Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I understand the Hurt Locker is rotten from a military realism point of view, but as a thriller I still think it works rather well. There is some great tension in allot of the scenes.

I realise that we are taking about Films and not TV shows but I can’t resist an opportunity to plug HBO’s Generation Kill miniseries. It really is fantastic and if you’ve not seen it I can’t recommend it enough.

HBO's Generation Kill, The Pacific and Band of Brothers (That's TWO for the Corps, Hah! Eat it airborne!) are probably some of the finest war films ever made, simply because you couldn't make movies out of the true stories of groups of individuals like the miniseries did, not with the same sense of scope and emotional impact.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Restrepo was fantastic!
and I can't believe I forgot "A Bridge To Far"

Yeah, for a guy not in the militry (like me), it was really enlightening.

I also ready Ernst Junger's book the doco was based on, it was also very eye-opening. The parts were he discusses the fetishization of firepower was particualrly enlightening and made so much psychological sense.

Edit: Also a Mini-series and a bit dated, but Piece of Cake was pretty influently on my teenage mind when thinking about The War.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Second that, The Hurt Locker was dog gak.

 Bromsy wrote:
Why in god's name would you put Hurt Locker down as a good, let alone great war movie? I'd have fragged that ladies man just on general military principle. I work with plenty of ex EOD guys and you should listen to them wax eloquent about that film.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Yeah, a lot of people with military backgrounds seem to dislike Hurt Locker haven't seen it myself though (at least it looks that way on DakkaDakka).

I liked the tension and the way the relationships developed between the three of them, until near the end, and I did like the ending and his difficulty readjusting to civilian life as that's not something I've really seen touched on in a lot of films. Some of the scenes did seem a bit OTT

Liked most of these

But Also

12 O'Clock High
Memphis Belle

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
HBO's Generation Kill, The Pacific and Band of Brothers (That's TWO for the Corps, Hah! Eat it airborne!) are probably some of the finest war films ever made, simply because you couldn't make movies out of the true stories of groups of individuals like the miniseries did, not with the same sense of scope and emotional impact.

Generation Kill was one series that I missed, and for some reason none of the bookstores near me carried the book. Miniseries are definitely a lot better for character development and story telling, especially when you don't need to dumb down things for the sake of the run time.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Big Red One
Thin Red Line
Saving Private Ryan
Hamburger Hill
Glory (some of the most realistic and well done depictions of Civil War infantry movements PERIOD)
Gods and Generals
The Battle of the Bulge
Patton (Rommel you magnificent bastard!)

Now if we expand "War movies" to propaganda films during war time
Lifeboat
Casablance

for two obvious examples.

Dis.
I would also say Enemy at the Gates,
Gallipoli WHICH WAS FANTASTIC, and look a young Mel Gibson O.o

Lots of good movies on peoples lists. I won't repeat them to avoid redundancy. I might have missed these, though.

Sgt York. It's a bit sappy and idealistic by today's standards, but it still holds up as a great movie.

Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Bridge Over the River Kwai.

Favorite is Saving Private Ryan. The first 5 minutes are pretty intense.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Second that, The Hurt Locker was dog gak.

 Bromsy wrote:
Why in god's name would you put Hurt Locker down as a good, let alone great war movie? I'd have fragged that ladies man just on general military principle. I work with plenty of ex EOD guys and you should listen to them wax eloquent about that film.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Yeah, a lot of people with military backgrounds seem to dislike Hurt Locker haven't seen it myself though (at least it looks that way on DakkaDakka).

I liked the tension and the way the relationships developed between the three of them, until near the end, and I did like the ending and his difficulty readjusting to civilian life as that's not something I've really seen touched on in a lot of films. Some of the scenes did seem a bit OTT

Most of the anger from military members is the extreme hatred the movie had for any form of technical accuracy/connection to reality, while it was getting billed as our generation's Saving Private Ryan, which prided itself of it's realism.

It was a decent action flick, just not what it was billed as, and it's Oscar proves the Academy's completely bankrupt integrity wise.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Generation Kill was one series that I missed, and for some reason none of the bookstores near me carried the book. Miniseries are definitely a lot better for character development and story telling, especially when you don't need to dumb down things for the sake of the run time.

The characterization in GK is excellent, and quite raw because it’s such a recent conflict and was written on the spot by a writer embedded with 1st Recon. One of the Main characters is actually played the Marine himself, which is odd because he’s the one who actually looks least like a marine out of the whole cast and more like a male model.

The only thing I think is odd is that the show really gives allot of the officers in the unit a bad time. A couple of them are portrayed as not just incompetent but downright dangerous, but I’m not sure how much that has been exaggerated for dramatic effect. But if they really where as useless as the series made out then it's a miracle more Marines didn’t get killed.

It’s less romantic than BoB or the Pacific and has a more Gonzo style. All the filthy jokes, foul language and black humor of the US Marines is left intact.

I'd go with many of the previously mentioned films but would also add;

When Trumpets Fade - IMHO an oft overlooked movie in the genre...

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Most of the anger from military members is the extreme hatred the movie had for any form of technical accuracy/connection to reality, while it was getting billed as our generation's Saving Private Ryan, which prided itself of it's realism.

It was a decent action flick, just not what it was billed as, and it's Oscar proves the Academy's completely bankrupt integrity wise.

Yeah I can see how those in the service wouldn't approve of it, especially over its inaccuracy and the fact that it was compared to Saving Private Ryan.

You expect integrity from the Academy or Hollywood?

 LuciusAR wrote:
The characterization in GK is excellent, and quite raw because it’s such a recent conflict and was written on the spot by a writer embedded with 1st Recon. One of the Main characters is actually played the Marine himself, which is odd because he’s the one who actually looks least like a marine out of the whole cast and more like a male model.

The only thing I think is odd is that the show really gives allot of the officers in the unit a bad time. A couple of them are portrayed as not just incompetent but downright dangerous, but I’m not sure how much that has been exaggerated for dramatic effect. But if they really where as useless as the series made out then it's a miracle more Marines didn’t get killed.

Its nice to know that the USMC is like most other civilian organisations that I've had the pleasure of dealing with, the further up the ladder you go the further divorced from the situation on the ground you get, while those at the bottom know what to do and keep things running.

 LuciusAR wrote:
It’s less romantic than BoB or the Pacific and has a more Gonzo style. All the filthy jokes, foul language and black humor of the US Marines is left intact.

When our cable expires and we switch to Hulu Plus it might be time for me to catch up on this then

 LuciusAR wrote:
I understand the Hurt Locker is rotten from a military realism point of view, but as a thriller I still think it works rather well. There is some great tension in allot of the scenes.

I realise that we are taking about Films and not TV shows but I can’t resist an opportunity to plug HBO’s Generation Kill miniseries. It really is fantastic and if you’ve not seen it I can’t recommend it enough.

God I hated HATED Generation Kill. I was all kinds of excited for 1st Recon to get some air time, I mean the last movie that revolved around a Recon unit was Heartbreak Hill.

I spent time in those units (see signature lol) and I can 100% assure you those officers were not accurate representations of 1st Recons Officer's. Did I run into some gaks at division level yes, but it was insulting to see the officers portrayed that way. And just to be clear I hated most of the fethers and even still think this miniseries did them a disservice.

I'll disagree with R3con, all officers are useless piles of cartilage with thin coating of brasso who's sole reason for existence is to get in the way of any one who's competent, or as the military calls them, enlisted men.

That said, the book that GK is based off (Also called Generation Kill) of has been vetted by multiple individuals in that unit during the Invasion in '03. Encino Man and Captain America might have been a little flanderized for the mini series, but not much from all reports.

To be fair GK didn’t mindlessly bash all the officers. Fick, Patterson and Godfather/Ferrando where portrayed as competent and professional.

It was really just Captain America and Encino Man that got a roasting and from what few accounts I've read they deserved it.

Fick's book "One Bullet Away" is a solid read for people who like that sort of thing.

Kelly's Heroes.

Lots of great ones already mentioned.

It's a documentary, but Armadillo was pretty interesting and definitely worth a watch.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Most of the anger from military members is the extreme hatred the movie had for any form of technical accuracy/connection to reality, while it was getting billed as our generation's Saving Private Ryan, which prided itself of it's realism.

It was a decent action flick, just not what it was billed as, and it's Oscar proves the Academy's completely bankrupt integrity wise.

I'm confused... I don't remember The Hurt Locker ever being billed as a documentary. It was a character study; revolving around someone that does their job not out of duty but because they enjoy it. As such, the film tried to demonstrate the difficulty in going back to a normal, boring life afterwards.

The techical stuff is tertiary at best; and if someone is looking for that element, I suggest going to see that really terrible movie the US Marine recruiters made (can't remember the name, it was billed as starring active duty Navy Seals, because apparently they thought "people who can't act" would be a good lead)

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Most of the anger from military members is the extreme hatred the movie had for any form of technical accuracy/connection to reality, while it was getting billed as our generation's Saving Private Ryan, which prided itself of it's realism.

It was a decent action flick, just not what it was billed as, and it's Oscar proves the Academy's completely bankrupt integrity wise.

I'm confused... I don't remember The Hurt Locker ever being billed as a documentary. It was a character study; revolving around someone that does their job not out of duty but because they enjoy it. As such, the film tried to demonstrate the difficulty in going back to a normal, boring life afterwards.

That's how it was billed here in the states, "The most accurate depiction of the Iraq war to date". It's also important because it actually touched on PTSD.... and completely fethed the pooch on it. I have more then a few buddies who can't reintegrate to normal life, who do feel more alive, more where they belong in Afghanistan or Iraq. My one buddy was talking to me last night "Kala I don't know what to do, the civvies don't get it and nothing makes... sense out here any more." by characterizing those Veterans as "battle junkies" it's not only a misrepresentation it can even be classed as an insult to what my brothers went through.

So you take characters that are skewed beyond recognition and present them as "real", in a scenario with no connection to reality (a three man EOD team doing the work of a company, no over sight, going outside the wire for kicks, that ludicrous sniper battle, etc) then you get reviewers tossing roses, six academy awards and lines like "Like every war before it, the U.S. invasion of Iraq has generated its share of movies. But The Hurt Locker is the first of them that can properly be called a masterpiece." or "When the picture isn't ramping up your heart rate, it switches gears and becomes an intimate character study in what war does to humankind." "It's not delicate by any means, and it gives an intense look into the lives of the American soldiers in Iraq." "Bigelow may just have made the conflict's defining film:" Yeah, you're going to catch some flak from a population with increasingly more combat veterans.

I can't believe we have all overlooked Hannibal Brooks.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:That's how it was billed here in the states, "The most accurate depiction of the Iraq war to date". It's also important because it actually touched on PTSD.... and completely fethed the pooch on it. I have more then a few buddies who can't reintegrate to normal life, who do feel more alive, more where they belong in Afghanistan or Iraq. My one buddy was talking to me last night "Kala I don't know what to do, the civvies don't get it and nothing makes... sense out here any more." by characterizing those Veterans as "battle junkies" it's not only a misrepresentation it can even be classed as an insult to what my brothers went through.

Ah, okay. I see your point. I didn't realize it had been marketed like that.

I never had any problem with it as a film, because I didn't take it to be a melodrama for those with PTSD. I simply took it as a great character study of a "battle junkie"; and when viewed with that understanding I think the film did well. Although that sniper bit was quite strange and stuck out like a sore thumb.

Yeah I have so many issues with that sniper battle. Especially because they were 200m past the Dragunov sniper rifle's effective range of 800m at pretty much all times.... and using a Barrett M82 for 1000 yard + shots isn't exactly easy. I'm a good hand with a rifle and I wouldn't have the foggiest in how to begin setting up for serious long range shooting like that. It's double the length of the "long distance" targets the Corps expected me to hit in training. No idea if that's where all the crazy calculus snipers have to do begins to come into effect....

I saw In the Fog on the weekend. It's set in the Belarus in WWII, during the German occupation. It follows one guy who's basically been dragged in to the conflict between the Germans/collaborators and the partisans. For people who love war movies this shows an all too often ignored experience of war - the impact on local populations. It also gives a great insight in to how partisan activity really worked (and didn't work) and the real motivations for most of the soldiers far away from the main lines.

Now, that said, the film is slow. Like really damn slow. This is deliberate but not entirely effective and as a result the film is far from being a masterpiece. In fact, I suspect a lot of people might find the film unwatchable because of the extremely leisurely pace. But there is a real honesty in the film that does pay off for those willing to sit through scene after scene of bleak people trudging about an utterly bleak landscape.

 Bromsy wrote:
Why in god's name would you put Hurt Locker down as a good, let alone great war movie? I'd have fragged that ladies man just on general military principle. I work with plenty of ex EOD guys and you should listen to them wax eloquent about that film.

True, but then you go and list Gallipoli, which is so far from accurate it ain't funny. Now, that said, Gallipoli is still a great movie (in no small part to Mel Gibson's marvellous performance)... point being that it's kind of shallow to just get hung up on accuracy as the key gauge of a movie's quality. A film can get all the details right but say nothing meaingful at all about the conflict (Black Hawk Down), or can get all kinds of details wrong but say something quite powerful about the war in question (Platoon).

The Hurt Locker, in my opinion, doesn't work because it doesn't work as a thriller. From the moment the 3 main characters are shown to have plot immunity (when the mercs are all killed in a sniper dual only for our three bomb disposal experts to pick up the gun and win the dual), and then for the film to grind on with yet more scenes that are supposed to be scary... it just ends up annoying.

That it got all kinds of detail wrong is kind of beside the point. First and foremost it was a pretty mediocre movie.

The Blue Max
Galipoli
Fly Boys
Red Baron
Red Tails
The Green Berets
Battleground

Joyeux Noël was really good.

So was The Lost Battalion.

 sebster wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Why in god's name would you put Hurt Locker down as a good, let alone great war movie? I'd have fragged that ladies man just on general military principle. I work with plenty of ex EOD guys and you should listen to them wax eloquent about that film.

True, but then you go and list Gallipoli, which is so far from accurate it ain't funny. Now, that said, Gallipoli is still a great movie (in no small part to Mel Gibson's marvellous performance)... point being that it's kind of shallow to just get hung up on accuracy as the key gauge of a movie's quality. A film can get all the details right but say nothing meaingful at all about the conflict (Black Hawk Down), or can get all kinds of details wrong but say something quite powerful about the war in question (Platoon).

The Hurt Locker, in my opinion, doesn't work because it doesn't work as a thriller. From the moment the 3 main characters are shown to have plot immunity (when the mercs are all killed in a sniper dual only for our three bomb disposal experts to pick up the gun and win the dual), and then for the film to grind on with yet more scenes that are supposed to be scary... it just ends up annoying.

That it got all kinds of detail wrong is kind of beside the point. First and foremost it was a pretty mediocre movie.

Well, obviously you care more about events that you have first hand knowledge of than ones you don't. That's how people work. I was in the US army when this movie was set, I know it's TTP first hand, I know the way these characters should have acted. They did not, to the point where I wonder if this film had a military liaison. It's a different case than knowing, academically, that there are inaccuracies in a historical film.

 Bromsy wrote:
Well, obviously you care more about events that you have first hand knowledge of than ones you don't. That's how people work. I was in the US army when this movie was set, I know it's TTP first hand, I know the way these characters should have acted. They did not, to the point where I wonder if this film had a military liaison. It's a different case than knowing, academically, that there are inaccuracies in a historical film.

You were asking why someone else would put the movie down as great, as it was inaccurate. It doesn't make sense to then say 'oh well my experience meant I couldn't get past that'.

None of these films can hold a candle up to Zulu.


Does escape to victory count as a great war movie?

 sebster wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Well, obviously you care more about events that you have first hand knowledge of than ones you don't. That's how people work. I was in the US army when this movie was set, I know it's TTP first hand, I know the way these characters should have acted. They did not, to the point where I wonder if this film had a military liaison. It's a different case than knowing, academically, that there are inaccuracies in a historical film.

You were asking why someone else would put the movie down as great, as it was inaccurate. It doesn't make sense to then say 'oh well my experience meant I couldn't get past that'.

You put the 'inaccurate' in there, not me. I just asked why, and said I'd frag the dude for acting like he did.