Sneak Attack, (an idea based upon Pearl Harbor)

dogscoff · #1 May 29th, 2001, 12:23 PM

Atrocities - you recommended this film by comparing it to Thin Red Line, Titanic and Private Ryan. I haven't seen Private Ryan but those others are two of the dullest films I've seen in the Last few years.

I get the feeling that this film is just another historical exploitation from Hollywood, hoping to drag in the dollars with some gung-ho patriotism, empty talk about "historical accuracy" and big explosions.

Sorry, but I'll probably be giving this one a miss.

------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so, Brain, but balancing a family and a career ... oooh, it's all too much for me. "

ZzZ · #2 May 29th, 2001, 12:56 PM

quote:
Originally posted by jc173:
I know this is offtopic, but just a comment. Back in WWII the American military was segregated ie Afro-Americans (and even Japanese Americans to some extent) served in different units from caucasian Americans. You can probably find a listing of such units somewhere. As for the later parts of the movie I don't recall the 101st Airborne (or was it the 82nd in the movie?) having a segregated battalion or regimental combat team at the time. I could be wrong about that though.

Hmmmm .... good point. I would have to check that eventually.

I have more criticism for that movie but normally I hesitate to post that into international forums. To many idiots see that I am Germany and instantly call me (or my family) Nazi which makes me very angry.

I personally don't like how Germany soldiers are usually shown in WWII movies (especially some old french or italian movies and - of course - most of the Hollywood stuff). My grandfather served the Wehrmacht but he was no Nazi. It is sad when you listen to his storys ... how big the political pressure was for everyone. Even most of the German generals in WWII hadn't been Nazis at all (some even tried to kill Hitler).

In the movies the German soldiers are all looking like some fanatic monsters ... showing no mercy. Believe me they were also full of fear and they don't like killing other people more than anyone else on this planet. The Nazi leaders had been perverted *******s and they knew how to control the masses (especially those who weren't that clever) but the average soldier was just someone like you and me. That's what most directors forget in their movies. There were good and bad people on both sides. And it seems that Pearl Harbour makes no difference here (regarding the Japanese). I will see ... soon.

ZzZ

Nitram Draw · #3 May 30th, 2001, 01:19 AM

I agree with you ZzZ.
It's the same with the Vietnamese but movies tend to make the soldiers a substitute for the leaders of the countries with all of their bad traits expressed through the individual soldiers.
Most US movies portray the VC, the Nazi's and the Russians soldiers as emotionless, cruel, psychopathic robots when in reality they were people just like us, as afraid, homesick, weary and as duty bound as our soldiers. It's unfortunate that movies do this, for it minimizes the true sacrifices that all war veterans made.
While I like a good action movie as well as anyone, the movies that portray wars effect on the people involved always make me think and realize how horrible and usually pointless war is. Don't ever be afraid to speak up or your children will accept these false images of war as the truth.

ZzZ · #4 May 30th, 2001, 01:49 AM

Thank you for your posting Nitram. It's good to hear such an opinion from an US citizen. I also think that the average intelligence of people in this forum is much higher than in the public.

Let's just hope for better (anti-)war movies in the future.

It is interesting that I can easily accept the villian in an action (not war) movie to be just the way you described the German/Vietnamese/Russian/etc... soldiers. It is really a big difference if there is a historic reference for something.

ZzZ

capnq · #5 May 29th, 2001, 04:16 PM

quote:
An anti-war movie for me should never contain hope and it must show both sides of the fighting forces.

AFAIK, _Pearl Harbor_ was never intended to be an anti-war movie. Most war movies are basically action-adventure genre; I don't think anti-war films usually make nearly as much money.

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

ZzZ · #6 May 29th, 2001, 04:25 PM

quote:
Originally posted by capnq:
I don't think anti-war films usually make nearly as much money.

That's a good point ...

[This message has been edited by ZzZ (edited 29 May 2001).]

dogscoff · #7 May 29th, 2001, 04:41 PM

QUOTE:
I don't think anti-war films usually make nearly as much money.
/QUOTE

Doesn't mean they're not worth making. Full Metal Jacket springs to mind (anyone wanting to go to war after watching that really is nuts.)

Besides, a film doesn't have to be actively anti- war. Better to honestly depict both sides, ie the horror and the (occasional) necessity of warfare and let people make up their own minds.

What annoys me are action/ war/ Bruce Willis type films which show people walking away virtually unhurt from bullet wounds / car smashes / exploding helicopters etc.

I've nothing against the principle of realistic violence in films, or even unrealistic violence in cartoons, scifi (ie Matrix) and other "unreal" contexts. However I think it is irresponsible for film makers to trivialise and glorify violence.

------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so, Brain, but balancing a family and a career ... oooh, it's all too much for me. "