 
|
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 |
I'm a fan of the Pacific War theatre, and would like to get a decent movie collection of the genre. Any suggestions? I'd like pre US involvement as well, if any exist, (imperial Japan type).
Follow Ups:
Hell to Eternity circa 1963. Stars Jeffrey Hunter and David Jansen. The capture of the island of Saipan is the setting.
Takes place on Guadalcanal, that IS the Pacific, isn't it? My vote for best war movie ever, it's both harrowing and beautiful.
.
.
Your first claim is supportable, but the second one:***My vote for best war movie ever,
I don't think so, there are just too many contenders that are to this one what quantum mechanics is to arithmetics.
MY vote; purely subjective, of course. And, as they say, "your mileage may vary." Another reason may be that I saw a GORGEOUS revived Technicolor dye-transfer process print, claimed to be the only one in existence for this movie at the Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood under the auspices of American Cinemateque - a first class experience in every way.
The Thin Red Line from the early 60's was better in many respects, it was not "arty" or beautiful, and it starred Kier Dullea from 2001 fame who I think did a pretty good job of portraying Doll as a man on the verge of losing it.It's really a film about Doll's grim determination to survive,and his view that officers are jerks, and ultimately war is useless. The battle scenes are pretty good.
Worth seeing- if you don't mind accepting the limitations of script and violence in war movies of the time.
Will Java Island count as 'Pacific'?
'Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence'
"Hell In The Pacific" - 1968, starring L. Marvin and T. Mifune. - AH
In WWII, he was a Marine wounded in the Battle of Saipan. It couldn't have hurt his chances of being cast in that film.
he too was a Marine in WWII and was wounded in Okinawa. - AH
That battle had a buildup which equals or surpasses the Normandy invasion and intense fighting which equals or surpasses Stalingrad.Thousands of kamikazes, worlds largest battleship Yamamoto sent without fuel for the return, tunnel networks galore...can't even begin to imagine the horror. And the intense hatred the two sides had for each other, must have been utterly brutal. I think of the more than 100000 japanese defenders, about a dozen survived. Luckily the Geneva convention did not exsist yet, or that battle probably would have had a lot more publicity on the negative side. War is hell!
***That battle had a buildup which equals or surpasses the Normandy invasion and intense fighting which equals or surpasses Stalingrad.Interesting... "surpassed Stalingrad"?... care to dump some facts on us? If my memory is right, out of about 330,000 germans only 90,000 survived Stalingrad. Add to that all the Germans on the other side, plus the Luftwaffe...
Stalingrad will forever be the ultimate hellhole.Hey vic. Any great Russian war movies you can recommend? Preferably with english subtitles.
***Stalingrad will forever be the ultimate hellhole.I'd say. According to some sources it was the largest battle ever in the history. Also, about one million deaths attributed to that battle.
***Hey vic. Any great Russian war movies you can recommend? Preferably with english subtitles.Obvioulsy there were a lot of propaganda films, but some of them were exceptionally good. Just off the top of my head: "The Cranes are Flying" (a tremendous film), "Ballad of a Soldier" (unforgettable), and perhaps "Childhood of Ivan" (by Tarkovsky).
I know the last one IS available with subtitles, have no idea about the other ones.
Hello Victor,Have you seen the epic 2 part Stalingrad film made shortly after the war ? I've only ever read about it, I'm sure it is very "patriotic" but what is it like as a war film and historical piece ? Plenty of equipment available as well (did you notice that the chassis of the Tiger tanks in Saving Private Ryan were t-34's ? I thought they looked a bit small).
***Have you seen the epic 2 part Stalingrad film made shortly after the war ? I've only ever read about it, I'm sure it is very "patriotic" but what is it like as a war film and historical piece ?Sorry, I don't recall that film.
***Plenty of equipment available as well (did you notice that the chassis of the Tiger tanks in Saving Private Ryan were t-34's ? I thought they looked a bit small).No, I didn't notice. But in terms of war trivia, Germany used a lot of captured equipment and weapons, from virtually any country. So for instance, during the Jursk battle, when the two tank armies collided at Prokhorovka, there were many captured T-34's in the SS tank divisiona.
Germans were constantly short on weapons, so they put everything they could get their hands on into action - Russian rufles, Czeck weapons, even the Norvegian .45 caliber pistol - so yes, there WAS out beloved .45 in service of Wehrmacht.
But I am not the great expert on tank siluettes - alghouth I have the Soviet tank colonel working here with us, and I am sure he would be able to spot any such inconsistencies in a microsecond.
On the subject of an epic war movie - there was a completely monumental work produced in USSR I think in 1975, to commemorate the 30th aniversary of the Victory. It consisted of, I believe, four parts, each one probably over two hours long, wide screen format and incredible battle scenes. It was probably called "Great Patrioic War" (a no-brainer...) and they collected many, many excellent actors in that film.
to paint very large black crosses on the turrets of the captured t-34's etc. (to make sure their own anti- tank units did not fire on them!) On their snow camouflage background, these large crosses must have looked like very nice targets for the Russians!The Germans also used the captured Russian 76mm cannon effectively- using it in many anti- tank designs on their older Pz1 chassis etc.
I thought the 1992 Stalingrad was very good- and unusual being told from the viewpoint of the German infantry, I haven't seen Enemy at the Gates- got some bad reviews- wait for the DVD to rent.
I'm trying to think of the title to one of the best films I've seen set in WW2- I'll post it when I remember- it was Russian.
***I'm trying to think of the title to one of the best films I've seen set in WW2- I'll post it when I remember- it was Russian.I would be quite curious...
I know that whenever anybody says "the best film of its genre" you are always suspicious- but nothing prepared me for the onslaught of this film.Written and directed by Elem Klimov, it is set during the retreat of the Germans from Belarus. If you want to see where Spielberg stole many of his ideas for Saving Private Ryan- this is the film.
Unlike Hollywood, this film does not spare the viewer anything. Emotionally a very disturbing and haunting film. I'm not even sure I'd like to see it again-
I didn't see that one, it was after my time, so to say (1985). I remember some of the earlier Klimov's work, commedies... so this would be quite a turn for him. I could probably find it locally at the Russian store, but my wife might object to it - she is very sensitive to scenes of suffering.But I cal always watch it by myself... is it really that good? Dmitry, did you see it (that guy is often few steps ahead of me in certain areas).
I agree with you regarding that silly "best" title, and in that category it would have to compete with some of the best movies ever - see my short list elsewhere in this discussion.
...this review and it makes me want to see it. It sounds like I will definitely have to watch it alone, though.http://us.imdb.com/Title?0091251#comment
But discussing the horrors of war of this scale is impossible without bringing personal experiences into the picture, and the lack of these is going to handicap significantly any attempt at ture understanding. Like in duscussing brutal rape, one can never trully understand its implications without being a victim of such horrible crime.
I recall being three and five years old, going to the kitchen in our large communal appartment, hearing the stories of the siege of Leningrad that those women had to tell. I still remember many of those stories, stories of hunger told in a matter-of-fact manner, of eating rats and carpenter glue and leather boots. That experience put those who went through it in a special camp and everyone else was an outsider.
And since most of us here lack that kind of experience, the movie maker has to resort to silly explosions and plastic guts in his attempt to make the point that simply needs to be whispered in the ear.
That is a pretty good review Victor,I'd go further and say when a talented director is given artistic freedom, the results are pretty impressive. Interestingly, there aren't that many acts of violence graphically depicted, but the results of that violence are.
The jerky, camera movement, muting of the sound etc. work very well to make you frightened- anticipating the horrors is as bad as witnessing them.
As I said- I'm not sure I'd like to see it again. There is one scene where a lot of people walked out of the cinema- it won't spoil it for you if I tell you it involved the death of an animal- not a human being. Funny you should mention "rape"- an unforgettable scene involving that subject as well, again you see the aftermath, not the act.
Remembering this film is almost like what dealing with repressed memories must be like !
This is the film which destroys any notion of heroism in war- there is only death and destruction, physical and spiritual.
Definitely not for the faint-hearted.
My local sources don't have it, but www.bestvideo.com does (what don't they have?) so I am getting mentally ready to part with my $17.Thanks for the great tip.
.
Hello Nick,If you think that the articles of the Geneva Convention did not apply to the US prior to 1949, then you are wrong.
If you think that I would bother to correct you if I didn't think it was important, then at least have the courtesy to check your facts.
The first "Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of
the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" was signed by 12
countries. The international treaty, known as the Geneva Convention,
also guaranteed the neutrality of members of the Red Cross.The United States was accepted and granted accession in 1882.
Here is a link to The Avalon Project at Yale University
Of course they did. But do u really believe no violations occured during WW2?
If you think the US only supplied boyscouts as Marines and soldiers, I think you've seen too many Harrison Ford movies. Wake up!
***Of course they did. But do u really believe no violations occured during WW2?
If you think the US only supplied boyscouts as Marines and soldiers, I think you've seen too many Harrison Ford movies. Wake up!No boyscouts, you say? You are right, of course. And no one should condone any such behavior.
But for the true sense of proportion please review the Japanese atrocities in China and against the US servicemen. Sometimes it makes me wonder why all that fixation with SS and extermination camps when the Japanese have done things at least as horrible.
At least I don't recall any stories about the "killing competitions" between the German officers.
The really sad fact is how the Japanese tone down what they did in their history books.
I was stationed in Japan twice (two six month tours) while I was in the Marines, and now and then theree were dibates about the war. Most young Japanese actually believed it was the US that attacked Japan first and thus started the great Pacific war! This according to english language (but Japanese) newspapers who'd done survays among students.
Don't get me wrong, the Japanese are extremely nice and polite, I enjoyed very much my 12 months there, but it's a shame they are so deeply proud as people that they just cannot handle the bad parts of their history.
I guess a few years as a Jar-Head really doesn't help, nor living in a non english speaking country. But still I have no good excuse for my horrid english. Sorry folks.
How long have you lived in the US Vic?
.
"Luckily the Geneva convention did not exsist yet" was the statement you made.All I did was point out that the Geneva Convention did exist. If you want to change your point to "The Geneva Conventions may as well not have existed in the minds of those brave men who faced the most difficult circumstances during the war against the Japanese"- go right ahead.
Thank you, I am wide awake by the way, and as far as I know Harrison Ford has made only 1 WW2 action movie- "Force 10 from Navarone", but Hanover Street was set in WW2 England. You should have used Van Johson or John wayne or even Vic Morrow.
If you want to see a Pacific War movie explore the ambivalence which marines faced towards the Japanese, try "Hell to Eternity".
Its about the true story of a marine-"Gabby" Gabaldon who was brought up by a Japanese family in the US. The action takes place on Saipan, it's not a great film, but the hero wrestles with his conscience many times. After seeing his buddy savagely killed then hacked by a katana wielding Japanese officer- he goes on a rampage, taking no prisoners, even shooting unarmed Japanese in the back!
The he is taken to see Japanese civilians who are jumping off a cliff rather than surrendering. He is shocked, and for a moment sees his own mother as one of the civilians.
He changes. He goes out and single -handedly captures the Japanese general and convinces him to surrender his troops. He succeeds. The hundreds of remaining troops throw down their weapons. As the troops file by the general and Gabby, the general takes out his knife and ceremoniously disembowels himself, barely making a whimper he eventually falls to his knees as the beaten soldiers trudge past him towards the marines.
Oraaaah! Semper Fi! Please remember that Marines is always spelled with capital M!
all right all ready. What I meant to say was: The Geneva Conventions may as well not have existed in the minds of those brave men who faced the most difficult circumstances during the war against the Japanese.
I thought that was rather clear, but no...
You are right about Okinawa- imagine a 2.5 to 3 hour movie with Saving Private Ryan production quality set during that horrendous battle. It would make D Day look tame by comparison. I don't think there has been a definitive Pacific War film yet- Thin Red Line was too slow for the most part.Hoorah ..er Orrrah...wait, ooh ah! no..
john
Given the strong dramatic storyline of "From Here To Eternity" and the technical excellence of "Tora Tora Tora," do we need a remake with fake-looking CGI, torpedo bombs dropped from zeros directly on top of ships, and Hawaiian kids playing baseball at 7 am on a Sunday morning? At least these are the 'facts' I'm getting from watching the theatrical trailer.I guess every new generation needs WWII movies to call their own. Get ready for a remake of "Bridge on the River Kwai." Starring Brendan Fraser and Richard Hatch (from "Survivor").
I blush to say that I've not see "From Here to Eternity," but I've seen "Tora!Tora!Tora!" many times. I consider the latter movie rather technical and bloodless; kind of like one of those Avalon-Hill board war games where two players re-enact famous battles.While I don't have much hope for "Pearl Harbor" (reportedly Michael Eisner, Disney CEO, forced a tight budget; and the money was spent on effects, not actors), it is certainly possible to envision a telling of that story that would be both interesting and worthwhile.
It would not have to involve the last SOTA effects in blowing up ships and creating squadrons of attacking aircraft.
Rather, it could focus on the wrenching moral/mental transformation of some of the people involved (and I don't mean some weepy lieutenant, junior grade getting some nookie on the beach while the Zeros fly overhead killing his shipmates romance either)
For example:
The 18-year old farmboys and cityboys who make up the crew of the Iowa suddenly find themselves transformed into a hell they could not even imagine
The base commander, an Admirial who later received a letter of reprimand, realizes the destruction of the main US Pacific battle fleet was the result of his complacency
The lieutenant in charge of the radar station that detected the Japanese air squadrons but thought they were US aircraft realizes the price of his sloppiness in not verifying the aircrafts' status, or at least reporting his radar contact.
The common portrayal of the participants in the aftermath of the raid is one of resolute defiance; but I suspect that is utter b.s. It is clear from what happened that the great bulk of the US forces were psychologically unprepared for war, which meant they were physically unprepared. I suspect in the immediate aftermath of the raid they were, literally, shell-shocked. Moreover, the more senior commanders no doubt appreciated just how exposed they were, militarily. The destruction of the US fuel depot (which apparently was not targeted) would have completely shut down the Pacific fleet, including those ships undamaged by the raid.
On the other side of the battle line, it would be interesting to portray the Japanese pilots. While their government may have been treacherous, their achievement and courage cannot be questioned. They attacked the heart of the US Navy in the Pacific, which they would reasonably expect to be very heavily defended. US films portray them as mere robots; but I doubt that is accurate. They must have been ecstatic at their success.
What about Adm. Yamamoto? Did he really say the "sleeping giant" statement? Was he prescient enough to really see that he had won a tactical victory but Japan had taken a step that was a strategic error? If he really felt this, he must have been very alone amid the celebrations of his junior officers and men.
I think there are lots of stories there -- worth telling and worth hearing. But first, we've got to get past the 14-year old boy's fascination with making things explode. I doubt that "Pearl Harbor" does that, but, perhaps, someday, some film will.
"Technical & bloodless"?I think it's easily the most historically accurate depiction of the reality of a major war time event we have ever seen in film and are ever likely too. It strikes me you are asking for the "Hollywoodization" of reality because reality somehow isn't good enough.
Regarding a few specific points:
Iowa vs. Arizona as already pointed out
"On the other side of the battle line, it would be interesting to portray the Japanese pilots."
And didnt we see just that as they were trained, participating in and following the raid? What am I missing here? Are the Japanese not showing an Amercian enough sense of enthusiasm to suit you? If you knew Japanese culture and military hierarchy you would have a sense that the demonstration of achievment, pride and enthusiasm displayed by the pilots in the film is very much in line with reality.
"The base commander, an Admirial who later received a letter of reprimand, realizes the destruction of the main US Pacific battle fleet was the result of his complacency"
The base commander was a fall guy for broader compacency and mismanagement of military resources in the presence of superior intelligence data which was inefficiently distributed and interpreted at the highest levels of US government. In that regard the film depicted that broader failure of US policy management than has ever even been hinted at in any other treatment of the subject on film.
"The common portrayal of the participants in the aftermath of the raid is one of resolute defiance; but I suspect that is utter b.s. It is clear from what happened that the great bulk of the US forces were psychologically unprepared for war, which meant they were physically unprepared. I suspect in the immediate aftermath of the raid they were, literally, shell-shocked. Moreover, the more senior commanders no doubt appreciated just how exposed they were, militarily. The destruction of the US fuel depot (which apparently was not targeted) would have completely shut down the Pacific fleet, including those ships undamaged by the raid."
The best depiction of the military and public attitude in the aftermath of the battle was shown by the desk seargeant who receives the telegram warning of the pending Japanese intent to attack after the battle had occured - from a Japanese-american courier. The reality you would see if it were accurately depicted would be a rather unsavory one of utter hatred for all things Japanese - not an inwardly turned sense of introspection and vulnerability. Remember Japanese-American internment camps and the ubiquitous use of the derogatory term "jap" for Japanese?
"What about Adm. Yamamoto? Did he really say the "sleeping giant" statement? Was he prescient enough to really see that he had won a tactical victory but Japan had taken a step that was a strategic error? If he really felt this, he must have been very alone amid the celebrations of his junior officers and men."
Yes. He opposed atacking the US but the Japanese army was in ascendency and leading the drive to create their euphamisticly labelled asian "Coprosperity Sphere" whereby Japan acquired access to raw materials through military expansion in China and the rest of the far east. Yamamoto's campaign to avoid war with the US failed and he only proceded with the attack in a sense of duty to the emperor. He promised the ability to take the war to the US for 6 months after which he recognized all bets were off as the US's superior manufacturing capabilty and access to raw materials gave it a fundamental strategic advantage (he was college educated in the US and the only Japanese military leader with a realistic perspective on US manufacturing capabilities). He recognized at the time of the battle that the failure to catch the US carriers in port rendered the attack only a partial and temporary victory at best.
"I think there are lots of stories there -- worth telling and worth hearing. But first, we've got to get past the 14-year old boy's fascination with making things explode. I doubt that "Pearl Harbor" does that, but, perhaps, someday, some film will."If this is your take on this film and events it portrays I think you are missing the point completely. If you interpret this film as being a 14 year olds obsession with explosions I would instead suggest that your own lack of historical context for interpreting the story is the real issue when it comes to Tora Tora Tora.
But if you really want to learn history you need to read about it - movies arent the palce to learn it and its apparent from your comments there is a lot about this topic you simply dont know.
But where we absolutely agree is that Pearl Harbor is going to bark like a dog...
joe
given the arrogant and condescending tone of your response, but here goes.1. I apologized for the Iowa/Arizona screwup. A freudian slip or whatever. So, I'm a moron.
2. Apparently you have never been taught the difference between drama and documentary. As a primer, let me suggest any of the "history" plays of Shakespeare. The history is not so good; the drama is first-rate. Tora! Tora! Tora! is fine as a documentary, kind like the re-enactment of Civil War battles. But having seem the film many times, I recall it telling me practically nothing about what any of the participants are thinking or feeling. I see no need for another documentary; that's been done. But I think there's plenty of a room for a good drama about Pearl Harbor, even one that does not violate the historical record. Those were some of my suggested "angles."
3. So you think the very first, same-day, reaction of American military commanders in Hawaii to our having the shit kicked out of us at Pearl Harbor was a burst of racial hatred? Not to wonder if there was an invaision force coming, a second wave, a naval bombardment from battleships? If you've got evidence to back your claim up -- other than the current PC fixation on the admittedly wrong and unjustified US internment policy -- these guys really were were incompetent.
4. "If this is your take on this film and events it portrays I think you are missing the point completely. If you interpret this film as being a 14 year olds obsession with explosions I would instead suggest that your own lack of historical context for interpreting the story is the real issue when it comes to Tora Tora Tora."You should keep better track of your pronoun references ("this film"). I never said Tora! Tora! Tora! was about blowing things up; I said it was "bloodless" because it's just a re-enactment; it tells me nothing about the people involved. It appears that "Pearl Harbor" is about blowing things up. We both appear to be disappointed about that; although perhaps for different reasons. Maybe you want to see a re-enactment that features the latest in digital technology unavailable at the time of Tora!Tora!Tora! ? I want to see some real drama; I've seen the documentary.
5. "But if you really want to learn history you need to read about it - movies arent the palce to learn it and its apparent from your comments there is a lot about this topic you simply dont know."
Well thank you for that bit of advice. The last history book I read covering some part of the WW2 period was "In Harm's Way" about the sinking of the "Indianapolis." I finished it about 3 weeks ago. What's the last book you read on this subject, and when did you read it? Did I say I wanted to learn history from the movies? That's YOUR line. What I said was I expect drama from the movies; because that's what they are.
Do you have any idea what I'm talking about, or are you still clueless?
Enjoy Pearl Harbor. Perhaps it will have the "drama" you seek.joe
"Iowa" should have read "Arizona"I've got Iowa on the brain for reasons unrelated to this post.
Sorry.
The Iowa was part of the last class of US battleships built, which included the Missouri on which the articles of Japan's surrender were signed.
Not to nit-pick, but I don't think the Iowa was launched until 1943 or 1944. Of course, I'm sure that the "technical and bloodless" "Tora!Tora!Tora!" wouldn't have made that mistake...
--
***torpedo bombs dropped from zeros directly on top of ships,Hmmmm, Steve, what's a "torpedo bomb"?
And if you stopped your zero right above the ship, and then released that torpedo...errr... bomb... errr... that torpedo bomb... would it not fall indeed right on top of ship?
> > > And if you stopped your zero right above the ship, and then released that torpedo...errr... bomb... errr... that torpedo bomb... would it not fall indeed right on top of ship? < < <It probably wouldn't be a good idea to do that, you'd have the bomb/ship blow up right beneath you. Probably not a good idea at really low altitudes.
Besides, how do you stop a Zero right above a ship? Do you use the "air brake"? :-)
Chia-Hao
Okay, I flunk war history. I meant one of these.And yes, the physics of bomb trajectories is amazing with CGI.
> > > And yes, the physics of bomb trajectories is amazing with CGI < < <Funny isn't it? You'd think they could some computing power to have decent physics models when animating CGI. But, they probably figure: "Hey, if the explosions are big enough and loud enough, no one will care or even notice!" And, unfortunately, they're probably right.
Chia-Hao
Could not get you on Chinese movies, so the bombs will do for now...***And yes, the physics of bomb trajectories is amazing with CGI.
What's CGI?
And what's amazing is how many different bombing techniques have been developed.
CGI = Computer Generated Imagery.Have a good show, Victor. Sorry I won't be there. Maybe some day...
My vote goes to "The Bridge on the River Kwai".
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 ]
