posted 08-21- 06:36 AM               

This sort of thing belittles the event to such an extent that it is actually insulting to the Men who were actually involved in the incident.
It doesn't stop there, either, unfortunatly - it's like Ted Dansons character in Saving Private Ryan who exclaims"Montys' overrated" - yeah, fuck you Mr Spielburg with your retrospective advantage - ok so Market Garden was not a success, but El Alamein WAS and it is only the advantage of hindsight that allows Spielburg to make that criticism, which we can all do - its the easiest thing in the world.

The other thing is more of a minor complaint - why weren't other Nations featured in Saving Private Ryan, or at least given a bloody nod, like when the screen is focused on the flags at the cemetry at the beginning - surely other flags deserved to be there also??
My only trouble is that I actually love the film and for 98% of the time I enjoy it totally, because war pain and suffering are totally universal and it just so happens to be happening to a bunch of GI's in this particular film, but a mention of other efforts might have been a nice gesture - America wasn't alone in Europe. But when I watched U-571, it all came back to the surface, and that piece of shite can rot in celluloid hell for all I care, although I doubt it will.
I now hear that an all-American version of the Colditz story is in the works, although no American POW's were held there.
Imagine if the British made a film of how they liberated Europe or the Pacific single-handedly, although just a piece of fiction it still affronts history and insults the memory of those involved.

Take note, this is not directed at America - just Hollywood and its kin, and how much they chafe my balls.

posted 08-21- 11:58 AM            

Who pays 8 bucks to see the history channel anyway?

Hollywood is America. Love it or leave it.

posted 08-21- 01:12 PM               

Jonners, Private Ryan was about GIs, why mention anybody else? It wouldn't have been very accurate to have Tommys and GIs side by side. Also, the average GI was hardly likely to praise the Brits and vice versa. It was a squad based story. It was full of holes and Speilberg is just the wrong side of sickly America but I love it anyway.

posted 08-21- 01:16 PM               

It really doesn't matter... people who base their knowledge of history on fictional films like U-571 won't be writing history books. I think it's safe to say that anyone who bases their knowledge of history on films is too lost to benefit from knowing the truth anyway... so, nothing gained, nothing lost.

The bottom line is this... the problem is with the people who look to film for history and information, not with the films themselves.

posted 08-21- 01:40 PM               

A lot of US lives were lost while Monty fucked
around taking his objective.

The dickhead on the US side was Patton.

It has long been recognized that Eizenhower
was not a military expert, he listened a lot
to his advisors, mainly Bradley. Ike was more
of an organizer and had the ability to get
all of the different allied commanders to
get along, at least good enough to get the
job done.

posted 08-21- 03:48 PM               

Hollywood is behaving just like any other business. They're reasoning in terms of market. The market study tells them the bigger market are people who want to see an entertaining story where the US are the good guys and in the end, they win. So they do the films that way.

Personally I have no problems with US patriotism. I don't care seeing the stars and stripes and hearing an hymn at the end of a movie, that just reminds me that, as a foreigner, I am not part of the intented market.

posted 08-21- 07:56 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Burkey:
I thought it was a great film, and I'm sure there are many families that have one or more of those problems but don't show on the surface. Even in America

---

And your point is?

America has child molesters and rapists too. Shall we make an "entertainment" movie about them? If you want to learn about the underbelly of America fine, see a documentary. But don't tell me it's entertainment worthy of Best Picture of the Year. Did you actually feel sympathy for any of the characters? Did you get a message out of it? Was there a story? I guess if you're a voyeur it might work.

posted 08-21- 10:42 PM               

Would it bug you so much if it didn't have American in the title? Is it because you think they were trying to show an American family?

posted 08-22- 12:35 AM               

Hell, the Corleone family in the Godfather movies lead a sleezy life too but they had character and honor and family loyalties and a lot of other admirable qualities. I would much rather know them than the whackos in American Beauty.

As for the submarine movie. I didn't see it so I can't comment on it. Dan dubya says it was entertaining. That's the first thing I look for in a movie. If the only thing really inaccurate about it was the nationality of the crew then I could probably live with that. Unlike the "Memphis Belle" which really sucked big time. It was 2 hours of cliche's. The only thing accurate about that movie was the name of the plane and the nationality. I know, I know...the shot's of the B-17's were great and I have watched it several times just for that. But the story (other than the 25 mission aspect) was a total fantasy, the last mission was a fantasy, the personalities of the crew were fantasies. They even gave new names to all the crew members! I talked with Robert Morgan once and he feels the same way.

Sorry guys, but the ticket price for American Beauty was too high...and I watched it on video for free.

posted 08-22- 05:38 AM               

Jerry - you're not quite right regarding the Dieppe raid, partial blame has to go to Mountbatten who planned it jointly. Another reason for its failure, other than the target was the defenses rather than the beaches, was lack of support ( only four destroyers!) Anyway Monty did not command the raid as he was sent to Africa nine days before - Mountbatten took the reigns on the actual day. What is inexcusable is the high commands decision to use 5000 loyal and courageous Canadian troops as a test-bed for projected landings on occupied France.
'According to Eisenhower and others Monty was an egotistical, selfish pain in the arse' - thats like George Michael saying 'I think Elton John is gay' - the pot calling the kettle black besides I wasn't referring to his personality/character as most people are odd fuckers in their own way.

DanW - thanks, the fact that you loved it just makes it worse especially as you acknowledge its inaccuracies, how would you feel if a film was made to show that a European invented telegraph or that Britain first broke the sound barrier?(thats another story) - pretty short-changed? The film trivialises the risk these men experinced as it steals their glory and an actual event, not generalisms.
BTW, read the end of my post:'Take note, this is not directed at America - just Hollywood and its kin, and how much they chafe my balls.' - not America, just Hollywood, but if you do believe that Hollywood is America you might want to clear that with a couple of your fellow Americans first they might not agree, but it would explain why the US seems so messed up at the moment

Burkey - I think I mentioned that war is universal and could understand why GI's were used. But SPR wasn't just about GI's, it was about D-Day and war in Europe, which encompasses a lot, but gave acknowledgement to little.
I didn't really mean that the soldiers themselves give a little nod, more the film-maker.

Smokey - America wasn't alone in France, SPR was about Omaha for 22 minutes, but like I said the film is great & I don't have a problem with it, just little niggles that surfaced after watching U-571 (surfaced-geddit Jesus )

Pachy - American Beauty was cool, I liked it a lot and I think Jerry misses the point its trying to raise - that the suburbia is a window on the world (all of suburbia the world over is like that) as are the characters and actions - varied, there is no such thing as a normal person. I think that Spacey was excellent and his characters point was to indicate that we must loosen our grip on things material or loose what we/he loves - the family, the wife, the daughter whatever - and he realises this at the end of the film which is why he dies with a smile on his face. Not such a bad sentiment. I think what stings, Jerry, is maybe the truth - it hurts & perhaps you can recognise some of America there (I recognise some of Britain). Plus its by a Brit director so thats gotta chafe somewhat
American beauty is actually a beautiful, but odourless, rose - ironic?
'Hell, the Corleone family in the Godfather movies lead a sleezy life too but they had character and honor and family loyalties and a lot of other admirable qualities. I would much rather know them than the whackos in American Beauty' so are you telling me that you'd rather know people who kill for money and power than your possible next-door-neighbour? Besides don't the Corleone family end up split/dead by betrayals from within, or by Pacinos desperate grip to power? Thats admirable qualities?

Lets hear some reactions, peeps - cheers.

posted 08-22- 02:34 PM               

I love almost every frame of that movie! My guess is that some of you Conservatives out there might not like the anti-Bush Sr. sentiment woven into that movie, but I think we can all agree it was a pretty well crafted and interesting flick.

posted 08-22- 07:27 PM            

Ron Howard can do a good job too. I just re-watched Apollo 13 and was impressed with his attention to detail. The DVD has a track of Lovell talking about the movie as it plays. Almost all of the recognizable parts, from his wife's losing her ring in the sink a few days before launch, to his needing his arithmetic double-checked on the ground were true. In fact the only exagerated parts were the angle of the main burn on return (it was actually perpendicular to the tragetory), the argument onboard the ship, and the backpeddling of the Grumman rep. re the LM's capabilities.

posted 08-23- 09:10 AM               

I didn't think Stalingrad was that great,it did have good moments though (the scene when they're taking on Ivan armour was pretty stomach-turning - NEVER, EVER WALK ACROSS THE LINE OF FIRE!) but I thought it jumped from scene to scene a lot and lost its coherece because of those jumps - then I learned from a friend that it was a originally a mini-series shown in Germany (like 'Das Boot') and was numerous hours long - which explained its stuttery narrative (shit loads of scenes were cut out) Plus I hate shitty dubbing, I'd rather have subtitles any day. Y'know you've got a character who looks like a brick-shit-house with a camp pee-wee Herman voice (Chow Yun Fats characters in John Woo films are always a good source of bad dubbing)

BTW has anyone seen 'Snatch'? That bit where the American, Avi, flies over to England and the first words he says to anyone (let alone Mike Reid!) are 'Sit down and shut up you big bald fuck' - I piss myself everytime

'Well, its been emotional '- Cheerio...

posted 08-24- 01:15 PM               

Big Joe about Oddball: "that nuts got to be nuts"

Oddball to Crapgame: "To a new yorker like you, a hero is some sort of weird sandwhich"

posted 08-25- 08:07 AM            

not age related like PG,15,18 etc but just as helpfull

posted 08-25- 12:36 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry:
...That's America alright - well, maybe in Southern California.

---

You got that right.

posted 08-26- 10:07 AM               

She's the only girl I've met who will put up with me. That, and she is 6 foot 1 inch tall. I need a tall girl (I'm 6"6'), but the supply is very limited.