Jump to content

Worst war movie youve watched?


roshan

Recommended Posts

I have to say "We Were Soldiers" by Mel Gibson. I have honestly never seen a movie that is more boring. Hell, this movie makes even war seem boring! The only "star" in the movie is Mel Gibson, and we really arent given any reason why we should care or root for him, except that hes loyal to his soldiers and has a family and is a fervent Catholic. There is basically no supporting cast among the people in his army. The whole 2 hours or so you just see nameless American and Vietnamese soldiers killing each other while Gibson barks orders and when they die you dont really give a damn that theyre dead because they are completely insignificant. After the wars over theres around a half an hour or so of sentimental garbage that you really dont want to see and only emphasizes the boringness of the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats a tough one. Most of the war movies out there, are unrealistic, war-glorifying crap.

 

It's almost easier to mention some actor names and stereotypical plots, than list the 22314 worst war movies :)

 

Names like John Wayne, Sylvester Stallone, Van Damme, the individual against the rest of the world and the individiual wins idiocy.

 

Well, to get back off topic, my favourie hate movie would be... damn, can't even remember the exact title of the disaster anymore, I think it was "USS Nimitz" about a modern carrier that gets sucked through a hole in time and space and ends up in 1941. All foreplay building up to a never happening climax :p

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hannover Street with Harrison Ford...

"For The Love Of Carnage And Discord, I Bring Annihilation And Cheap Beer!" - Mad Dwarf

 

"Watch that howling1. His sig used to eat cities." - Synaesthesia

 

"Beat me with a wet noodle huh? " - Feargus Urquhart

 

"the term "Board Troll" ain't a thing ta be proud o', lads" - Sargallath Abraxium

 

"The line between comedy and tragedy is pretty thin in these parts." - Overseer

 

" Grrr... ...Argh." - Darque

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thin Red Line was totally ruined by the end of the movie that saw Japanese surrendering rather than fighting to the death. Anyone who has done any reading of the Guadalcanal campaign would know it was total bulls*** - especially in the early stages of the war.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing that is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

 

John Stuart Mill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oliver's Classic is complete pompous baloney that for some inexplicable reason has been deemed a masterpice, mostly by people who haven't seen it.

 

It's supposed to be nationalistic pomp, but with an edge. Branagh's was good. People just need to get over his hellishly lengthy and boring Hamlet.

Na na  na na  na na  ...

greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER.

That is all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Henry 5th

The only one of I have seen, it had Kenneth Branagh.

 

It's supposed to be nationalistic pomp, but with an edge. Branagh's was good. People just need to get over his hellishly lengthy and boring Hamlet.

 

I realize its Shakespeare, but after watching RAN, I realized WOW Shakespeare's battles can be made to look gorgeous. Kurosawa's adaption of King Lear, had some of the most thematic battle scenes I have ever seen in a movie, it was absolutely amazing.

 

Henry 5th, might as well actually taken place on a small wooden stage, its suppose to be epic, and with modern cinema, the Battle of Agencourt as well as the other battles deserved more. Smallest armies I have ever seen either. Again I point to RAN, thats how you do it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say "We Were Soldiers" by Mel Gibson. I have honestly never seen a movie that is more boring. Hell, this movie makes even war seem boring! The only "star" in the movie is Mel Gibson, and we really arent given any reason why we should care or root for him, except that hes loyal to his soldiers and has a family and is a fervent Catholic. There is basically no supporting cast among the people in his army. The whole 2 hours or so you just see nameless American and Vietnamese soldiers killing each other while Gibson barks orders and when they die you dont really give a damn that theyre dead because they are completely insignificant. After the wars over theres around a half an hour or so of sentimental garbage that you really dont want to see and only emphasizes the boringness of the film.

I think I might have to agree with you on that. I can't think of any other war movie I haven't been able to sit through without wanting to fall asleep. It was just a very dull movie. And while war is a very dramatic situation, somehow it just seemed overdone and hokey in that flick.

 

Mels getting kinda weird in his old age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize its Shakespeare, but after watching RAN, I realized WOW Shakespeare's battles can be made to look gorgeous. Kurosawa's adaption of King Lear, had some of the most thematic battle scenes I have ever seen in a movie, it was absolutely amazing.

 

Henry 5th, might as well actually taken place on a small wooden stage, its suppose to be epic, and with modern cinema, the Battle of Agencourt as well as the other battles deserved more. Smallest armies I have ever seen either. Again I point to RAN, thats how you do it right.

I didn't like Olivier's Henry V either, it was so arrogant and utterly made for reasons of propaganda. Branagh's is pretty much it's direct opposite.

 

As for the Ran comments.. Shakespeare never really wrote any battles. The Henriad has the closest to scripted battles, but even then there isn't a right and wrong way to portray "Shakespeare's battles". In Ran, being an adaptation of King Lear, the battles are purely Kurosawa's doing - there are no (military) battles in King Lear, so your comparison isn't all that appropriate.

 

Regarding Henry V "might as well actually taken place on a small wooden stage", that's indeed part of the point. The play is narrated by a chorus, telling of events. If you'll recall the beginning of the film, Chorus (Derek Jacobi) is walking through an empty theatre backstage, giving the prologue ("Oh! For a muse of fire...") before flinging open the doors to "our scene".

The play, and Branagh's film version, acts as half actual event and half story told. Shakespeare wrote his plays to be performed on that small wooden stage - the action has to be manageable in those confines. With modern cinema we can of course do all sorts of things to the play, but if you're working with the text itself, the action is going to have a stagey feel.

 

As far as small armies - Henry's army was small, and the French army was largely inside the castle walls. It was a siege after all. At any rate, the film didn't exactly have a huge budget for a cast of thousands. Branagh's cast was from the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Renaissance Theatre Company - there wasn't a lot of cash from them, and the movie studio wasn't about to throw huge sums at the project.

newlogo.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oliver's Classic is complete pompous baloney that for some inexplicable reason has been deemed a masterpice, mostly by people who haven't seen it.

 

It's supposed to be  nationalistic pomp, but with an edge. Branagh's was good. People just need to get over his hellishly lengthy and boring Hamlet.

I love RAN as much as you do, but Henry V is not about Cinematics if the point is to make a Shakespeare adaptation rather than a war movie. I suspect it was.

 

Edit. I screwed up the quote.

Na na  na na  na na  ...

greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER.

That is all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say "We Were Soldiers" by Mel Gibson. I have honestly never seen a movie that is more boring. Hell, this movie makes even war seem boring! The only "star" in the movie is Mel Gibson, and we really arent given any reason why we should care or root for him, except that hes loyal to his soldiers and has a family and is a fervent Catholic. There is basically no supporting cast among the people in his army. The whole 2 hours or so you just see nameless American and Vietnamese soldiers killing each other while Gibson barks orders and when they die you dont really give a damn that theyre dead because they are completely insignificant. After the wars over theres around a half an hour or so of sentimental garbage that you really dont want to see and only emphasizes the boringness of the film.

I think I might have to agree with you on that. I can't think of any other war movie I haven't been able to sit through without wanting to fall asleep. It was just a very dull movie. And while war is a very dramatic situation, somehow it just seemed overdone and hokey in that flick.

 

Mels getting kinda weird in his old age.

The archer massacre in Agincourt would have looked better with 6000 longbowmen (the actuall number) He tried to make up for it with fog. In the end the acting should bee the most important part though. I thought it had real merrit.

 

Apples and oranges really to judge a shakespeare adaptation on it's lack of a hollywood budget.

Na na  na na  na na  ...

greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER.

That is all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take on Shakespeare movies is simple, adapt the play to film. I think Richard III with Ian, West Side Story, and RAN all have the right idea. What was great about Shakespeare is what you cover in Literature class, essentially the words. On film the infamous story should be told on a more grand scale. Agincourt should have been epic, but as someone pointed out, you can't fault a film for having a small budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say "We Were Soldiers" by Mel Gibson. I have honestly never seen a movie that is more boring. Hell, this movie makes even war seem boring! The only "star" in the movie is Mel Gibson, and we really arent given any reason why we should care or root for him, except that hes loyal to his soldiers and has a family and is a fervent Catholic. There is basically no supporting cast among the people in his army. The whole 2 hours or so you just see nameless American and Vietnamese soldiers killing each other while Gibson barks orders and when they die you dont really give a damn that theyre dead because they are completely insignificant. After the wars over theres around a half an hour or so of sentimental garbage that you really dont want to see and only emphasizes the boringness of the film.

I just saw We Were Soldiers a week ago. I was thinking the same thing, the first hour was the most boring thing I

Life is like a clam. Years of filtering crap then some bastard cracks you open and scrapes you into its damned mouth, end of story.

- Steven Erikson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. It's an open field, ladies.

 

The Green Berets: Sixty-something and fat John Wayne leads intrepid commandos liberating put upon natives from Commie Menace .

 

The Eagle Has Landed: A complete disaster, inexcusable since it's based upon a really decent adventure yarn by Jack Higgns. A c0ckney Michael Caine* stars as a German paratrooper colonel and tries to knock off Winston Churchill. Meanwhile, Larry Hagman chews a cigar and does one of the most hackneyed gung-ho Yankee army officer turns ever.

 

Escape to Athena: MC makes his Arcana: Lore: Esoteric War Movies skill check with a natural twenty here! Take Roger Moore as a Nazi archeologist-****-POW camp commander, the usually sublime David Niven as an absent-minded professor interned in said POW camp, Tele Savalas (really) as a Greek resistance leader hiding out in a brothel then add Elliot freakin' Gould as a comedian who finds himself captured along with Stephanie Powers ("an' this is Mrs. Hart...she's gorgeous!"). To this improbable bouillabase of nonsense add a plot about a German superweapon hidden in a monastery with some priceless loot and you have a genuinely dreadful 105 minutes of celluloid.

 

Anything By Mel Gibson: He can't act and he wouldn't understand a thing about historical veracity if it smacked him in the face.

 

Objective: Burma: Yet again, our American cousins manage to offend every single ally they have by suggesting that Errol liberated Burma single-handedly in this ridiculous slice of WW2 proaganda.

 

I'm going to nominate, in similar vein, a movie that hasn't even been made yet!

 

The Few: Tom "Scientologist" Cruise plays a US Eagle Squadron pilot who single-handedly wins the Battle of Britain for the RAF and thus saves the UK and the ENTIRE WORLD from the Nazi jack-boot! Huzzah! Of course, the gentleman that Tom plays in this "True Story" only shot down two German planes in the real battle.

 

Cheers

MC

 

* gotta love this language filter!

sonsofgygax.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...