Easily the best Age of Sail war movie I've ever seen.No mention at all of Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World.
Dreadful.
Always remember, choose the lesser of two weevils.
Easily the best Age of Sail war movie I've ever seen.No mention at all of Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World.
Dreadful.
Unquestionably great movie...Top 5 'War Movie', though? I dunnow. It kind of goes heavy on spy-genre stuff for a lot of the runtime before becoming an action-fest, and is kind of the height of 'killin' naw-sees' 70s awesome where themes and messages takes a backseat to bursting blood-packets and explosions (at least after it spends the first half doing Cold War spy-shenanigans that just happen to be set in dubya-dubya-deuce)...and that all seems like it sets it apart enough to be one-upped or more by another film that's a bit more...'War Movie-y'? Developed? Iunnow.
Like, this is no knock against Where Eagles Dare because it's awesome fun and great moviemaking...but seems like better alternates exist for explicitly the best 'War Movies' as a genre.
Ehhhhhh, I dunnow about even putting this in the top five. Platoon is good. Powerful movie that's done well, etcetera... but suffers from being even more...pretentious(?) might be the word?...than Apocalypse Now while it kind'a does a lot of the same 'things' in terms of its direction. Which is a really high bar to cross because Apocalypse Now is very pretentious(?) and high-handed in everything it's doing.
Bridge Too Far being at or second-to the top seems appropriate. And I have heard good things about The Duelists from a couple places, but have yet to see it, so that'd be one I'd be interested in checking-out.
I'd contend Bridge Over the River Kwai is one that should be in these top fives somewhere (perhaps it gets mentioned as an also-ran or honorary or something, admittedly didn't listen to the YT element yet). Could take the spot of Where Eagles Dare and I wouldn't object.
Glory and Gettysburg are both favorites of mine.
Panfilov's 28. The story of 28 Guardsmen in front of Moscow in November 1941 who held a village against a German armored attack just long enough for reinforcements to fill the gap. Allegedly a true story, actually a propaganda forgery. Still very well done and a good lesson in how to stop tanks if you don't have anti-tank guns.
In the same vein, T-34. A group of Russian slave laborers are being used by the Germans to clean the remains of the crew out of knocked-out tanks. One of the Germans has a brilliant idea; use the Russians driving a Russian T-34-85 (stripped of ammunition of course) as a live target for training gunners. Only, the Germans screw up and miss one of the ammunition bins that has four APCR and two HE rounds in it. The whole story is permeated by a sly sense of humor that is rather appealing.
Admirał - movie about russian commander fighting reds during cyvil war.Good one.Here,charge of whites :
We were soldiers
We Were Soldiers Page 95 said:"He was lying beside me on the hill and he said: 'If I have to die, I'm glad to give my life for my country.' I remember him saying that. He was going into shock, hit in the hip and in a lot of pain. He didn't live long."
We Were Soldiers Page 134 said:"Sergeant Sam Hollman Jr, a native Pennsylvanian, knelt beside his mortally wounded buddy Jack Gell and heard him gasp "Tell my wife I love her."
Funny thing about We Were Soldiers. I love that movie as well. So I saw a channel called 'History Buffs' was reviewing the movie and it was mostly positive, but then twenty one minutes in, he started to really criticize some aspects of the movie as being "eye rolling" and that "He was enjoying the movie and then they'd spoil it by going SO OVER THE TOP!" and then stated how there was one scene, the death of Lieutenant Harry Herrick, that he described as being so out of place because it was "so brimming with American Patriotism that it made his eyes roll to the BACK OF HIS HEAD."
Then two seconds later he states how the movie "slapped in another generic war movie death scene."
History Buffs: "COME ONNNNN! I know it sounds like I'm nitpicking here but it sounds so cliched! If you have to write a death scene, then do it in an original way! This feels like it's ticking a box of what to include in a war movie!"
He then posted some British comedy video ridiculing the death scenes as over dramatized.
His silly rant starts at 21 minutes in.
It seems pretty obvious that even popular history youtubers like him often likely don't even do the basic research for their videos because if he just read the book that the movie was based off of, he wouldn't of been so trite in legitimately mocking the actually accurately portrayed death scenes of those two characters in the film.
Funny thing about We Were Soldiers. I love that movie as well. So I saw a channel called 'History Buffs' was reviewing the movie and it was mostly positive, but then twenty one minutes in, he started to really criticize some aspects of the movie as being "eye rolling" and that "He was enjoying the movie and then they'd spoil it by going SO OVER THE TOP!" and then stated how there was one scene, the death of Lieutenant Harry Herrick, that he described as being so out of place because it was "so brimming with American Patriotism that it made his eyes roll to the BACK OF HIS HEAD."
Then two seconds later he states how the movie "slapped in another generic war movie death scene."
History Buffs: "COME ONNNNN! I know it sounds like I'm nitpicking here but it sounds so cliched! If you have to write a death scene, then do it in an original way! This feels like it's ticking a box of what to include in a war movie!"
He then posted some British comedy video ridiculing the death scenes as over dramatized.
His silly rant starts at 21 minutes in.
It seems pretty obvious that even popular history youtubers like him often likely don't even do the basic research for their videos because if he just read the book that the movie was based off of, he wouldn't of been so trite in legitimately mocking the actually accurately portrayed death scenes of those two characters in the film.
The end is not fully historically accurate with the helicopters being gunships.i really liked the final battle scene of the movie.
The NVA using an Soviet supplied WW2 capture MG 34 was a good detail.
Right before the Hueys came in spray them with a hail of lead.
I'd say it counts.I watched this silent film about WWI almost a decade ago and really enjoyed it:
Wings (1927 film) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Does that count for this?
The end is completely bullshit, with American soldiers marching at the Vietnamese in shoulder to shoulder line, like it's 1815 and completely defeating the enemy. In reality, relief force fought their way to them, widened LZ so they could be helivaced and then exfiltrated on foot, getting badly mauled in an ambush.
Classic example of a poorly thought political gesture negatively affecting sound tactical choices basically giving the NVA a face ambush that prevented them from calling the battle a total defeat thanks to the american general desire of not looking weak after a hard won victory.The bayonet charge is Hollywood. But Landing Zone X-Ray was secured after the third morning. The PAVN suffered too many casualties in its attacks that it withdrew from the area. The Americans could've withdrawn then as in fact Hal Moore's battalion did just that.
But General Westmoreland didn't want to give the impression of bugging out, so he decided to have the remaining two battalions stay there and then march out and make new Landing Zones in unsecured territory instead of being helivac'd for some reason, thus leading to the separate Ambush and Battle at LZ Albany which with LZ XRay composed the total Battle of the Ia Drang Valley.