"War on the Rocks" best war movie list

[GDS_Starfury]

and none of you even mention The Beast. 

[SirAndrewD]

and none of you even mention The Beast. 

TANK BOY!!!   

[SirAndrewD]

I'm actually starting to take some of what I learned being a professional podcaster for my company and starting my own venture on a personal podcast with a friend of mine. 

I think this thread has inspired a topic for an early episode.  We'd already decided we needed to do something concentrating on MASH and Kelley's Heroes so this could be an expansion on what we'll be doing. 

[GDS_Starfury]

Kellys Heros you say 

v
v
v
v
v
v
v

[SirAndrewD]

Kellys Heros you say 

One of my favorite war movies.  Possibly not on a best list, but absolutely a favorite.

[SirAndrewD]

v
v
v
v
v
v
v

Fun fact, I'm going as Oddball to a Halloween Party this year.  I just need to get the pants.

Sadly I am NOT sewing any insignia on my 30 year old A-2 but there have to be concessions.

[GDS_Starfury]

the solution to that are micro magnets.  glue them to the patches and put the other magnets inside the sleeve.
production secrets.   

[SirAndrewD]

the solution to that are micro magnets.  glue them to the patches and put the other magnets inside the sleeve.
production secrets.   

Holy crap, that's genius and I have a ton of them in my 40k hobby drawer. 

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

Fun fact, I'm going as Oddball to a Halloween Party this year. 

Did you also cry when the mean old Sherman beat up the poor Tiger?

[Sir Slash]

I thought I was feeling some, 'Negative Waves' from somewhere.

[SirAndrewD]

I thought I was feeling some, 'Negative Waves' from somewhere.

POSITIVE WAVES MORIARTY!

[JasonPratt]

and none of you even mention The Beast. 

See, this is what you get for glazing your eyes over when I haven't even written a wall of text yet!

I can sorrrrt of understand them neglecting the Gods and Generals / Gettysburg duology, for political controversy, but not Glory? Oh well, lots and lots and lots of good war movies.

I for one enjoy "Pearl Harbor" and for that matter the recent "Midway" pseudo-sequel remake a lot -- they're no more ridiculous than "Battle of the Bulge", which I also enjoy more than I suppose I should. And "The Beast" for that matter.

Literally the entirety of my first post in the thread, and the second post overall, includes The Beast! (Which reminds me I should get a DVD/Blu of that someday, as my VHS copy is long gone...)

[JasonPratt]

How about this definition: to be considered one of the best war movies, the film or miniseries should, in the context of a reasonably believable combat setting, provide interesting insight into man or the human condition, and/or the nature of war."

I could argue that Bay's Pearl Harbor does that, along with being technically an outstanding movie, and set during a war per se (not merely combat -- which I'll allow might disallow Bay's 13 Hours, despite being the superior film in many regards.)

After all, MOST OF Pearl Harbor is a reasonably accurate depiction of the battle of that war (or two battles really, three if you count some Battle-of-Britain thrown in for good measure). The two fictional characters thrown in to replace and do more than two historical soldiers are the primary exceptions, and even they're acting within the context of reasonably accurate history. Its insights into the human condition, or historical people, or war generally and combat more specifically, aren't original (at all), but they're still there.

By that standard, "Battle of the Bulge" still fits, too! -- despite being even more fictional than PH (and technically somewhat weaker in competent production, even for the standard of its time.) The grand finale for 'stopping the offensive' is totally cornball fiction, but most of it up to that point is reasonably accurate; and it has some interesting human-condition situations. Its nature-of-war points are, again, not very original, but they're there!

"Reasonably believable", I'll note, is not quite the same thing as "reasonably accurate history". Most people accept the combat scenes in the LotR trilogy (two films at least of which are set in the context of a war per se, not merely combat) as being reasonably believable under the setting of the story, with a few fantastic-fun exceptions that stretch credulity (usually involving Legolas as the wuxia character). One reason the Hobbit Trilogy isn't as well liked is that its combat scenes are rather less believable, even under the given circumstances, mainly because Peter Jackson made the fantastic-fun more the rule than the exception -- which in itself fits the somewhat different tone of the source material. I still love that trilogy a lot more than most people apparently, but I wouldn't regard even the third film as one of the best war films -- though it had potential and could have been, and all three films are still very technically competent at being films which I think has to be part of the criteria. But LotR, or 2/3 of it anyway? -- yeah, I'd rank those as among the best 'war' films, even though they aren't remotely historical (being fantasy fiction).

"Reasonably believable", much moreso "reasonably accurate history", is admittedly a matter of taste to some extent. But that works both ways: despite a lot of historical accuracy, clearly I'm in the minority about PH being reasonably believable overall.

[Gusington]

Pearl Harbor may be technically well done but the acting and dialogue are so horrible they overshadow any amazing effects. Come on.

[bobarossa]

I think we could eliminate some of the more contriverial choices by adding "and not something a woman would be caught dead watching" to the definition.

"300" hasn't been mentioned!