Critics hate war movies?

I think that all things being equal we aviation buffs (or is that nuts) are probably the worst audience for war films. I know that I regularly fast forward through the soppy bits in Battle of Britain, even though these bits were in the film to give a perspective on what all the flying around was about.

It is the same with most war films that feature aircraft as we are sitting their with our aviation expert critic’s hats on and looking for the slightest evidence that a particular aircraft has a smidge of paint that is not in the right place.

But equally films that capture the real human involvement of war are quite rare, and much of that is rather unexciting but nevertheless tragedy. How often do we see depicted the effects of a bomb or stray bullet on otherwise uninvolved civilians, when the alternative is a depiction of a dramatic clash between deadly machines.

I can understand the fact that critics tend not to go overboard about most war films as the genre is less about the acting art and more about special effects. And these days we are several generations away from the events and the wartime myths of stiff upper lips etc.

I know that my favourite films and literature of the fictional or semi-fictional form are not war related, although my favourite non-fictional historical works contain some serious works on war themes not just aviation. But in the analysis I find more of artistic merit in books and films that explore the simple themes of human existence of which war, thankfully, for most of us is a fairly minor part.

Also we must admit that pound for pound there are a great many war films which are sheer dross made to formulaic standards and I can understand the critic’s reluctance to go overboard. But they might have the odd nice shot of an aircraft in them 😀

I’m tempted to mention ‘Schindler’s List’ and ‘The Pianist.’

Fair points both, but not in the same vein as previous war films mentioned….

I’m tempted to mention ‘Schindler’s List’ and ‘The Pianist.’

I went to see Pearl Harbor at the cinema after reading about its production in the historic aviation porn-mags, and seeing the four Spitfires used in it at Duxford, so I went in expecting a war film directed by Michael Bay, i.e. lots and lots of big bangs!

I wasn’t disappointed too much by seeing something like that on the big screen, but that doesn’t detract from the knowledge that the story is total balls, and I’ve seen better acting in a McDonalds advert…!

I don’t think it’s likely we’ll see a big budget aviation war film in the same vein as Saving Private Ryan, or TV series such as Band of Brothers, since the cost of producing such a thing, and hoping it will make a profit, is prohibitive at best! Flyboys‘ budget was something like $60M – but it was a huge flop! However, it should be noted that Pearl Harbor was one of the highest-grossing films of 2001…. :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed ‘Enemy At The Gates’, may I suggest you look out for ‘Stalingrad’?

A rather gritty look at the battles from a German perspective. One of my favouries, along with ‘Cross Of Iron’.

Apart from ‘Appointment In London’, I can’t think of a decent aviation-related war film that I like – perhaps I’m a stickler for accuracy? Like an earlier poster, I find myself skipping the pointless bits of ‘Flight Of The Intruder’. The flying scenes are really quite entertaining, despite some continuity howlers and inaccuracies.

I never really ‘got’ ‘Apocalypse Now’, (referred to as ‘Apocalype When?’ in production) until I saw the redux version which puts back in place many of the scenes which gave the plot a bit more sense.

I think the best war movie I’ve seen in recent years would have to be SP Ryan because of the way the film tries to focus on the individual soldiers and the emotions they are struggling to cope with.

Another favourite of mine for similer reasons is Kubricks Full Metal Jacket.

But then you have the classics of Battle Of Britain and Dambusters which I think will be loved by viewers of each generation for many years to come.

re

I knew Pearl harbour would be tripe, but I didnt care because having followed the progress and knowing the extent of the aerial sequences that was all I cared about. Yes, anything in that movie that hasnt got a plane in it is trash, but I went to Leicester square too see it on the biggest screen in London, and wasnt disapointed!

Here is a bit on the Pacific series:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pacific_%28TV_series%29

http://www.pararesearchteam.com/ThePacific.html

Film 4 do show the wonderful Amelie. Not a war movie but sheer, sheer delight.

If you haven’t watched it already – do so

Moggy

Fair comment Moggy, but it’s presumably shoved in between the constantly repeated Alien v Predator, etc etc, you know what I mean.
The other night Madam and I were discussing so many classic films, of whichever genre they were, that are never shown, whether it’s copyright issues, I don’t know, for a start, I’d love to see the ‘Go Between’ or, when was the last time that some of the classic British films of the 60’s such as Sillitoe classics as ‘Saturday Night and Sunday Morning’, or ‘The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner’ last shown.
Sorry, not aviation issues, but it has a repercussion amongst what the powers that be think we ought to watch, it seems to be mainly youth crap, WW2 doesn’t come in to this very much, a bit of repeated acceptable stuff to keep everyone happy and thats it, usually the same films repeated constantly.
What really winds me up is how much the channels take advantage of the Fred Dibnah legend and NEVER mention the nastiness and destruction that has happened over this great man’s estate and possesions, they constantly repeat his programmes as if nothing has happened, it reduces me to tears, I can’t watch them any more, watching Fred presenting repeated programmes in his destroyed workshop is too much to take in.
Ok, he hated flying!!!

Film 4 do show the wonderful Amelie. Not a war movie but sheer, sheer delight.

If you haven’t watched it already – do so

Moggy

Hmmm, does that mean that they already made such a serie?

If so, it has not been shown around here, or i must have missed it, which is very possible as i really don’t watch mush telly.

Was it any good?

Where do you live!!!!
Look on search and you will probably find it’s one of the most talked about TV programmes on here, read the book and try and buy it on Amazon, you won’t be dissapointed, especially with the last episode, I have to watch it every few weeks to keep myself sane.

I’m intrigued about this so called follow up to ‘Band of Brothers’ set in the Pacific. I loved the original series, I have the ‘Special all singing and dancing’ boxed set.
I think it was a not to be repeated one off, it had all the right ingredients.
Directed by the experienced and respectful ‘Ryan’ Tom Hanks with a bit of help from Mr Speilburg, loads of Hollywood dosh, yet utilising the British film industry with all it’s subtle ways, filmed over here and not being afraid to use British actors in major roles as Yanks, ( I can’t watch Hotel Babylon for obvious reasons).
I would be interested to know whether such a huge budget production made any money, I was always under the impression that it was a bit of a love affair production by Hanks and Speilburg, yes they are no doubt rich beyond our wildest dreams, but would they do this for nowt, who knows.
With all the infinite number of TV channels available to us, and the constantly repeated cr## that we get ie:- how many particular naff films are repeated over and over again which drives me mental, sometimes, I could throw a brick at the TV, when was the last time that Band of Brothers was last shown as a series on TV, I can’t remember, or do they assume that any one with half a brain has got them all on DVD anyway and leave it at that.
Remember when Film 4 was a pay for view channel, that didn’t last long did it, not surprising, I can’t recall the last time I wanted to watch any of their constantly repeated totally uninteresting films.

*cough* Piece of Cake *cough*

Hmmm, does that mean that they already made such a serie?

If so, it has not been shown around here, or i must have missed it, which is very possible as i really don’t watch mush telly.

Was it any good?

Did Pearl Harbor do this? Did it not present veterans as (take your pick) and otherwise people who impregnate their thought-to-be-dead best friend’s girlfriend but then have the good grace to conveniently die to bring the shaky plot to a neat conclusion? This is a problem I sometimes have with war films, in that I have my doubts that the real people fighting wars ever looked or acted like they are portrayed to have done!
I didn’t think Flyboys was nearly as bad as some people made out though.

I agree on Flyboys….but it was just as full of stereotypes as most aviation war films produced since Wings in 1927.

Your problems with Pearl Harbor are noted, but poilots have often been portrayed as “loudmouths/bullies/simpletons/jocks”….a bunch of devilmaycare
hellraisers who don’t know if they’ll live to see tomorrow. This is especially true in American films that always featured some slightly shady “heel” to play opposite the star. From Dawn Partrol to Top Gun, pilots have been subject to (victims?) of those sterotypes left over from the early pulp novels about the flyers of the Great War.
One of the few exceptions to this is BoB, where the pilots were portrayed as saints preserving King & Country. The only time we see anyone with human motives is Christopher Plummer pleading for his wife to get back into bed instead of prancing about the hotel room in her underwear.
At least in Piece of Cake and Dark Blue World, they’re allowed a bit more human emotions.
Anyone remember the outcry that develoiped when PoC was broadcast in the 80s? A good chunk of the Engish public objected to that portrayal of the BoB pilots as anything other than the “Talley Ho” Brylcream boys not too different than the way they were portrayed in period war/proaganda films.

The real story is there were probably more loudmouths/jocks (acting that way because of nerves, they probably really were a bit frightened) than the fearless “Tally ho, Chaps” we’d like to imagine everyone to have been.
In the same vein, I’m pretty sure Guy Gibson would be embarassed by the controversy displayed on this site about the way he MAY be portrayed in the upcoming Dambusters remake. He’d probably be the first to urge 21st Century aviation enthuisasts not to make him into some sort of a saint.

The Longest Day.

Tora, Tora, Tora comes close too.

Hmm. Take your point. But these films show a broad vista of what’s going on, to a variety of characters and (to an extent) politically. I was thinking more along the lines of a single, virtually real time mission by a single unit/squadron.

BTW: As much as I hate to, I’ll defend (to a point) Pearl Harbor…. Anything that presents history to young people so maybe they apprecaite the war veterans more than they did when they walked into the theater isn’t all bad.

Did Pearl Harbor do this? Did it not present veterans as (take your pick) loudmouths/bullies/simpletons/jocks and otherwise people who impregnate their thought-to-be-dead best friend’s girlfriend but then have the good grace to conveniently die to bring the shaky plot to a neat conclusion? This is a problem I sometimes have with war films, in that I have my doubts that the real people fighting wars ever looked or acted like they are portrayed to have done!

I didn’t think Flyboys was nearly as bad as some people made out though.

I also vote for “Das Boot”, the TV series and in German.

Band of brothers was great too. They are currently working on a similar series set in the Pacific (called, with some lack of imagination, “The Pacific”).

Maybe its from TV we are going to see war stories in the future. It seems that movies in the cinema have to follow a certain “template”, which is known to make profit, but really make lousy movies if you watch for anything else than the template-story. On TV you are able to produce a 10 hour story, which is how war stories really should be told.

We can hope they make a BoB series. Im pretty sure it would be a success.

*cough* Piece of Cake *cough*

I also vote for “Das Boot”, the TV series and in German.

Band of brothers was great too. They are currently working on a similar series set in the Pacific (called, with some lack of imagination, “The Pacific”).

Maybe its from TV we are going to see war stories in the future. It seems that movies in the cinema have to follow a certain “template”, which is known to make profit, but really make lousy movies if you watch for anything else than the template-story. On TV you are able to produce a 10 hour story, which is how war stories really should be told.

We can hope they make a BoB series. Im pretty sure it would be a success.

I’ve thought of another brilliant mini-series – Das Boot.

This is obviously the way to go ‘war film’ wise.

I wonder what everybody would suggest as the ‘most perfect’ war film? (So far – pre Dambusters II)! 😀

The criteria for that is as varied as what constitutes an airworthy Spitfire! :rolleyes:

Let the games begin! :diablo:

I wonder what everybody would suggest as the ‘most perfect’ war film? (So far – pre Dambusters II)! 😀

My vote isn’t actually a film at all; it’s a mini-series – Band of Brothers.

It is a pity that more of these haven’t been made after the success of Band of Brothers.

I’d like to see the war film equivalent of Steve Macqueen’s ‘Le Mans’, where virtually the entire film is about what happens in the race.

Tora, Tora, Tora comes close too.

BTW: As much as I hate to, I’ll defend (to a point) Pearl Harbor.
Think of it as Titanic with P-40s and B-25s.
Anything that presents history to young people so maybe they apprecaite the war veterans more than they did when they walked into the theater isn’t all bad.

Even if the sainted Jimmy Doolittle was played by that idiot Baldwin.