Author Topic: The Thin Red Line (Read 2505 times)

JB88 · « **Reply #90 on:** November 19, 2007, 03:35:57 PM »

surprised that you can remember anything with that crack habit.

soda72 · « **Reply #91 on:** November 19, 2007, 03:43:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by JB88
surprised that you can remember anything with that crack habit.

You don't need crack to forget those movies you listed, they acheive that on their own merits....

full metal jacket and hamburger hill, never would have seen screen time if it had not been for the commercial success of 'Platoon'....

Rich46yo · « **Reply #92 on:** November 19, 2007, 03:59:06 PM »

I have Tora,Tora,Tora, on DVD. Its one of the greatest flight movies ever made. I would be hard pressed to find another movie that has so many WW-ll aircraft in it. This is simply a great war movie.

I also have "All quiet on the Western Front". You really have to respect the producers of that movie for having the guts to make a anti-war movie at that time. And it was an "anti-war movie by virtue of its honesty. Two scenes I'll never forget were, 1, the schoolmaster filling them with war furor right before they all quit to enlist. And 2, The scene in the shell crater with the dieing Frenchman.

I also have " A walk in the sun", which is a pretty good movie with very good acting.

Im not sure I have a favorite but i do lean towards the "thinking mans" war movies like the TRL and Apocalypse Now. The TRL was a very dark, tragic movie.

Tango · « **Reply #93 on:** November 19, 2007, 05:52:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rich46yo
The TRL was a very dark, tragic movie.

and long and boring. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zz

E25280 · « **Reply #94 on:** November 19, 2007, 09:41:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by soda72
The first part of full metal jacket was good. I haven't seen it in over ten years but I can still remember the main characters and of course the tragic ending. The second part was completely forgetable. The first part was so good the rest of the movie seemed anti-climatic. They would have been better off making the entire movie focusing on the first part, and cutting out the second.

To hear Lee Ermey tell it (many years ago on a radio show in Chicago), they shot the second part first. The actors had little idea who their characters were and what they were all about. Then they shot the first part (the training) after the "war" part of it was complete.

IIRC, Ermey said they had another actor that was supposed to be the drill seargent, and Ermey was supposed to teach him the jargon. But it got to the point that the film makers just decided they needed Ermey to do it himself. He said he did his best to really make the actors feel like they really were in boot camp, and that eventually, he thought they were responding pretty well. They were actually starting to think / act like people really training to be killers . . . unlike how they acted in the second part (or, rather, the first filmed part).

Had they shot the movie "in order," it might not have seemed so much like watching two separate movies.

Angus · « **Reply #95 on:** November 20, 2007, 03:43:25 AM »

Lazs:
"You need to read some books on war in the pacific and then try to watch "letters"... It explained nothing. you wondered what the hell was going on.. I mean.. the japs all tried to save wounded Americans and the Americans all shot any prisoner they got? No wonder there were no/hardly no jap survivors in any of the island battles... we shot all the prisoners!"

All title recommedations are welcome. Thinking about bying "Fire in the sky", "Samurai", and "Baa Baa black Sheep" (?)
However, about letters, I had no problems understanding it, and the mindset of the Japanese became clearer too me.
And the survivors from the Jap side were....1%?
But they were toasted and blown up anyway. In flags, you can see when they are taking a bunker after a very bloody advance. They moved in with a flamethrower, the japs caught fire, ran out and got gunned down. I was there when they shot that scene. I can never forget what our officer said about it.
"WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THAT JAP SOB WHEN HE CATCHES FIRE AND COMES RUNNING OUT ?"
"- Gun him down Sir?"
"YEAH, OR MAYBE YOU SHOULD ALLOW THAT SOB TO COOK A LITTLE"
You may also spot a guy with Doberman dogs later in the film.
Dogs were set down the tunnels to either find, or even chew up the japs. And there was excessive use of grenades, flamethrowers, explosives and petrol. Iwo was one hell-hole. And the Japs would go suicide by the hundreds. They would also (As seen in letters) pretend to be dead/wounded while holding a grenade. They would target the medics and BAR equipped soldiers as primary targets. So, in short, they did not face a lot of mercy, - understandable.
But Saigo, - he lived

RTHolmes · « **Reply #96 on:** November 20, 2007, 08:07:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
Woody!

I always assumed that was just an adjective describing his performances ...

and yeah TRL gets a

from me

lazs2 · « **Reply #97 on:** November 20, 2007, 08:24:16 AM »

angus.. "touched with fire" is the best. it goes into every aspect of the land war in the pacific.. including culture, weapons, tactics and food and.. what life was like for both sides day to day.

I think it is fair to say that by the time of Iwo... both sides knew their enemy. even so.. if the japs would have marched across some open ground with white flags waving.. they would have been treated well. The US had a well deserved reputation, along with the brits, as treating prisoners better than any army past or present.

The japs set the rules for conduct long before Iwo. If you only read one book on the land war in the pacific read "touched with fire" it is by Eric Bergerud I know him personally and he is now teaching in the naval war college.

lazs

Patches1 · « **Reply #98 on:** November 20, 2007, 09:40:34 AM »

I'm reading Touched by Fire at this moment, Laz2. A few months ago I finished reading another of Bergerud's books, Fire in the Sky. Bergerud takes a similar approch with Fire in the Sky as he did with Touched by Fire. Excellent reads.

Angus · « **Reply #99 on:** November 20, 2007, 09:43:18 AM »

"I think it is fair to say that by the time of Iwo... both sides knew their enemy. even so.. if the japs would have marched across some open ground with white flags waving.. they would have been treated well. The US had a well deserved reputation, along with the brits, as treating prisoners better than any army past or present."

Well, agree with that, but the thing with the japs is that they were usually dead before becoming prisoners, and had less chances of being caught alive even with their hands raised or a flag, because they had abused that.
They were also not members of the Geneva convention.

Tango · « **Reply #100 on:** November 20, 2007, 11:23:25 AM »

Japs mostly fought to the death because they were taught that the west was a bumch of barbarians. Those that were captured and put in POW camps were very surprised at how well they were treated.

lazs2 · « **Reply #101 on:** November 20, 2007, 03:08:32 PM »

patches... I like the fact that Eric uses the same style in all his books.

He goes into great detail on all aspects of the weapons and culture and tactics of both sides and how that all came together to bring about the various outcomes.

Angus.. even at Iwo.. some japs were captured... mostly those to sick or wounded to continue to hold out. They were treated well... extremely well in light of the GI's they had tortured and mutilated throughout the battle.

lazs

Angus · « **Reply #102 on:** November 20, 2007, 03:37:43 PM »

Reminds me, did you see the film "Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence"?

Still remember the music...