? has to be Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heros :)

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
I'll watch the history channel if I want a documentary :)

There's too kinds of war film. You have the fun ones, like The Dirty Dozen, Windtalkers or Kelly's Heroes. Then you have the accurate ones, like The Longest Day. SPR for me was in the middle. It pretended it was ana ccurate one, but wanted to be a fun one. It should have gone into one category, IMO.

That's all well and good, but Windtalkers sold itself as the story of the Navajo code talkers. That's why I was disappointed... I expected more meat to the story rather than a bunch of superfluous action sequences. If it had sold itself as a popcorn action flick, so be it. That's fine. It's main selling point, though, was the basis in fact of that particular set of facts during the second World War. It didn't deliver enough on that aspect to suit my expectations.

[ReaperFett]

Well, I didnt expect anything but an action film :)

[JonathanLB]

I agree with Figrin in many senses, I mean Windtalkers was a lot dumber of a film than I was personally hoping to see. I barely, barely gave it 3 stars because I guess I was really influenced by the story of the Navajo codetalkers, I really like that angle, and it made me think of how they served our country and yet were still the subject of racism and not to mention the fact that we screwed all of the Native American people over badly in the past, but they helped win the war for us really. There were way too many RIDICULOUS action scenes in Windtalkers though, where Cage frickin' kills 25 people single-handedly and, ok, I know John Woo does this sometimes, but it works a lot better in an action/drama to me than a war film. Maybe that is just me. Woo still made that film better than it could have been with another director, though. I mean I can imagine it being a lot better, but I can imagine it being quite a lot worse too. More like We Were Soldiers, which I know has its defenders on this forum, but seriously that film basically sucked. There is no way it could have been worse. I gave it 2.5 stars for some excellent action sequences, and really I did love the battle scenes, but all of this useless cutting back to the women was HORRIBLE. Anyone, ANYONE with any intelligence should know better editing than that. It was painful. I cannot believe they botched a movie with that much potential. Not to mention that I truly felt that there was not enough exposition or narrative. For instance, why was this huge battle depicted so important? What did it mean to the war overall? Not all of us know the entire history of Vietnam battle by battle. Was it a statement of the futility of Vietnam that we didn't know about this huge battle that was some turning point? I was just unsure what to make of it and that's not acceptable to me if I'm going to place emotional interest in the story. For instance, I was very clear in SPR on why the first battle was so important. That was just a recognized, HUGE battle that also had amazing casualties. Well I was not so sure about the battle I saw in We Were Soldiers. While I really enjoyed the battle itself, I wanted to know more about it and why it was a turning point, which I felt was not covered in enough depth. Not to mention that it seemed just in general like too much action and not enough plot. More guilty even than SPR, which is still very well directed.

"Because you take the best of a company, and do what with them? Oh yeah, you march them off to pick up some whiney little guy where noone knows what he looks like, noone knows where he is, or if he'd even go. Couldn't they have found something more intresting than that?"

Yes, that is what I would have said. All of World War II, the most interesting war in modern history, I think, and there have been literally hundreds of movies, even hundreds of GOOD movies on just that war or events surrounding it (for instance, Schindler's List and The Best Days of Our Lives are more about side events to the war or after effects, not battles or the war itself). If the story of 8 guys trying to save Private Ryan was supposed to be really interesting me, sorry, guess again. I found it mostly boring and VERY personal in scale instead of epic. I want war movies to be epic! The exception is The Best Days of Our Lives, which totally works as a personal film because it has three men who have returned from war and it shows these three different stores (in three hours) of how their lives changed and how the country changed after the war. How else would you do that? You can't make a movie like that "epic," but ACTUAL war movies about battles and about nations should be epic, by nature. More like Pearl Harbor, even, which I still think is a very good film but unfortunately it suffers from editing problems, scope (the ending part, while good, feels tacked on, IMO), and a silly love triangle that distracts from the purpose of the film. I still think it really accurately captures some of the chaos of Pearl Harbor, though.

And I call TPM a masterpiece? Yes, I do. The plot is wonderful. If you don't understand that, and you are here on a Star Wars forum, I would say 1) ask another huge Star Wars fan to describe it to you because I don't really have the time or the interest (i.e. I do not give a crap what you think about it because I have better things to do right now than convince you of anything) 2) watch TPM again a few times, more analytically, and perhaps you will on your own discover what so many of us, i.e. 90%, already have.

I have seen a great number of movies, not anywhere near what I feel is true "film expert" status (not even close), but enough to say that the use of metaphors, foreshadowing, symbolism, and a lot of other nuances is far more detailed and profound in TPM than it is in almost any other film ever made. There are only a small number of films that pay great attention to detail. Not every film really needs to do that, even. I just don't think every story requires nuances and tiny details to be present quite so much as Star Wars. Sometimes, other movies raise other philosophical issues that are large enough in scope so that smaller details are just not important. There is SO much going on in TPM, though, the plot is incredible. It's truly the most complicated of any of the Star Wars films thus far, perhaps about even with AOTC. I think the original trilogy is a bit more simplistic than the prequel trilogy, which just has to happen because the prequels are about political intrigue and not war. I think even Lucas would admit that. Because the OT is more about war, and because war is more senseless, there is not quite as much complicated happening in the OT as there is in the PT. That is not to say there's not an incredible amount of depth there, of course, but just that I actually was still struggling with all of the plot details in TPM after 10 viewings and I was 16 at the time, but when I saw ANH when I was 5 I never seemed to have any trouble understanding it. Of course, I did always see more as I grew older, but a 5 year old could never understand TPM.

You have the whole issue of exactly HOW Palpatine manipulates the characters, for instance. What exactly did he have planned and what maybe was not so well planned? For instance, why try to kill the Queen? If she had died, then wouldn't that have just complicated his rise to power? He couldn't have been so easily voted Supreme Chancellor then. How, or did he know that the queen would flee to Coruscant eventually? What about her return? How much here was predicted and carefully planned versus how much was happenstance. There is an amazing amount to consider, even the debate about whether Sidious is Palpatine, but I always thought that was obvious. Still, it was an interesting debate when some people insisted they were two different characters, lol. Then there is the dialogue, a lot of which raises interesting questions, such as "Nothing happens by accident," which directly contradicts criticisms that Anakin accidently destroyed the control ship at the film's ending -- clearly the script says that he did NOT accidently do this, but the Force guided his actions much like podracing. If nothing happens by accident, though, is this some sort of determinism in the Star Wars Saga? If there is determinism, would that not mean that Anakin cannot be held morally responsible for his later actions? So then you would want to say there really is not determinism, yet the movies seem to talk about destiny a number of times. Is it some sort of compatiblism then? Also known as "soft determinism."

I think there is a lot there. If you choose not to see it, I guess that really is your loss and I do mean loss because it would be like someone watching Citizen Kane without understanding that William Randolph Hearst was the huge influence behind the character. IF you do not know that, then you miss out on so many interesting aspects of the film that it is no longer such a masterpiece, seriously. When I began to contemplate the GUTS it took on Welles' part to take on one of the most powerful men in American history while he was still living, I just could not believe that guy's bravado. To me, that is what made Welles, or makes Welles, one of history's most interesting and notable filmmakers or auteurs. The point is, you have to know a movie fully before you can finally and completely judge it. I have been guilty before of juding a film without knowing perhaps as much as I should. For instance, sometimes I will watch a movie and out of context I'm not really sure what to think of it. I end up thinking, "Maybe this is a 3.5 star film," yet when I do the research I often think, "No no, this must be 4 stars, I really see now what I did not see before and there is now no question that it does deserve four stars." That was the case with Fantasia, where I really liked it, but in some respects there were a few sequences I did not as much like. I read more about every sequence and the ones I didn't like all of the sudden become interesting in ways I had not seen before, then the ones I already loved were actually even further enhanced. I just felt my initial impression was incorrect and had to be changed based on the new information.

It's too bad, though, that more people cannot re-evaluate their opinions. I would not say I do that extremely often, but I'd say I do it often enough, lately in the case of 13 Conversations About One Thing and Chinatown (first time I saw it, I was too tired and was with friends, so I didn't even really understand it; the second time, I absolutely loved it, one of my favorite film noirs).

[CMJ]

Damn Jonathan, interesting post! I agree with alot of it, disagree with some, but seriously..one of the best posts I've read on here in awhile.

[ReaperFett]

There were way too many RIDICULOUS action scenes in Windtalkers though, where Cage frickin' kills 25 people single-handedly and, ok, I know John Woo does this sometimes, but it works a lot better in an action/drama to me than a war film.
It's an action war film. Can a director not choose to have an action feel in a war movie?

[JonathanLB]

Of course he can, I mean that is ok, I was just saying that is how I felt about it. I was having a little trouble suspending my disbelief, that is all. Seriously I never knew Cage was responsible for destroying half of the Viet Cong ;)

[ReaperFett]

Well, you need to check your history more! ;)

[Sanis Prent]

The battle at LZ X-Ray marked the first major engagement of the Vietnam War, and set the tone of things to come. That was its significance. If you couldn't get that, then maybe watch it again. The homefront scenes were tied into the movie's theme, which is that the war isn't just fought on the battlefield. You're supposed to be the movie critic, you figure it out.

And for the one millionth time, I am a Star Wars fan. Cut the crap about fandom. I saw the movie like 25 times in the theater. I enjoyed it...but it isn't a masterpiece.

You couldn't be more obtuse if you were 179.9 degrees.

[JonathanLB]

Ok Sanis, that was a great post there. Are you really so simple minded that you must resort to flaming me though?

Instead of flaming back, I just want to ask you to stop that and if it continues I'd like the mods to speak with you personally because I'm not going to get into this. This is a forum. On a forum, we each have the right to express our opinions respectfully and if you were here talking to me face to face, you wouldn't say that because it would be very rude, nor would I say many things that I have in the past said, but that's the past. This is now. If you want to post intelligently on a forum, you are free to bash my OPINIONS or the way that I express them, but you are not free to flame me or make rude remarks. That is not acceptable. That's against the basic rules we have on this forum and that exist on any other forum. I didn't call into question your fandom, I said that I think TPM is a masterpiece and I explained why to you. You took it personally that I disagree with you, now you call me names, and that makes you somehow.. what? Really intelligent? A great debator? No, if you could debate well or if you really knew what you wanted to say, then you would be targeting my opinions and not me, because that's just not appropriate.

We could sit here all day and fling names back and forth, but when it comes down to it, we still wouldn't be anywhere.

Don't do it again. I put up with a lot of similar comments on this forum that are made in humor or in jest and I have no problems with that, because I realize I can be stubborn too, I am definitely a stubborn and opinionated poster, but let's keep the personal insults to a minimum.

As for We Were Soldiers, I didn't know that, thank you for pointing it out to me. I gathered from the film that it was an important battle, I'm not an idiot, but I was just curious to learn more about it and I personally felt that angle should have been better developed. As for the women at home, it was the acting and the pacing that bothered me most, not the fact that they showed them. It was the fact they broke up the action inconveniently to show what was, I thought, very poor acting and overexaggerated, stereotypical performances. That was my problem with it. You are free to disagree, but I have just as much right to my opinion as you do yours.

[Sanis Prent]

I bashed your opinion profusely and will repeatedly do so, because I believe you have absolutely no idea of the things you talk about. You'll know when I insult your person. As for the assumption of if we were face-to-face, it would be a bit less restrained. I bite my tongue enough to need stitches. I'm three times as coarse with my friends IRL, because I'm not going to dress up whats on my mind in false niceties.

I've tried to understand you and give you a chance for four years now. I've defended you at times, only later to question why I did so. I give up.

I'm out of this conversation now. Don't bother with the retort.

[Ishiva Ruell]

I missed alot of fun while at work! Anyways, Sanis pretty much beat me to the punch on the significance of the battle in We Were Soldiers. It represented our first action of full commitment to the war, not as advisors anymore but as actual participants. The homefront scenes did not bother me much as there are more than just two sides to every war.


I am a Star Wars fan but also remain quite critical of the prequels.

[JMK]

I am a Star Wars fan but also remain quite critical of the prequels.
Well said, I don't think anyone's put it like that before.

[Ki-Adi Kindo]

War flicks. We all enjoy sitting down and enjoying a dramatic and hardcore movie based on a past war. I favor war movies more than others, simply for the fact that it did once happen. Nothing can suck you into the tube like a band of soildiers charging an enemy camp with bullets overhead and bombs going off in every direction. My favorites...

1)- Glory. Absoulutely love the movie. I myself am a Civil War ethusiast, so that may be one of the main reasons why I like dit so much. By far Matthew Broderick's best performance, not to mention the great talent shown by acting veteran Morgan Freeman. It also got Denzel off to a good start in Hollywood as well. The movie's plot was terrific, and the score was one so popular it's been used repeatedly in several movies. Definetely a movie I coulden't get tired of.

2)- Pearl Harbor. Besides the rather odd love story, most WWII movies are going to do well anyways. The attack on Pearl Harbor scene was well potrayed, and I thought that the cast was outstanding. The score in Pearl Harbor is by far the saddest music I've ever heard. The movie got tears out of me. They made Pearl Harbor in what I believe, just as it was; completely devestating.

I love most all war movies, those two just happen to rank the highest on my list. What's yours and why?

[Diego Van Derveld]

Shall I merge this with the other, ongoing war movie thread?

[CMJ]

I would...

[Ki-Adi Kindo]

Sure... why not.

[Figrin D'an]

Band of Brothers - Not a movie persay, but it's the best cinematic portrayal of WWII, or perhaps any war, to date. Based upon the true story of E company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne, the historical accuracy is amazing, the directing is superb, the acting is top notch, and the story is... well... just see it for yourself if you haven't already.

Memphis Belle - Bomber crews were an aspect of the second World War that were commonly overlooked until this film was made. The crew of the Memphis Belle was the first B-17 crew to complete an entire tour of duty (25 missions). The actors that portrayed the crew did a fantastic job, showing the pressure that the Memphis Belle crew was under, as well as the dangers encounted by a bomber crew flying over German cities.

The Bridge on the River Kwai - Besides some wonderful acting performances, the story of scoring a moral victory under dire circumstances, only to have the reality of war set back in... it has a very potent ability to make one think about war on so many levels.

Full Metal Jacket - The best 'basic training' film ever made. Like many others, I feel the second half of the film drags quite a bit, but the first half is hilarious yet completely serious at the same time. Who could ever forget R. Lee Eremy as Sgt. Hartman?

Platoon - Maybe the best example of what Vietnam did to so many men that fought there. Good acting performances all around, and a very solid storyline. Of Oliver Stones "Vietnam Trilogy", this film was the best one.

[Sanis Prent]

Band of Brothers - Not a movie persay, but it's the best cinematic portrayal of WWII, or perhaps any war, to date. Based upon the true story of E company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne, the historical accuracy is amazing, the directing is superb, the acting is top notch, and the story is... well... just see it for yourself if you haven't already.

1-10 - If I had a top 25 war movies list...Band of Brothers would occupy the first 10 spots. It is beyond a shadow of all doubt, the most unflinchingly accurate war story ever put to film. IMO, its the greatest story on screen, be it a theater or a TV. I can't sing its praises enough. I've seen it 8 times through, and I'm now reading the book for the third time.

As for other noteables:

11. Memphis Belle
12. Platoon
13. Saving Private Ryan
14. Bridge on the River Kwai
15. Tora Tora Tora
16. Enemy at the Gates
17. Full Metal Jacket
18. We Were Soldiers
19. Black Hawk Down
20. Midway
21. Apocalypse Now
22. The Longest Day
23. Gallipoli
24. All Quiet on the Western Front
25. Glory

[Ishiva Ruell]

I have only seen like the first two or three episodes of Band of Brothers but am going to invest in the DVD this weekend and check it out.

1. Platoon - My all time favorite. Stellar performances by Dafoe and Berrenger. Both of whom coincidently have had dismal careers and usually type-cast. Sheen also put forth a strong performance. Berrenger is absolutely electrifying as the scarred, sadistic Sgt. Barnes. IMHO, the greatest performance in a war flick. The movie offers a very insightful view of the war's widespread breakdown. Inspired by Stone's own experiences while serving in Vietnam.

2. Gettysburg
3. Glory
4. Saving Private Ryan
5. Memphis Belle (solid acting and superb F/X)
6. Full Metal Jacket (latter half of the movie is quite weak)
7. The Longest Day
8. Gallipoli
9. Apocalypse Now
10. Black Hawk Down


Awesome news!!! There are rumours of Steven Pressfield's best-selling novel 'Gates of Fire' being made into a movie tentatively starring George Clooney. It's an historic fictional account of the Battle of Thermopylae. In which a few hundred Spartans and their allies held the invading armies of Xerxes, Prince of Persia, numbering in the tens of thousands. Causing a vital strategic delayment of a joint land/naval invasion of ancient Greece. Awesome book, watch for this movie! Should be bigger than Gladiator!