Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message


String -> Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/14/2005 3:09:42 PM)

well, the movie.. I liked it but, with me still being rather ignorant of the pacific theatre, is there any historical accuracy to the movie or is it another bravehart?




jnier -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/14/2005 3:50:11 PM)

I, too, like the movie a lot, although it seems to evoke a "love it" or "hate it" reaction (i.e. many people on this board hate it).

Regarding it's historical accuracy, the context in which the movie takes place is quite accurate. It takes place during the Guadalcanal campaign. It represents the part of the campaign after the 1 USMC division left the island was replaced by army units (including the Americal & 147 Infantry Divisions, IIRC). During this part of the campaign the US had already captured Henderson Field and was trying clear out the remaining Japanese on the island, which included capturing Mt Austen. All those events did happen. It also reflects some other aspects of the campaign realistically - the tenacious Japanese defense, the hilly terrain, the bombing of Henderson Field.

I suspect some still believe the movie to be inaccurate, because the characters are too thoughtful & philosphical, but the basic course of events is not out of synch with what really happened. And there are other smaller inaccuracies as well, but all-in-all I think it's a very good movie




Bobthehatchit -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/14/2005 4:26:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jnier

I, too, like the movie a lot, although it seems to evoke a "love it" or "hate it" reaction (i.e. many people on this board hate it).

Regarding it's historical accuracy, the context in which the movie takes place is quite accurate. It takes place during the Guadalcanal campaign. It represents the part of the campaign after the 1 USMC division left the island was replaced by army units (including the Americal & 147 Infantry Divisions, IIRC). During this part of the campaign the US had already captured Henderson Field and was trying clear out the remaining Japanese on the island, which included capturing Mt Austen. All those events did happen. It also reflects some other aspects of the campaign realistically - the tenacious Japanese defense, the hilly terrain, the bombing of Henderson Field.

I suspect some still believe the movie to be inaccurate, because the characters are too thoughtful & philosphical, but the basic course of events is not out of synch with what really happened. And there are other smaller inaccuracies as well, but all-in-all I think it's a very good movie


I have a copy of the book at home[sm=nono.gif], it makes a good read but being holywood they removed parts of the storyline which they really shouldn't have for the film[sm=terms.gif]. All in all still a rather good film, better than windtalkers/pearl harbour etc.[sm=vomit-smiley-020.gif]




Apollo11 -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/14/2005 4:39:08 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

well, the movie.. I liked it but, with me still being rather ignorant of the pacific theatre, is there any historical accuracy to the movie or is it another bravehart?


I read the book and I saw the movie.

IMHO that movie is one of the best war movies I ever saw...


Leo "Apollo11"




freeboy -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/14/2005 5:13:13 PM)

imo, this movie was one of the WORST movie for me, I do think it is interesting how many poeple like/love it though.. I see alot of movies, maybe I will get it as a freebe and watch it agian and see why I thought it was so four finger gag... I am not saying this is the case for anyone else but me... I can here the incoming now...[:-]




WhoCares -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/14/2005 6:12:00 PM)

I liked the movie. It serves more as an Anti-War movie than Privat Ryan. Sure, PR has the better action but from my european point of view it had just too much flag-waving and heroism. From such perspectives TRL is far superior.
The two competed for several Acadamy Awards but I guess the Spielberg/Hanks combo is hard to beat, just because of the names...




timtom -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/14/2005 6:21:41 PM)

James Jones, the author of the trilogy one volume of which is TTRL, was an infantryman with the 25th ID during its tenure on Guadalcanal. He was wounded (or injured, I forget) towards the end, and basically spend the rest of the war in and out of hospital.

TTRL obviously draws heavily on Jones' own experiences, an impression reinforced by a reading of his 1975 "WWII: A Chronicle of Soldiering". WWII is a slender volume about American art in and about WWII, to which Jones was asked to provide the text. Here he restates many of the points made TTRL in non-fictional form, and makes it quite clear that TTRL can resonably be considered semi-fictional. Some social historians of note, like John Ellis or Gerald Lindermann, aren't shy of quoting TTRL outright in their work.

For my own part, TTRL is certainly the best piece of fiction on men in war at the individual/small-group level that I've read. As to it's authenticity, well, read it as an example of what the last months of Guadalcanal might have been like at company level. Granted artistic licence, Jones was there, and he's as good (or bad) as any other witness.

Jones' overarching points about modernism, the state, and the individual are of course as valid as any other viewpoint. I think, however, that his views are refreshingly contrary to the trimphalism and polarization that dominates Western public discourse on WWII.

I understand that Malik spend a decade or so doing the script for the movie, and it seems to me the novel got transformed beyond recoqnition during this process. There's very little left of the novel, to the point where I'd say that they share little other than the title.
Either that, or the producers felt that the American public couldn't stomach the idea that wars can be "necesary" without being "good", that even among the winners there are loosers, and, indeed, that these loosers might not be particularly content with their lot.




Apollo11 -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/14/2005 6:52:57 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

James Jones, the author of the trilogy one volume of which is TTRL, was an infantryman with the 25th ID during its tenure on Guadalcanal. He was wounded (or injured, I forget) towards the end, and basically spend the rest of the war in and out of hospital.

TTRL obviously draws heavily on Jones' own experiences, an impression reinforced by a reading of his 1975 "WWII: A Chronicle of Soldiering". WWII is a slender volume about American art in and about WWII, to which Jones was asked to provide the text. Here he restates many of the points made TTRL in non-fictional form, and makes it quite clear that TTRL can resonably be considered semi-fictional. Some social historians of note, like John Ellis or Gerald Lindermann, aren't shy of quoting TTRL outright in their work.

For my own part, TTRL is certainly the best piece of fiction on men in war at the individual/small-group level that I've read. As to it's authenticity, well, read it as an example of what the last months of Guadalcanal might have been like at company level. Granted artistic licence, Jones was there, and he's as good (or bad) as any other witness.

Jones' overarching points about modernism, the state, and the individual are of course as valid as any other viewpoint. I think, however, that his views are refreshingly contrary to the trimphalism and polarization that dominates Western public discourse on WWII.


There is also one other famous book about similar Pacific thematic (and movie too):

The Naked and the Dead
by Norman Mailer


The "Thin Red Line" was about company while "The Naked and the Dead" is about squad.


quote:


I understand that Malik spend a decade or so doing the script for the movie, and it seems to me the novel got transformed beyond recoqnition during this process. There's very little left of the novel, to the point where I'd say that they share little other than the title.
Either that, or the producers felt that the American public couldn't stomach the idea that wars can be "necesary" without being "good", that even among the winners there are loosers, and, indeed, that these loosers might not be particularly content with their lot.


I liked "Saving Private Ryan" and excellent war movie.

For me the combat scenes depicted in both "Thin Red Line" and "Saving Private Ryan" are of same heavyweight category but while "Saving Private Ryan" is all about "guts and glory" the "Thin Red Line" is more "humain"...


Leo "Apollo11"




Bobthehatchit -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/14/2005 6:56:58 PM)

Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

There is also one other famous book about similar Pacific thematic (and movie too):

The Naked and the Dead
by Norman Mailer


Got that book as well, its a good read.

Was not aware there was a film though, have to have a look and see if i can get a copy.




Apollo11 -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/14/2005 7:04:47 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobthehatchit

quote:

There is also one other famous book about similar Pacific thematic (and movie too):

The Naked and the Dead
by Norman Mailer


Got that book as well, its a good read.

Was not aware there was a film though, have to have a look and see if i can get a copy.



Here is the link (this is almost 50 years old movie):

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0051978/


Leo "Apollo11"

P.S. [Edit]
Typo fix and further clarification.




Bobthehatchit -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/14/2005 7:09:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobthehatchit

quote:

There is also one other famous book about similar Pacific thematic (and movie too):

The Naked and the Dead
by Norman Mailer


Got that book as well, its a good read.

Was not aware there was a film though, have to have a look and see if i can get a copy.



Here is the link (this is almost 50 years old movie):

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0051978/


Leo "Apollo11"

P.S. [Edit]
Typo fix and further clarification.

quote:

a


Cheers Leo!




rhohltjr -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/14/2005 7:12:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom
..Either that, or the producers felt that the American public couldn't stomach the idea that wars can be "necesary" without being "good", ....


[&:] hmmm....stomach just fine with that idea. [8|]

Sincerely, American public,
at least 1/250,000,000 of it anyway.




byron13 -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/14/2005 8:46:02 PM)

Thin Red Line: P U




Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/15/2005 12:56:22 AM)

The movie i think overall sucked. However the battle scenes were good, and the part where the japs were chasing the GI's down the creek-the japs looked professional and strak, they did not look like the "John Wayne" movie japs.[:D]




Salient -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/15/2005 1:04:01 AM)

The movie is more than just a "war movie", it's not just about some episode in the Pacific. If you're idea of a good movie is just a lot of combat scenes and explosions you're better off watching some old hollywood movie with John Wayne landing in France with a cigar in his mouth never needing to duck for cover.

Anyone remember the beautiful shots with the long grass blowing in the wind on Guadalcanal?

IMHO it's a great movie with alot of content, not just guns.




Gen.Hoepner -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/15/2005 1:16:10 AM)

I hate that movie. Really 3 hours of Psycological analysis and philosophy were not what i expected from a pacific war movie. I wanted the realism of Private Ryan or BoB with the dark atmosphere of Das Boot in the landscape of Guadalcanal.... with the FX of PH or Enemy at the gates...




madmickey -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/15/2005 1:58:07 AM)

Actually there was a well-done Thin Red Line made in 1960s which followed the book. This (1998 version) movie was made by a director who previous movie was dishonest portrayal of a mass murder. Terrence Malick is a POS.

“The Thin Red Line
1964 - USA - War Drama/War Epic



Type: Features
Distributor: Allied Artists
Rating: NR (Not For Children)
Running Time: 180 minutesStarring: Ray Daley, Keir Dullea, Bob Kanter, James Philbrook, Jack Warden
Directed by: Andrew Marton

PLOT DESCRIPTION
Set during the Allied invasion of the island of Guadalcanal in the Pacific theater during WWII, this film is based on the novel by James Jones. Keir Dullea is Private Doll, who dreads the invasion and steals a pistol to help him protect himself. Sergeant Welsh (Jack Warden), a caustic, battle-scarred veteran, hates Doll, whom he considers a coward. In battle, Doll kills a Japanese soldier and is filled with remorse, which further angers the sergeant. The next day, an emboldened Doll wipes out an entire enemy machine gun post and begins to feel as sadistic as Welsh. The two must work together to clear away some mines, but as they do, their platoon is surprised by a Japanese raid. ~ Michael Betzold, All Movie Guide”




Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/15/2005 2:11:37 AM)

yea right![:-]




byron13 -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/15/2005 3:08:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Salient

The movie is more than just a "war movie", it's not just about some episode in the Pacific. If you're idea of a good movie is just a lot of combat scenes and explosions you're better off watching some old hollywood movie with John Wayne landing in France with a cigar in his mouth never needing to duck for cover.

Anyone remember the beautiful shots with the long grass blowing in the wind on Guadalcanal?

IMHO it's a great movie with alot of content, not just guns.


No doubt the cinematography was striking, but the supposed moral dilemmas were conveyed a little too heavy-handed. Nolte's character was too overdone and I remember the advance through the village and all of the shots of the dead and dying was just . . . well . . . heavy-handed. I didn't get the "gosh, isn't war awful" feeling that I think I was supposed to. Instead I got the "gimmee a break/when does this movie end" feeling I wasn't supposed to get. Just too artsy-fartsy for my taste. If I remember, there were like three endings to the movie: the movie would clearly end and then UGH! another ten minutes until another obvious ending and then UGH! still more.




fbastos -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/15/2005 3:23:36 AM)

By the way, what is the thin red line the title refers? I don't remember any phrase in the movie explaining that.

One of the best war movies ever, imho; I watched it 4 or 5 times when I first rented it. Awesome music. Very cerebral, though, so I knew before anyone told me that many people wouldn't like it.

F.




JohnK -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/15/2005 5:24:04 AM)

It was a bad movie with some nice cinematography. Could have been great.

The people that unaccountably like it inevitably assume that everyone that doesn't like it are morons who only like Rambo movies. What a crock.

It also didn't bear the slightest resemblance to the book in tone or theme. There was NOTHING in James Jone's book dealing with war violating nature, etc.

In the book the Witt character is a racist brawling redneck, not some gentle introspective faith healer.

A sign of a terrible screenplay is having it filled with internal dialogue. Practically the whole movie was people prattling away inside their heads, in a manner which I find highly unrealistic for soldiers of this generation, particularly in that situation. The book is utterly different in this regard. In the book people are concerned with staying alive, not deep philosophy.

And frankly, there were SO many shots of parrots in trees I was laughing at them after a while. And the crippled baby bird crawling along? Give me a break. Talk about hitting your audience of the head with a hammer.




Brady -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/15/2005 5:43:45 AM)

I found the TTRL to be a good war move, as war movies go, particulary for a war Movie dating from the past 10 years or so, thier as ben so much crap made in the past few years it stands out as one of the better, their were certain aspects that were as noted above over done imo, but on the whole it was and is one of the better War Moves ever made.




fbastos -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/15/2005 6:49:22 AM)

quote:

The people that unaccountably like it inevitably assume that everyone that doesn't like it are morons who only like Rambo movies. What a crock.


I hope I didn't offend anyone; I just said that people wouldn't like it because it is an intellectual movie. I usually don't like brainy movies myself, like intelectuallesque romances... blearch... [sm=vomit-smiley-020.gif]... Woody Allen... glurch... [sm=vomit-smiley-020.gif]... Fasbinder... kluuuuuuuuuuarch..[sm=vomit-smiley-020.gif].

Thin Red Line unexpectedly got on my good side.

F.




String -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/15/2005 7:26:45 AM)

teeeheee... seems like it's true as someone in the beginning of the thread said, you either love it or hate it. But i think only one of you has really answered my question... i take it that the answer was then the all exhaustive and right one? [:D]




von Murrin -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/15/2005 9:37:46 AM)

To answer your question, it is hit and miss. The uniforms are good, the weapons are good, the effects are good, and the acting is, for the most part, quite solid. The scenery is phenomenal, though I'd expect nothing less for having been shot more or less on location.

It does contain some tremendously stunning scenes, such as the initial attack into the kunai grass.

What tends to turn people off is the pseudo-philosophical and pretentious monologue. Had there been another two hours or so to fill out the characters and let us watch them do ordinary things, it could've been very good.




testarossa -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/15/2005 10:09:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Murrin
What tends to turn people off is the pseudo-philosophical and pretentious monologue. Had there been another two hours or so to fill out the characters and let us watch them do ordinary things, it could've been very good.


You nailed it. Same here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner
..with the FX of PH or Enemy at the gates...


Two of the worst war movies ever. Biggest pile of bu11shit.
Enemy at the gates even more nausiating than PH.

One of my favorites is "When Trumpets Fade" - in some aspects it is even better than SPR.
aka Hamburger Hill 2 (Australia)




von Murrin -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/15/2005 10:23:29 AM)

I think one thing Hollywood fails to understand is the importance of activity. How do certain characters interact? Do they have a daily routine? What do they do when it is disturbed? Look at Castaway. It isn't the greatest film, but watching Hanks' character establish himself on the island is endlessly fascinating and is only ruined by the ball. His character is interesting by virtue of what he does, not what he says. The Thin Red Line is surprisingly well disposed to such an approach, yet it is barely attempted on just several occasions. The characters spend quite a bit of time doing nothing, and I think the monologue could've been quite profitably dropped in exchange for an opportunity to watch them do anything. No dialogue, just simple activities. Das Boot does this to spectacular effect. Half the movie is ordinary routine, not combat or some poorly attempted effort to moralize about man's bestial nature.

Oh, the only way Enemy at the Gates could be worse than Pearl Harbor would be to have the Russians crossing the Volga in hovercraft. The tramp coal barge carrying the camera would be excepted, of course.[:D]

Oh lord, my spelling is attrocious. I need sleep.[8|]




Gen.Hoepner -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/15/2005 10:46:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: testarossa

[
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner
..with the FX of PH or Enemy at the gates...


Two of the worst war movies ever. Biggest pile of bu11shit.
Enemy at the gates even more nausiating than PH.

One of my favorites is "When Trumpets Fade" - in some aspects it is even better than SPR.
aka Hamburger Hill 2 (Australia)


No, prob i did not explain well my thoughts. I hate those two movies, but i LOVED the Computer Graphic effects of the beginning scenes of both of them. The view of the Volga with Stukas passing by was awesome....then when i saw germans hanging childs and russians being so sweet and cool i understood it was not the right movie for me.




EUBanana -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/15/2005 12:50:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

I hate that movie. Really 3 hours of Psycological analysis and philosophy were not what i expected from a pacific war movie. I wanted the realism of Private Ryan or BoB with the dark atmosphere of Das Boot in the landscape of Guadalcanal.... with the FX of PH or Enemy at the gates...


Das Boot, surely the best war movie (well, TV series) of all time.

I really felt sorry for those guys by the end.




EUBanana -> RE: Blatantly OT topic - Thin Red Line (2/15/2005 12:52:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos

By the way, what is the thin red line the title refers? I don't remember any phrase in the movie explaining that.


I always thought the thin red line was the redcoats who didnt break at Waterloo, but how that gets linked with Guadalcanal I'm not sure. [;)]




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375