|
|
Post by eDemento2099 on Jan 18, 2016 19:13:11 GMT -5
Modern War films my number one genre of film I really dislike. There is nothing more unenjoyable to me than watching a true story of a bunch of soldiers getting mown down by machine gun fire, a tale of persecution by Nazis or spending hours waiting for some sniper to finally take a shot. I share your feelings. I didn't like Saving Private Ryan because it was non-stop slaughter, almost completely devoid of plot of dialog. I can't imagine waiting for a sniper to be entertaining, unless it was pulled off like it was in Full Metal Jacket. The films I cited in my original post really changed my preconceptions of what a war film could be. |
|
crabbymelt
ALF
I'm going to kick the living POOP out of him.
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by crabbymelt on Jan 18, 2016 19:38:28 GMT -5
Ok I have some oddball favorites. First off, the most recent one I liked, because I was an art student, was Monuments Men. It tells a different story then just shooting at things. Staying on the same war, The Great Escape. I grew up watching it with my dad, and of course that ending. And throwing this one out there, Grave of the Fireflies. No film showcases crippling despair better.
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Jan 18, 2016 21:16:20 GMT -5
Platoon ... You can hate Barnes all you want but he was right Right about what, specifically? That he was right because Elias 'went against the machine'? (My question is not meant to be rhetorical; please take it at face value.) This could b a long answer and I'll try to keep it from gong into political territory. When I was a young trooper Elias was the kind of Sgt we all wished we had. There were very very few of that quality (seemingly easy going but still gets the job done). I watched that film the first time before I had ever stepped off to see the elephant and believed that all th asshole Barneses I had encountered were the problem with the military and that if everyone had Elias's mentality we would be not only victorious but could do so with clean honor. I maintained this until I had gotten into it enough and recognized reality. It is an ugly thing we have to do over there. There is nothing safe or fun about it and the other guy is not ever going to be merciful. If you try to be merciful people next to you get killed in awful ways and it (the whole war) gets prolonged because they will always be more horrific and violent because they can't match you in skill or hardware. Violence of action is used to overwhelm someone and is only effective if it is total. You all saw the nice sanitized CNN and Natgeo friendly shots of the shock and awe air campaign. The BDA afterward was even cleaned up for tv. But when you hold back for the sake of hearts and minds back home, you screw yourself down range. In shock and awe we targeted gov buildings and infrastructure. Clean as a sheet compared to some methods. But it was measured. No matter how destructive a cluster of 500lb bombs is or how incredibly scary it is to be close by when it's raining bombs and shells, the measured nature of those strikes meant it primarily effected the civilians close by. The armed force you faced was not fazed a bit by it. We got to see it from a street side view and did our own BDA that was quite different from what the cameras showed everyone. That shit is ****ed up man. It was no wonder the insurgents were so savage when they started fighting. They understood they had to be more savage. They turned our own people against the effort because the people had an Elias mentality. I am not advocating Mai Lai style or Haditha style approaches. But th cold hard truth is if with our hardware, manpower and skill, we fought as they do in Vietnam, Iraq and Afhghanistan, nobody would dare &@$; with us. If Vietnam were filled with Barnes leaders in the American armed forces and the American public understood the potential success of that, the war would have been over in 69 and would not stain the US psyche. But you cannot remain human and operate that way. There is a tax on that man and it's up stairs. No matter how nicely you fight nor how savage, it screws with you because we have been raised since birth to think that maiming and killing is wrong and horrific (it is). But step aside for a moment and forget what you know. The people of North Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq have known horrors like this as day to day life and have been taught that to kill in righteousness is to gain glory and is right. If everyday you went to elementary school, you were exposed to war, you'd have a completely different take on the morality of killing and maiming (few posses the ability to rise above that and they are blessed). So you grow up seeing it and Bing powerless in it but you survive into manhood. Then it's your turn and somebody comes in who bombs your school and says it's an accident. They kill your cousins or somebody you went to school with. You no longer care what his politics are or why he is here only that he should go and yr life would be fine. So you take what you were raised with and what you have been taught in fighting and you are cruel and violent. Barnes understood that enemy and his background and knew he needed to be hard and to make his men hard or they would die and fail. Barnes was not concerned about Johnson or Nixon's hearts and minds campaigns. H simply understood the situation and thought he could keep himself and his men alive if he kept pace with the level of violence he faced in his enemy. When I said he was right I meant that in his situation conflicted with Elias's and one methodology had to prevail in that situation. Otherwise the division between the platoon would get them all killed (that is a long xplantation in itself). I am not saying it is right in general or as a blanket policy. Only that Barnes was right in his methods at that place, time and situation (except for killing Elias, that is a toke over the line and it's murder period). I hope I've cleared up why I said he was right and have not freaked you out man. If y'd rather, we can debate the matter in PM so as not to disrupt the thread. I'm not a sadist. I hate that I was in some of the situations I was in but I have to own all of it. That isn't easy at all. There is the way we wish it were and there is the way it is. It's an ugly ugly business and it utterly changed who I thought I was on every level. I'm sorry if I got too far into this but sometimes it comes out and it's hard to stop. I've tried to be careful here too cause I don't want you thinking I'm some psycho. I'm pretty level compared to some guys I was over with. Anyway man, I hope we're ok |
|
|
|
Post by eDemento2099 on Jan 19, 2016 8:36:54 GMT -5
Right about what, specifically? That he was right because Elias 'went against the machine'? (My question is not meant to be rhetorical; please take it at face value.) This could b a long answer and I'll try to keep it from gong into political territory. When I was a young trooper Elias was the kind of Sgt we all wished we had. There were very very few of that quality (seemingly easy going but still gets the job done). I watched that film the first time before I had ever stepped off to see the elephant and believed that all th asshole Barneses I had encountered were the problem with the military and that if everyone had Elias's mentality we would be not only victorious but could do so with clean honor. I maintained this until I had gotten into it enough and recognized reality. It is an ugly thing we have to do over there. There is nothing safe or fun about it and the other guy is not ever going to be merciful. If you try to be merciful people next to you get killed in awful ways and it (the whole war) gets prolonged because they will always be more horrific and violent because they can't match you in skill or hardware. Violence of action is used to overwhelm someone and is only effective if it is total. You all saw the nice sanitized CNN and Natgeo friendly shots of the shock and awe air campaign. The BDA afterward was even cleaned up for tv. But when you hold back for the sake of hearts and minds back home, you screw yourself down range. In shock and awe we targeted gov buildings and infrastructure. Clean as a sheet compared to some methods. But it was measured. No matter how destructive a cluster of 500lb bombs is or how incredibly scary it is to be close by when it's raining bombs and shells, the measured nature of those strikes meant it primarily effected the civilians close by. The armed force you faced was not fazed a bit by it. We got to see it from a street side view and did our own BDA that was quite different from what the cameras showed everyone. That shit is ****ed up man. It was no wonder the insurgents were so savage when they started fighting. They understood they had to be more savage. They turned our own people against the effort because the people had an Elias mentality. I am not advocating Mai Lai style or Haditha style approaches. But th cold hard truth is if with our hardware, manpower and skill, we fought as they do in Vietnam, Iraq and Afhghanistan, nobody would dare &@$; with us. If Vietnam were filled with Barnes leaders in the American armed forces and the American public understood the potential success of that, the war would have been over in 69 and would not stain the US psyche. But you cannot remain human and operate that way. There is a tax on that man and it's up stairs. No matter how nicely you fight nor how savage, it screws with you because we have been raised since birth to think that maiming and killing is wrong and horrific (it is). But step aside for a moment and forget what you know. The people of North Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq have known horrors like this as day to day life and have been taught that to kill in righteousness is to gain glory and is right. If everyday you went to elementary school, you were exposed to war, you'd have a completely different take on the morality of killing and maiming (few posses the ability to rise above that and they are blessed). So you grow up seeing it and Bing powerless in it but you survive into manhood. Then it's your turn and somebody comes in who bombs your school and says it's an accident. They kill your cousins or somebody you went to school with. You no longer care what his politics are or why he is here only that he should go and yr life would be fine. So you take what you were raised with and what you have been taught in fighting and you are cruel and violent. Barnes understood that enemy and his background and knew he needed to be hard and to make his men hard or they would die and fail. Barnes was not concerned about Johnson or Nixon's hearts and minds campaigns. H simply understood the situation and thought he could keep himself and his men alive if he kept pace with the level of violence he faced in his enemy. When I said he was right I meant that in his situation conflicted with Elias's and one methodology had to prevail in that situation. Otherwise the division between the platoon would get them all killed (that is a long xplantation in itself). I am not saying it is right in general or as a blanket policy. Only that Barnes was right in his methods at that place, time and situation (except for killing Elias, that is a toke over the line and it's murder period). I hope I've cleared up why I said he was right and have not freaked you out man. If y'd rather, we can debate the matter in PM so as not to disrupt the thread. I'm not a sadist. I hate that I was in some of the situations I was in but I have to own all of it. That isn't easy at all. There is the way we wish it were and there is the way it is. It's an ugly ugly business and it utterly changed who I thought I was on every level. I'm sorry if I got too far into this but sometimes it comes out and it's hard to stop. I've tried to be careful here too cause I don't want you thinking I'm some psycho. I'm pretty level compared to some guys I was over with. Anyway man, I hope we're ok Thanks for offering such a thorough answer. I don't think you're a psycho at all, and I never had any problems with you. I appreciate how candidly you speak about the realities of war, because too many people only see the whitewashed images on TV (and especially in the news) and have a naive impression of what goes on, even on the 'good guy's' side on the action. Getting back to Platoon, had Barnes not wounded Elias and left him for dead, he may have been court-martialed for the village incident. It's tough to say what the 'right' course of action should have been, especially when viewers try to put themselves in the shoes of Elias or Barnes. The obvious thing is to say that there shouldn't have been an incident at the village, but what was with the booby traps, and why did the village have enough supplies to aid an army? |
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Jan 19, 2016 9:12:06 GMT -5
The Beast of War - About a group of Mujahideen hunting a Soviet tank that destroyed a village. It's excellent.
No Man's Land - A Serbian movie about two soldiers in the Bosnian war from opposing sides who become trapped in no man's land along with a third man who has been booby trapped over a landmine. It's excellent with a quality ending.
Kelly's Heroes - Just a shit load of fun. I love it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Limity (BLM) on Jan 19, 2016 9:27:48 GMT -5
ICBM brings up a great point that has always bothered me. The idea that the military is charged with winning over the populace, with winning over the "hearts and minds". That cannot be the military's responsibility or mission, as that goes against the nature of what armed forces is and is supposed to be.
That would be akin to charging the diplomatic corp with doing the actual fighting. Makes no sense.
Now back on topic, I'll say Black Hawk Down. I knew quite a few guys and even a gal that was over there. After skimming the thread, that seems to be an overlooked movie, and shame on all of you!
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Jan 19, 2016 14:14:55 GMT -5
eDemento2099, thank you for your understandinh and I believe I missed typed. Barnes left Elias for dead, he did not kill him. I was rolling with my reply and it went on missed. You are fairly close to the mark in my opinion. He likely would have been courts martialed but likely way later when the unit was stateside or not comprised of the same folks. I do agree the village was an operating base or patrol base for VC. So Barnes was correct in his hunch but in the main, the methods right at the time, would have been held against him.
|
|
|
|
Post by eDemento2099 on Jan 20, 2016 10:45:17 GMT -5
eDemento2099, thank you for your understandinh and I believe I missed typed. Barnes left Elias for dead, he did not kill him. I was rolling with my reply and it went on missed. You are fairly close to the mark in my opinion. He likely would have been courts martialed but likely way later when the unit was stateside or not comprised of the same folks. I do agree the village was an operating base or patrol base for VC. So Barnes was correct in his hunch but in the main, the methods right at the time, would have been held against him. Barnes deliberately shooting Elias and leaving him to die is borderline indistinguishable from outright murdering him. For all we know, Barnes meant to kill Elias on the spot when he shot him. In fact, I would not doubt that murdering Elias was Barnes' motive. If Elias died, Barnes would have one less person to testify against Barnes for war crimes. By eliminating Elias, Barnes presumably lessened the likelihood that he would be court martialed, or at least got revenge against someone who would have certainly testified against him in court. Barnes seems evil either way, but again, what would any rational person do if they were in his shoes? The obvious answer is that there never should have been an incident at the village, but - as the film illustrates so very well - things get complicated in the 'fog of war.' War isn't the clear-cut battle of one side of angels fighting against one side of angels that politicians and the news like to portray it as. The ending of Inglorious Bastards makes it clear that sometimes the so-called heroes are indistinguishable from the villains when wars play out under difficult circumstances. I am honestly not sure what was going on at the village. I sympathize with Chris Taylor for acting in a state of high frustration, but thought Bunny and Barnes were way out of line. Still, I'm glad that scene was in the movie (and was deliberately ambiguous), because there are still people who know nothing of incidences like My Lai (or even the mass spraying of Agent Orange) and insist that harsh responses from the media and the government would literally make Western forces incapable of causing preventable harm and death to non-combatants. Sadly, there seems to be no reaching those people, even after reports of Abu Ghraib broke not too long ago. |
|
|
|
Post by eDemento2099 on Jan 20, 2016 10:55:35 GMT -5
I'll say Black Hawk Down. I knew quite a few guys and even a gal that was over there. After skimming the thread, that seems to be an overlooked movie, and shame on all of you! Never seen it, even though I am a fan of Kubrick's other war film (Full Metal Jacket). From what I saw in trailers and based around the time it came out, it seemed to be a movie about the recent invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. Those aren't wars I'm drawn to like 'Nam, and the timing of the film led me to assume unfavorable things about it. I probably should give it a chance, given that I already like what the director did in FMJ. |
|
pegasuswarrior
El Dandy
Three Time FAN Idol Champion
@PulpPictionary
Posts: 8,748 
|
Post by pegasuswarrior on Jan 20, 2016 11:00:19 GMT -5
I hate when people seem to say things in threads like these just to be the odd person with an answer no one has said yet.
But I actually came in here after reading the thread title ready to quote whoever said The Battle of Algiers.
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,310
Member is Online
|
Post by Push R Truth on Jan 20, 2016 11:03:00 GMT -5
I've had a couple veterans that served in the 70's say that a good portion of Stripes is frighteningly close to the mark.
|
|
|
|
Post by Limity (BLM) on Jan 20, 2016 16:59:43 GMT -5
I'll say Black Hawk Down. I knew quite a few guys and even a gal that was over there. After skimming the thread, that seems to be an overlooked movie, and shame on all of you! Never seen it, even though I am a fan of Kubrick's other war film (Full Metal Jacket). From what I saw in trailers and based around the time it came out, it seemed to be a movie about the recent invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. Those aren't wars I'm drawn to like 'Nam, and the timing of the film led me to assume unfavorable things about it. I probably should give it a chance, given that I already like what the director did in FMJ. Black Hawk Down is about the conflict in Somalia in the 90s and was directed by Ridley Scott. |
|
bob
Salacious Crumb
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 78,663
|
Post by bob on Jan 20, 2016 17:22:11 GMT -5
in order my favorite war films - Dr. Strangelove, Lawrence of Arabia, Paths of Glory, Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Inglourious Basterds, Full Metal Jacket and Saving Private Ryan
the HBO Series Band of Brothers is amazing too
|
|
|
|
Post by eDemento2099 on Jan 20, 2016 18:02:07 GMT -5
Never seen it, even though I am a fan of Kubrick's other war film (Full Metal Jacket). From what I saw in trailers and based around the time it came out, it seemed to be a movie about the recent invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. Those aren't wars I'm drawn to like 'Nam, and the timing of the film led me to assume unfavorable things about it. I probably should give it a chance, given that I already like what the director did in FMJ. Black Hawk Down is about the conflict in Somalia in the 90s and was directed by Ridley Scott. Ah, Mr. Scott. I sometimes confuse him with Stanley Kubrick. |
|
