Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'WWII' started by Phantomfixer, Mar 23, 2011.
classic very good!
Here is a trailer for a French film "What War May Bring". It was a so-called high budget movie. Watch the trailer :eusa_doh:
I love "The Dirty Dozen". There are a number of future huge stars in the movie, but many have 1960s haircuts. Also, when tanks are blown up, they are clearly small models. Lastly, the stunt doubles look nothing like the stars half the time.
However, these are just observations. I still love the movie regardless.
The classic with the watch is in 'The Ten Commandments" when the blind man gets thrown a gift by Moses's brother. When he extends his arm, you can clearly see a watch. Some have claimed it is a bracelet, but it has a face with numbers.
I assume you're referring to Lelouch's blatant disregard of the fact that the U.S. Army didn't integrate until years after World War 2? That's not a continuity or editing error, that's just him not letting reality get in the way of telling his story. Sort of "let's ignore a distasteful but fundamental part of African American history to fit our own artistic vision." I guess I don't got no culture, but stuff like that just takes me right out of the story.
Oh, I thought it was the invasion of France in 1942??
It just said "FRANCE 1942." That could have been when the story started and all the invasion appropriate visuals take place later in the film at the proper time. Trailers can be edited to punch up the action of an otherwise dull film to get as wide a range of audience as possible to watch it. Whatever. After watching it my first thought was a certain scene from "Blazing Saddles."
You mean like ‘Miracle at St. Anna’, directed by Spike Lee? I was about five minutes into that movie when I lost complete interest. He could have done so much more with that movie.
I passed on that one after watching the trailers (an example of editing having the opposite effect?). I'm also not a Spike Lee fan and was afraid of what he'd with it.
Look, I'll be the first one to defend directors being able to tell stories the way they want to. All I'm saying is that not all directors can handle all genres effectively.
I watched the St Anna movie knowing that it would not be a true historically correct movie. So in that sense I was not disappointed. The timeline/flashback plot was ok. Maybe if the movie was not based on a GI but on a partisan/ resistance group? But then we go back to Mr Lee. If you didn't see the movie, you did not miss anything
I was watching The Beast (1988) last night and noticed that at 20:54 you can see the tank's serial number that is cast into the armour at the front of the tank. It was 130545. At 25:27 you can see it again...only this time it's 130300. Different tank.
I just watched Battle Cry (1955). Near the end of the film, the sergeant played by James Whitmore goes to the hospital to see Aldo Ray. As he gets there, he rousts one of his other platoon members for a stolen Japanese watch. At 2:24:44 he lifts a cover to reveal the private's stash of stolen/looted stuff and in the pile is not only the stolen watch but three British First World War medals (1914 star with bar, War Medal and Victory). You'd think that by 1955 they would have been able to find some Japanese medals to play that part!
Sorry about the dubious quality of the image. I had to use my cell phone camera. The arrows are, of course, mine.
Two examples I can think of - in The Patriot, the British cavalry (can't think of that particular unit's name offhand) wears red jackets trimmed in green. I saw an interview with Gibson where he mentions that the actual unit wore an all - green tunic, but they changed it for the film, thinking modern audiences wouldn't understand who they were. That's not a major gripe, but it irks me that there seems to be a need to soften or polish things so they play to current sensibilities or perhaps insensibilities.
A Dale Dyeism that gets me as well is the low carry, assessment position of the rifles in Saving Private Ryan. They also do the modern duck walk, pivoting the rifle butt on their shoulders. WW2 riflemen tended to carry their rifles horizontally, or at port arms, and go to a knee, or prone, or get behind cover when needed. The modern duck walk, snap the rifle up from your shoulder when danger appears is a Vietnam or later technique, and the vets do call us on it at re-enactments if they see it. For me and others who are current and former law enforcement or military, we really have to watch it, because our modern training will kick in if we get lax.
It's not softening or polishing things for the audience, it's dumbing it down for them and I've never liked it. Hollywood thinks it will confuse the audience if the "Redcoats" aren't wearing red coats. Hollywood doesn't teach history, they entertain people.
And don't get me started on Dye. Overall, the man has done a great job in bringing more authenticity to war movies, but somewhere along the line he discovered the key to continued work in Hollywood is to make things look exciting, and that's when accuracy takes a back seat. Thus, the modified HSLD weapons handling. Carrying an M1 tucked into the shoulder at the low ready with the trigger finger indexed and scanning back and forth looks a whole lot more visually intense than the way GIs actually did it in WW2. Its all about entertainment.
Great post/thread but want a good laugh? Forgot which one but...
Watch Sylvester Stallone’s Rambo film Viet cong are wearing Japanese WWII uniforms & Hats! I never laughed so hard.
I saw part of a classroom made video that involved the Airborne activities for the Normandy invasion. They tried hard but had to make do with the nylon Alice type packs and unsusal combat boots. But being a student made film I'm sure they did not have the resources.
Sometimes it's just plain ignorance or lack of research...
Speaking about student made films, I've seen a shortmovie about american vs german soldiers in Italy, WWII... the uniforms were fully realistic (for what I've learned here and in other forums, at least) as well as many of the actions, but at a certain point one german soldier takes cover behind a round hay "bale"...
well, I lived out of town for some twenty years and I'm sure the machinery that creates big round hay "balls" wasn't in use in Italy before the '80s, at least; I'm pretty sure that during WWII they stacked hay in piles, or maybe in small square bales.
Obviously you have to have lived in countryside for a period to know this...
not that was a great mistake, but it made the whole think looking like some reenacting exercise, and not like the real war.
Sometimes we spoil movies for ourselves. I'm not knocking observations in this thread, but the above example is a good one of a specific regional and historical detail that only people who grew up in rural regions would even consider. I do the same thing with myriad industrial details, as soon as I see something wrong it tends to spoil the whole movie for me. Not for anybody else, just me.
My all time favorite is in SPR when they are at the first dune and in one shot a guy leans in and grabs Tom Hanks and starts to scream " We don't have a f*ckin chance and it ain't fair!" during that line the shot changes from Tom Hanks and that guy to the beach and then back to Tom Hanks but the guy is now no longer in the shot yet he's still saying his line.