Top 10 World War II action films of all time

[Young Grasshopper]

I have questions about our list…

1. Should “Patton” be on it? (This is one of my most favorite films, but not sure if it meets battle criteria)
2. “Went the Day Well”… battle scenes??? (I’ve never seen it)
3. I love “Sink the Bismarck”… does it deserve nomination?
4. Should “Thin Red Line” get boosted to the list? if so… what gets removed?

[CWO Marc]

2. Went the Day Well… battle scenes???  <<

Yes.  In the last part of the film, the German paratroopers (who are disguised as British troops) fight both against British regulars and against citizens of the village who have taken up arms to battle the invaders.  Including quite a few female civilians, I might add. One of them, an elderly woman, grabs a hand grenade that’s been tossed into a room full of children, runs out the door with it, and is blown apart a second later.  The scene is actually more shocking than anything in The Longest Day, whose battle sequences are rather sanitized.  One woman in the film, who’s firing a rifle from a second-floor house window, manages to kill one of the Germans outside.  Her reaction is interesting: after just a fleeting moment of satisfaction, her face falls and she says quietly, “Oh.  I…got one.”  Another woman who’s about the same age, roughly mid-20s or so, and who’s shooting from the adjoining window, takes a completely practical position: she says (more or less, based on what I can remember), “Good for you.  Now I’ll see if I can get me one.  Let’s keep score.”

3. I love “Sink the Bismarck”… does it deserve nomination? <<

As an enjoyable WWII movie, yes; as one of the top-10 best, no.  The Kriegsmarine side of the story is an annoying, almost over-the-top caricature of the Germans.  Admiral Lutyens is portrayed as a strutting, bombastic Nazi and a rather stupid leader who spends much of his time saying, “Ah, zat is good, zat is very good,” and who often ignores the wise advice of Captain Lindemann, who is portrayed as a competent but feeble officer who is reduced to saying “But, sir…” whenever Lutyens makes a bad call.  The Royal Navy side of the story is better, but it tends to veer into stereotyped romantic melodrama.  The main character is a tough, unfeeling officer who takes over the RN’s Operations Room and immediately makes it clear to his staff (including a pretty WREN officer) that he’s an insufferable by-the-book son-of-a-you-know-what – a hard shell that, we eventually learn, can be cracked by the love of a good woman (guess who that turns out to be) to reveal his mushy, anguished interior.  I know, I know: it’s a drama, not a documentary, so you need a human interest angle…but I still find that narrative choice annoying.  The original C.S. Forrester novel is very different.  On the other hand, I love the Admiralty map table that features prominently in the film, and the movie has some pretty decent ship miniature action for the 1950s.

[Young Grasshopper]

Great post… thanks. BTW, I changed the title to read “action”

[LHoffman]

@CWO:

@LHoffman:

in the link Marc posted (no offense directed at him).

I’m glad to hear this because I just posted the link for whatever it might be worth.  I wasn’t endorsing the list.  In fact, I didn’t even read it in detail; I just scrolled through it for a couple of seconds to see if it really was a list of war movies.

No worries. I did not think it reflected upon you in any way. I figured it was posted simply because it was another list.

[LHoffman]

@Young:

I have questions about our list…

1. Should “Patton” be on it? (This is one of my most favorite films, but not sure if it meets battle criteria)
2. “Went the Day Well”… battle scenes??? (I’ve never seen it)
3. I love “Sink the Bismarck”… does it deserve nomination?
4. Should “Thin Red Line” get boosted to the list? if so… what gets removed?

Regarding (1.):   IMO, yes. There are two, maybe three actual combat scenes in the movie, but only one extended battle scene (El Guettar) really. The more important aspect is that the film is very much one about the war, even though it is simultaneously a drama about a single man (unlike Schindler’s List which is not about the war but about the Holocaust). Patton traces many battles and campaigns through the perspective of one of the war’s most important generals and controversial figures. Besides being a film that is a strikingly intimate view of WWII, it is widely acclaimed as great film in all aspects: acting, music, cinematography, costumes, locations, historical accuracy, etc…

No it is not a battle film or one that focuses on combat primarily, but then again neither is Das Boat.

EDIT:  Um… I just realized you changed the title to WWII Action Films. If that is the case, then maybe Patton could be taken off. I would not consider Patton an ‘action film’. Das Boat more so, but even Das Boat is kinda a borderline case.

As for the others… I cannot say as I haven’t seen them.

[Young Grasshopper]

So Patton would fit better on my next list of “Top 10 World War 2 dramatic films”?

[LHoffman]

@Young:

So Patton would fit better on my next list of “Top 10 World War 2 dramatic films”?

That would be a better place for it, IMO.

[CWO Marc]

@Young:

4. Should “Thin Red Line” get boosted to the list? if so… what gets removed?

In my biased opinion, it should not be on a list of top-10 WWII action films.  As I mentioned previously, I took an immediate dislike to this film and finally ejected the disc after just fifteen minutes – but I’m actually going to argue the point in terms of something else than my own reaction.  From what I’ve read about The Thin Red Line, it’s one of those movies that produces extremely polarized reactions because it doesn’t follow the normal conventions of its genre.  It could almost be called an experimental war movie, a work that is intended to make an artistic statement and take viewers out of their comfort zone.  Films of the French New Wave in the 1960s were like that: art-house films that were pitched (or that tried to pitch themselves) to a mass commercial audience rather than to small groups of intellectuals and film students.  Such films are tricky creatures because some people will praise them as being milestone achievements in cinematic innovation while others will denounce them as unwatchable trash.  Very few directors manage to pull off the gamble of producing “artsy” films that are commercially successful; Stanley Kubrick would be one of the rare examples, at least in his middle period.  I think his earliest films (which I haven’t seen) were rather conventional, and I know that his last film, Eyes Wide Shut (which I have seen) was as pretentious as it was boring.  Perhaps the closest parallel to The Thin Red Line would be Apocalypse Now (set in Vietnam, not WWII), since both movies were long, big-budget, artsy, semi-experimental war movies that are not to everyone’s tastes…though I did manage get all the way through the latter film.

IMHO, The Thin Red Line would actually be a good nomination for a new different category: the 10 most controversial WWII films of all time.

[Young Grasshopper]

Although I am in the camp of appreciating the Thin Red Line for what it is, I can’t argue with your assessment. I tryed to watch a movie recently called the Tree of Life, which began with the same slow poetic narrative as the Thin Red Line, not sure if it was the same director but I shut it off fast. The best things about TTRL was the battle scenes (it was the only film in which bodies were flung by the blast waves of mortar explosions rather than actors jumping away or being pulled by invisible tether lines), and the amazing performance of Nick Nolte of all people. However, that alone is not worth sitting through the mind numbing and never ending narrative about the meaning of life while watching tree bark grow and butterflies humping. I’m quite happy to keep it off the list, although I understand a new category of WW2 films may be better suited for it, I liked Inglorious Bastards… but it’s totally artsy in my opinion the way TTRL is.

[LHoffman]

@CWO:

Perhaps the closest parallel to The Thin Red Line would be Apocalypse Now (set in Vietnam, not WWII), since both movies were long, big-budget, artsy, semi-experimental war movies that are not to everyone’s tastes…though I did manage get all the way through the latter film.

I was thinking Apocalypse Now the whole time while I was reading your post, so I am glad you brought it up. It was much more an art film than a war film, though I do believe that it was able to capture a certain aspect of Vietnam (or perhaps any war) better than most standard war films do. The pure incomprehensibility of what you were watching, the ridiculousness of it and the confusion of what was going on really put you as a viewer into the film. It was a very effective method. I can’t say I enjoyed the film very much, but I thought certain aspects were very well done.

@Young:

I liked Inglorious Bastards… but it’s totally artsy in my opinion the way TTRL is.

I did not like Inglorious Basterds at all. It was not a war film, it was an art film. But I tend to dislike avant garde in any form, not just movies. I can appreciate Tarantino’s artistry, the meaning he conveyed with color and objects. He truly is a filmmaker because Inglorious Basterds felt more like an old-school film (the idea you get in your mind when you think of what a film is) than any other I have seen recently. I appreciated the acting and the well done costumes. But it wasn’t a serious film and I guess I just prefer more serious films. Felt like some sort of vaudeville theater production. I disliked the story, the fancifulness and the incomprehensibility at times.

[Private-Panic]

I see that Hoff does not think much of Enemy at the Gates and no-one has replied to disagree - so I will!

I like this film! The depiction of the Soviet pre-Stalingrad politico-war machine works for me and I do care what happens to the main characters. Bob Hoskins is brilliant as Khrushchev. The hell of Stalingrad is on the screen.

Accepting the action (or battle) tag, it would be higher on my own list than a number of others featured.

Does anyone agree?

[LHoffman]

@Private:

I see that Hoff does not think much of Enemy at the Gates and no-one has replied to disagree - so I will!

I like this film! The depiction of the Soviet pre-Stalingrad politico-war machine works for me and I do care what happens to the main characters. Bob Hoskins is brilliant as Khrushchev. The hell of Stalingrad is on the screen.

Accepting the action (or battle) tag, it would be higher on my own list than a number of others featured.

Does anyone agree?

Full disclosure: it has been years since I have seen the movie. I will need to re-watch to fully confirm and support my opinions.

[Witt]

I am afraid, PP, that I was thoroughly disappointed with the film.
I think the characters were very badly cast and the acting was atrocious.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Private:

I see that Hoff does not think much of Enemy at the Gates and no-one has replied to disagree - so I will!

I like this film! The depiction of the Soviet pre-Stalingrad politico-war machine works for me and I do care what happens to the main characters. Bob Hoskins is brilliant as Khrushchev. The hell of Stalingrad is on the screen.

Accepting the action (or battle) tag, it would be higher on my own list than a number of others featured.

Does anyone agree?

I really like this film, but only for the battle scenes.

[CWO Marc]

@Private:

I see that Hoff does not think much of Enemy at the Gates and no-one has replied to disagree - so I will!
Does anyone agree?

I’ve never seen it, so I can’t help with that one.  The only dramatic (i.e. non-documentary) film about Stalingrad that I’ve ever watched is an English-subtitled version of the two-part b&w 1949 Soviet film “Stalingradskaya bitva” (The Battle of Stalingrad), which is a very odd movie.  Its battle scenes are in some ways very impressive – the director clearly had access to unlimited help from the Red Army, which provided lots of real tanks and other equipment – but they also include some of the worst combat-related acting I’ve ever seen on film.  Much of the film is devoted to showing Stalin running the war as a one-man show from an impressive military conference room, equipped with a long, impressive conference table, that is completely unoccupied except for Stalin and one other person (sometimes it’s a general, sometimes it’s an enlisted man receiving information on a radio).  I there are a couple of scenes where the number of officers in the room with Stalin rises to two, and their main job seems to be to answer, “It will be done, Comrade Stalin” (in a suitably impressed and reverential tone) whenever Stalin announces a decision.  The message seems to be that Stalin was such a  military genius that he didn’t really need a general staff.

Oddly enough, I first watched this film after I had seen another Soviet film of the same ilk, “Padeniye Berlina” (The Fall of Berlin), which was released in 1950 and which was (ironically) shot on German colour Agfa film stock captured in Germany by the Russians.  Padeniye Berlina is so bizarre that it made Stalingradskaya bitva look like a documentary when I got around to seeing that one, and it makes the b&w film’s portrayal of Stalin look restrained and non-partisan by comparison.

Both films, by the way, include actors who portray a Russian-speaking Hitler.  This makes for an extremely strange viewing experience, to put it mildly.

[Flashman]

Hitler always sounds more authentic speaking Scottish.

[Private-Panic]

@wittmann:

I am afraid, PP, that I was thoroughly disappointed with the film.
I think the characters were very badly cast and the acting was atrocious.

Oh witt! Oh Hoff! Oh YG!

Perhaps the presence of Rachel Weisz blinded me to these shortcomings! :-)

[Witt]

I thought it might have been Bob Hoskins, so that is a relief!

[Private-Panic]

Why? Did you want him all to yourself?

[Zhukov44]

Been a long time since I saw “Enemy at the Gates”.  It was ok, but not as interesting an experience as watching the German film “Stalingrad”.  I don’t know if “Stalingrad” deserves to be in a Top 10 list, but if any Stalingrad themed movie makes an elite list, I would back that one.  Yes, Stalingrad is a dark and frankly depressing film, but in this respect it reflects its subject matter.