28 Days Later (I dislike zombies in general, but I thought I might go out on a limb) A Bridge Too Far (A good older flick that I’ve seen, but liked) Patton (Three hours of George C. Scott) Rambo (This would be like… fourth blood, or some such)
I don’t particularly expect to like any of them so I’m impartial. Opinions?
Patton’s great, worth seeing for Scott’s performance alone.
A Bridge Too Far I haven’t seen, but I’ve heard it’s good. It has incidentally one of the most ridiculously large casts ever. I think it’s something like Michael Caine, Robert Redford, Maximillian Schell, Peter O’Toole, James Caan, and on and on and on. I might have gotten a few names wrong but it’s pretty much a who’s who of 70s stars.
William Goldman writes about the film (for which he wrote the screenplay) in his book “Adventures in the Screen Trade.”
Not sure which Rambo you are referring to, I guess the last one by your “fourth blood” comment. I haven’t seen that, nor 28 Days. I suppose the Geek Contingent on these boards will advocate 28 Days; from what I have been told it is the bee’s knees. Since I am generally uninterested in zombies, I haven’t gotten around to seeing it yet.
Patton is fucking great. Incidentally, one of my family’s traditional Christmas movies is the George C. Scott version of A Christmas Carol, and we’ve taken to calling it “the Patton version.” It’s the best version of the story in my opinion, mostly due to Scott being the most awesome Scrooge ever, but also due to the performances of David Warner (as Cratchit) and Roger Rees (as Cousin Fred).
I mislike polls, thus this isn’t one… but yes, could have been.
I opted for the latest Rambo film because;
A) I’ve seen the others as a much younger person and figured I’m going to have to watch this one eventually anyway.
B) I’m tired and this promised to be some pretty mindless, nothinking required violence porn. (it was)
C) It’s only an hour and a half long as opposed to… well, longer for the other options.
As it turned out, it wasn’t half bad. I mean yes it was a damned Rambo film so you get what you get, but all in all it was in keeping with the other films in the series while at the same time sort of coming out of the 80’s a bit and being “new”. It sort of wrapped up at the end too, which was neat though I could have used a bit more of that and a few less full screen close-up disembowelments. Regardless, I don’t regret watching it and that’s about as good a review as I give any movie these days.
Burned myself slightly there, but for want of a match. Thanks for providing.
There’s almost too many of you people around here, but if we keep quiet like a family with a prison bound uncle the past will remain just that. I think I’ll stay right here for now but mention it not, and it will never come up again. :)
I was finally able to watch Patton in it’s entirety for the first time the other night (had only seen bits and pieces before) and while there are some slow spots, I thought that altogether it was an awesome movie. The music is one of the best parts of it, in my opinion.
Patton is the only actually great, can’t miss movie on your list, although the only one can be directly compared to (IMO) is A Bridge Too Far. Where Patton takes creative liberties in the interests of giving a stronger impression of the man in question (more filling in blanks and taking strong stances on matters of opinion and perspective than anything else), ABTF simply makes shit up at times (Robert Redford’s “victory”, straight stolen from the actual British troops who did it) in the service of its general lack of understanding of what kind of movie it wants to be. You end up with what feels like an endless stream of star cameos of varying quality that ends up feeling shallower than honestly fictionalized war movies. I guess I can see people appreciating it because of its raw star power or the effort put into the visuals, but overall I find it a difficult movie to recommend beyond “give it a shot if it’s on TNT”.
Sorry, you’re totally wrong about this. I’ve read the book and it was the US troops that crossed the in the boats as portrayed in the movie and under the officer that Redford portrayed (Maj. Julian Cook):
Boats ordered by the 82nd Airborne the day before failed to arrive until afternoon, and a hasty daylight assault crossing was ordered. At about 15:00 the 3rd Battalion, 504th PIR, made the crossing in 26 canvas assault boats into well-defended positions. The American unit had no training on the British-made boats. A shortage of paddles required some troopers to paddle the craft with rifle butts. About half the boats survived the crossing under heavy fire; survivors then assaulted across 200 meters (200 yards) of open ground on the far bank and seized the north end of the bridge. German forces withdrew from both ends of the bridge, which was then rushed by Guards tanks and the 2nd Battalion, 505th PIR, securing the bridge after four days of struggle. The costly attack was nicknamed “Little Omaha” in reference to Omaha Beach.
On September 20, in order to support the 505th attack and secure the bridge at Nijmegen, Major Julian Cook was ordered to cross the rushing Waal River in daylight with his 3rd Battalion and the support of Company C, 307th Engineer Battalion. In 26 canvas boats Major Cook and his battalion performed the death-defying feat of securing the north side of the bridges. Casualties were high and only thirteen boats returned to carry the second wave of the assault. But the 504th found the intestinal fortitude to perservere and triumph.
The British General, Sir Miles Dempsey, after witnessing the 504th crossing the Waal, characterized the attack with a single word as he shook his head and said, “Unbelievable.”
The movie shows this exactly has happened. US forces crossing in boats while British tanks attack across the bridge as the paratroopers seize the German end. I don’t know where you’re getting the idea this was made up.
Both movies based off of Ryan’s books, “The Longest DaY” and ABTF follow history pretty closely for movies. I’d be interested in knowing what else you think was made up.
Well, your disagreement is with Attenborough, not me. He freely admits to adding to Redford’s role for “good box office” purposes in the little “historical accuracy” booklet thingy that comes with the CE. I don’t have my copy around, it seems, or I would quote the exact section I’m referring to, but that’s where I got that wacky idea. If I’ve somehow totally perverted his words since I saw them years ago, then by all means. But I didn’t make it up.
In any case, I shouldn’t have made it sound like the inaccuracies (which are relatively minor) are my main beef with it. It’s a movie, not a documentary, and if they muddy the waters somewhat when it comes to exactly why XXX corps was delayed, it’s not really that big a deal. If anything, compared to others (especially at the time) it is its accuracy that should probably be held as its strongest general feature. I completely screwed the pooch when I characterized the movie that way, and it’s good that you called me on that incorrect comment.
To me, the biggest issue is the star cast in the way its employed. Because of the tiny snapshot to snapshot way the story is told, it ends up being more about how Anthony Hopkins and Gene Hackman can play themselves in smashing uniforms saying great lines. I find it impossible with the amount of development allowed each character to think of them as anything other than the actor playing a role; there is no suspension of disbelief except in the set pieces of violence, which are superb, and the movie is at its best when you are watching the mostly anonymous in action or when the set pieces overwhelm the names onscreen.
I think the movie would have benefited greatly from more focus on fewer story threads and a narrower scope. I can see why people like it, and I certainly don’t hate the movie, but I wouldn’t recommend it over Patton, which I think is great as a movie and as a take on history. I tend to prefer impressionistic versions of war stories vs literal ones, and I tend to view them as inherently more accurate experiences even if they fudge more details in the service of their narrative.