New WWII movies coming!

"TooPlaneCrazy7" wrote in message
...
Thanks for your viewpoints. I disagree with Spielberg not showing the
viewpoints of the opposing forces. If you see his "war films" such as
Empire of
the Sun, SPR, and Schlinder's List, you'll see that Spielberg gives the
"enemy"
a human heart. Spielberg treats his characters with nothing short of
respect,
unlike most directors today.

Schindlers list was unmitigated bull despite the 'gravity' and authenticity
with which it was promoted. Schindlers widow said as much and more than a
few people have torn holes in the "facts" in that film.

Schindlers List goes down the highly selective path of 'righeous gentile'
which can only be accomplished by puting your life at risk for a Jew. It is
a holocaust movie not a war movie and it barely relates to the facts
unfortunatly.

I don't see that anywhere that Spielberg give a "human heart" as you say to
any German character in SPR (saving private ryan): He turns the main German
character into a vile treacherous and dishonourable ogre as is to be
expected. As is usual Germans are shown as idiots that have 2/3rds of
their bodies hanging out of a 'crap' poorly simulated "tiger tank" ready to
get shot up like idiots when in fact these tanks did NOT have peep holes for
americans to stick thompson submachine guns into, they opperated in pairs
and hosed of infantry of each other and had Grenade lauchers that fired up
Grenades vertically to clear any infantry on or near the tanks. In 'Band of
Brothers' they are just dumb targets.

Ok I understand that the Allies (Americans) win in the end and are the good
guys (even though some of them weren't) and the Germans not but they are
just another series of americanised, stereoptyped movies in which
characters, history, technology are so modified as to be utterly
meaningless.

It would be better of Spielberg would leave films about Historical events
like this to directors and producers with more integrity and authenticity.

Even "Memphis Bell" missed an opportunity and that is the best of the films.

I'm sick of this rubbish. Taking credit for a British fia't in obtaining
code books from a u-boat is another.

To tell you the truth, I don't think Americans are able to seperate
hollywood hype and historical fact from Hollywood fiction anymore. Some of
that is due to low intelligence and knowledge that we have in all
populations but it seems so widespread and so unchallenged that most of it
is due to Hollywood's lack of authenticity.

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 09:21:46 GMT, "The Enlightenment"
wrote:

I don't see that anywhere that Spielberg give a "human heart" as you say to
any German character in SPR (saving private ryan): He turns the main German
character into a vile treacherous and dishonourable ogre as is to be
expected.

Ogre? He's shown as scared out of his wits, and then is picked up by
another German unit and continues fighting. He never gave his word
that he's find Alliedf troops, so where id he lose his honour?

As is usual Germans are shown as idiots that have 2/3rds of
their bodies hanging out of a 'crap' poorly simulated "tiger tank" ready to
get shot up like idiots when in fact these tanks did NOT have peep holes for
americans to stick thompson submachine guns into

What about the Drivers vision slot like at
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWtiger.htm ?

, they opperated in pairs
and hosed of infantry of each other and had Grenade lauchers that fired up
Grenades vertically to clear any infantry on or near the tanks. In 'Band of
Brothers' they are just dumb targets.

On a narow street how can tanks be mutually supporting? That's what
the infantry was for. And don't forget the TIger was stripped of
attackers by the 20mm at one point.

No arguments about U-571 being a bag of pants though - worst film I
saw that year.

Peter Kemp

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

In a special category, I believe, is Henry Fonda's "Battle of the
Bulge." Yes, I could deal with US armor on both sides. It was the
tumbleweeds blowing through the "Ardennes" that was a bit much.

Well, you got to go where they'll let you to film those things.
And I imagine the current residents of Bastogn might object to
the special affects.

On 10 Aug 2004 11:42:15 -0700, (Nick) wrote:

I'll grant you that if you take a film like SPR at face value while
watching it, the message seems to be unclear

Personally, I thought SPR one of the worst movies I'd ever seen, in
the sense that it got everything wrong that was important--and a lot
of unimportant things as well. I would rank it below Pearl Harbor, for
example.

Perhaps what really irritated Art was that Tom Hanks was a 1990s
character suffering all the 1990s hangups, magically transported back
to 1944. He wasn't even my contemporary, never mind Art's. The things
that weighed on his soul just wouldn't have weighed on the soul of
that 1940s captain who'd gone through the Great Depression and the
years leading up to Omaha Beach.

I can't take time to list all the errors in the film. It was the
creation of two men (Spielberg and Hanks) who had never gone through
basic training, so they made every basic error it was possible to
make, based on the war movies they'd seen. It is curious that, given
this history, they were then responsible for what must be one of the
best TV doco-dramas ever made, Band of Brothers.

BOB shows that it is possible to make a decent WWII film, or at least
WWII video. But I'll be that the future lies with such fantasies as
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, in which Jude Law will lead a
merry band of adventurers in Curtiss P-40s--shark faces, yes!--against
alien invaders. I am looking forward to this more than to any film in
the past ten years. www.warbirdforum.com/skycap.htm

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

"Battle of the Bulge.........I could deal with US armor on both sides. It
was the tumbleweeds blowing through the "Ardennes" that was a bit much."

roflmao

Perhaps what really irritated Art was that Tom Hanks was a 1990s
character suffering all the 1990s hangups, magically transported back
to 1944. He wasn't even my contemporary, never mind Art's. The things
that weighed on his soul just wouldn't have weighed on the soul of
that 1940s captain who'd gone through the Great Depression and the
years leading up to Omaha Beach.

I looked at the whole squad and flashed back to Lee Marvin in "The Dirty
Dozen". He was two years older than Hanks when he made that and he looked like
he could have taken on the whole bunch singlehanded.
The story was based on a real episode related in Ambrose's "Citizen Soldiers"
or "Band of Brothers"--a paratrooper whose brothers had been killed was taken
out of combat--but the searcher was a chaplain, on his own. THAT might have
made a better movie, and a better role for Hanks, but they seem to have wanted
to remake a "Combat" episode with a big budget.

"Tom Cervo" wrote in message
...
Perhaps what really irritated Art was that Tom Hanks was a 1990s
character suffering all the 1990s hangups, magically transported back
to 1944. He wasn't even my contemporary, never mind Art's. The things
that weighed on his soul just wouldn't have weighed on the soul of
that 1940s captain who'd gone through the Great Depression and the
years leading up to Omaha Beach.

I looked at the whole squad and flashed back to Lee Marvin in "The Dirty
Dozen". He was two years older than Hanks when he made that and he looked
like
he could have taken on the whole bunch singlehanded.

Well yes but Lee Marvin was a US marine who saw action
in the Pacific and was wounded during the invasion of Saipan.

Keith





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Well yes but Lee Marvin was a US marine who saw action
in the Pacific and was wounded during the invasion of Saipan.


There were a lot of veterans who made movies, but the eerie thing about Marvin
is that until very late in life he looked like he was still active duty--and at
46 he looked like he could take men half his age.

Well you guys are not gonna like the new Tom Cruise WWII film about the Battle
of Britain.....

(TooPlaneCrazy7) wrote:

Well you guys are not gonna like the new Tom Cruise WWII film about the
Battle
of Britain.....

Please tell me you're joking.

Please.

His character is Billy Fiske. American volunteer pilot for the Brits in Battle
of Britain. They were the Eagle Squadron.

Olympic Gold medalist.

Love story.

Guns. Explosions.

Top Gun 2?

Yep, it's real: "The actor also spoke admiringly of Mann, who will direct him
again in "The Few," an upcoming biopic of an American WWII pilot set to begin
shooting later this year. "The layers upon layers that he puts into the film
— that's what makes him Michael Mann."
--from
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...71964_5/?hub=E
ntertainment