|
Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (8/14/2002 6:11:03 PM)
|
Well I DO love to sit down and watch my collection of old black and white war movies back when acting was all the had to work with.
And it's cool to watch films like Gung Ho and know it was made "during" the war with actual serving marines not actors.
But in defense of say Saving Private Ryan, a modern film with horrendous special effects (note, horrendous if used correctly means the images were of scenes that evoke horror).
I was impressed to watch it a second time, so I could watch the audience sit totally stunned by the magnitude of carnage and violent death dealt to the men of Omaha the horrible day. Never seen a more effectively stunned audience before.
Because frankly, 9 out of 10 movie goers today, don't know the slightest thing about WW2 let alone the Gulf War.
They have no real capacity to tell, that the special effects in most action films today are entirely bullshit visuals meant to entertain not educate.
So while I might not watch most modern films of a military nature, because they do more to insult me than entertain, I have to come out and say that Saving Private Ryan earned the Normandy medal the vets gave Speilberg.
Now if you want to hurl insults, don't hesitate to hurl them at Pearl (it had non vilent scenes in it). The fact the film was a piece of garbage though, has to be included.
Now the fact that the Sound of Music was set in a military context, does it count as an acceptable example of a non violent war movie with distinct story line?
How about Lawrence of Arabia?
Doctor Zhivago?
Although in defense of the movie maker of today, once he has accomodated the typical modern movie moron that wants the action scenes or else, there is never enough money left over to hire that many really higher end capable actors.
I shudder to think what the price tag for The Longest Day would be today (probably the same sum as for the last 5 successful military theme films produced, excluding Saving Private Ryan of course).
|
|
|
|
