 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: PATTON posted by danj on January 02, 2004 at 01:16:25:
I like it as a film, accepting for a while Bradley's POV - it's hard to judge the artistic side of this film separately from the historical content.
Historical reconstruction of Patton himself is weak here: Scott was excellent, but his Patton just wasn't credible. It's a collection of anecdotes on Patton, not the real man. For example, the real Patton aged very quickly though the war (he was 60 in 1945, looking older than his real age - more like 70s). It doesn't happen in the film. The authors had to preserve this human continuity - whatever version of history (Bradley, Monty, Stalin..) they chose.
And I wish the Hammelsburg episode was there... the episode itself worth a whole film - but not in Hollywood, I suppose.
Follow Ups:
I don't think it's the best film I've ever seen. It's not even the best war film. As a biography it is much better than most Hollywood bios. I think it did deserve the best picture Oscar whereas I feel that many that win are undeserving.I really think the film did capture the essence of Patton, a very complicated, eccentric, yet brilliant man. It does not bother me that some of the tanks were not authentic. How many German Tigers and other WWII vehicles actually survived. Most were surplus 50s-era American Shermans painted to look like Panzers. Nonetheless, the tanks and the tank battles were very realistic for a Hollywood movie. Today they could CG a Tiger tank - in 1969 that kind of thing wasn't even a dream.
As for Scott's performance, I stand by my opinion that his was one of the great performances in film history. Of course, Scott was one of the better actors of his era and he left a great legacy.
Just off the top of my head I can come up with several movies with excellent performances by Scott:
1. Anatomy of a Murder
2. The Hustler
3. The Flim Flam Man (I love his performance in this film)
4. Dr. Strangelove
5. Patton
6. A Christmas Carol (He was a splendidly gruff Scrooge.)
And many more. And I forgive him for "Exocist III." I guess he needed the money.
he starred as a social worker in an old TV series called East Side, West Side that being broadcast on the Trio network.
Agree with you--the movie is mostly episodic.
I have some other minor complaints--Patton though the Ardennes Offensive was a diversionary attack at first, though the movie shows him at a meeting with other generals telling them he expected the attack.
The wrong military equipment was used, too.
As war films go, I like the stuff from John Irwin, and A Bridge Too Far .
You can't be serious... A Bridge Too Far - what a waste of talent and effort. "Too many notes" ... nice bridges but wrong tanks again!
which is unusual for Hollywood in itself. It's a movie about an Allied defeat, which is even more unusual.
And its more historically accurate than most war movies. The only real problem with the movie, as I see it, is the same as always--actors who play regular soldiers are about 20 years too old to be regular soldiers.
And the Irish Guards are using the correct Shermans with the 17-pounder cannon.
As I recall, it was the German vehicles that looked wrong in "Bridge". An excellent war flick. Yes, the fact that it was about an Allied defeat was most unusual and the film was more dramatic for it."Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers" had the most accurate vehicles and equipment I've ever seen in a WWII movie.
But "Kelly's Heroes" with it's short-body Tiger tank sequence at the end was the most enjoyable.
its actually a good war movie. The German armoured cars didn't look right, but at least the Allied tanks were correct.
I think the big problem folks have with Bridge is that it's hard to follow if you don't already know about Operation Market-Garden, and, since it was a Allied defeat, most people never heard of it.
Worst war movie for accuracy is the ridiculous The Battle of the Bulge . The climactic tank battle was filmed on plain in Spain (sorry about that) because the director wanted as much of action as possible visible to the viewers. Never mind that the battle was fought in the dead of winter, in the Ardennes Forest.
The names of the towns were changed, the names of the generals were changed, the objective of the offensive was changed. The actors who played the Germans (with the exception of the always excellent Robert Shaw) had excrutiatingly bad accents...another Hollywood mess.
Defeat? Montgomery didn't secure the objective at Arnhem. It's a failure, not defeat. I'm not sure that the very word 'defeat' or 'debacle' can be applicable for a minor tactical operation like Market Garden - with the enemy unable to reverse tables. Dunkirk in 1940 - that was a defeat, and a success for the British as well.
The Allies shifted all of their dwindling fuel resources to Market-Garden and all they ended up with was useless salient that had to be defended trench-warfare style.
The US First Army was then directed to support Monty's right flank. This led to the disastrous engagments in the Huertgen Forest and stalemate on the western front.
The breathing spell gave the Germans the space they needed to execute the Ardennes Offensive.
Market-Garden was no "minor tactical operation," either. It involved the entire Allied Airborne Army, and the British 30 Corps. It was a bold, if poorly thought-out, plan to turn the Siegfried Line and end the war in the fall of 1944.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
