Top three favorite war movies

A footnote about the 1942 movie “Wake Island”, which revolves around the Japanese invasion in December 1941: although the movie opens with a printed statement that it depicts the events on Wake as accurately as is possible, survivors of the battle later (on a History Channel special) called the film “one of the greatest works of fiction ever produced by Hollywood.”  They even shot three different endings for it, the final choice being influenced by how the war was going at the time of its release.

by the Nimitz running into a mysterious storm-like phenomenon.

Well that is all fiction and the narrative of events is not remotely accurate. It’s not a war movie. It’s another “Battleship”.

Wake Island, as long as that movie was plot driven by actual events could be considered a war movie. If it’s another John Wayne schtick movie where he falls in love with a nurse, WHILE the setting is on wake, it is not a war movie.

Movies that use the war as a backdrop for another story are not war movies.

I like “Gone with the Wind”.

Glory is fiction then…it’s only about 20% accurate…

Not a war movie.

300 is just a comic based on an inaccurate event

Not a war movie

…Gladiator was very fictional

Not a war movie

….Pearl Harbor was ridiculously fictional.

Not a war movie, love drive the plot not the war

So how is Tora, Tora, Tora a war movie if it can’t be guaranteed to be accurate….oh wait, because its a MOVIE AND NOT A DOCUMENTARY!

It was filmed like a documentary, showing the central point of view of both sides. It is very accurate.

Movie=fiction. Any conversation the Japanese had can’t be accounted for in full, therefore fiction…

The determining factor is how the plot is driven, by actual events or by some sideshow that is fictional in order to get people interested.
Tora Tora Tora had no love story and had no Ben Afleck kissing women.

Honestly, its not that difficult.

Well that is all fiction and the narrative of events is not remotely accurate.

That’s Battle of the Bulge for sure.  There was no -last stand- at Ambleve, and it’s not even a real town.  (Though the area has been called that on occassion)

The Malemedy “massacre” was nothing like what’s desribed in the film.

And Pieper

The story is about people, and that’s what drives the plot.

The love story between the tank-commander and his girlfriend
The wanton relentlessness of the allied colonel who refuses to admit he’s wrong and who will prove himself right no matter what.
The talks between Hessler and his Aide, and life, victory, and what the meaning of the war is.
The Lieutenant who’s a flake, until he realizes what leadership means
The Desire of Hessler to achieve success and fame at any cost, and hows his lust for namesake kills him in the end.

so on and so forth…

Important events, like Patton’s Column, and the battle of Bastogne, are barely mentioned, IF EVER.

In fact, this work of fiction describes the Americans holding thier tank columns in reserve, to make it to a final frontal battle in a final blow out, as oppossed to what actually happend,  which was a column from the south led by patton to relieve the focal point of the battle, bastogne.  The same Bastogne that became the strategic objective of the offensive, as soon as Hitler realized Antwerp could not be reached.

BOTB uses the war as a back drop, to resolve a number of characters flaws, and personal battles within themselves and their relationships. Without denial.

That said, according to the definition you are providing, all quiet on the western front isn’t a war movie either.  Nor Cross of Iron.

I agree with IL; it depends on how the plot and characters are driven.  Movies like Pearl Harbor are considered Historical Fiction, because while some events may have occurred during the war, the main characters and storyline are fictional.  Band of Brothers and The Pacific are not fiction as they are actual accounts taken from the writings of those that were there.  Read With the Old Breed by Eugene “Sledgehammer” Sledge and Helmet for My Pillow by Robert Leckie.

I think we can all agree here that there are some great movies that have been passed down to us by our Father’s and Grandfather’s.  My father introduced me to watching Patton and many other war movies and now I am doing the same for my son.

The great thing about Axis and Allies is that we can bring these battles to life and learn more about what and where our earlier generations fought.

Patton and McArthur aren’t war movies,

Because they are about the men, and the war is just the backdrop.  Strictly following the -message approved- and unfalliable opinion of the Imperious one.  No one better dare disagree, because I’m strictly holding -war movie status- to that standard for the rest of time.

For that matter, “The Pacific” isn’t a war movie, because it all progresses over the lives on the characters.

Particularily Sledge…  And how he develops through the back-drop of this period of time.

The love story between the tank-commander and his girlfriend

What movie did you watch? Thats not in that movie. LOL

The wanton relentlessness of the allied colonel who refuses to admit he’s wrong and who will prove himself right no matter what.

That represents the real disagreement at the start of the campaign, the Allies didnt understand if it was a spoils attack, or a full fledged offensive. That is a very accurate way to convey that issue.

The talks between Hessler and his Aide, and life, victory, and what the meaning of the war is.

You are talking about a few lines in the script, certainly not part of the plot except to convey the view of many Germans that the war was lost.

The Lieutenant who’s a flake, until he realizes what leadership means

Which actor plays this part?

The Desire of Hessler to achieve success and fame at any cost, and hows his lust for namesake kills him in the end.

That is conveyed by what Jochem Pieper was about, fanatical at all costs. Very accurate.

German forces were stopped at SPA, where the allies had a fuel depot.

all quiet on the western front isn’t a war movie either.  Nor Cross of Iron.

Right both are not war movies. Especially Cross of Iron.

Patton and McArthur aren’t war movies

Patton was a war movie, it was the career of Patton during his many exploits and campaigns all of them displayed accurately.

“The Pacific” isn’t a war movie, because it all progresses over the lives on the characters.

Not true. It is based on memoirs of a marine and his account and experiences during the Pacific War. The war is entirely driving the plot and the characters are real people.

For the record

Jochem Pieper was not a -fanatic- he was plainly a soldier that did his job.  But any further discussion on that subject matter will take this thread off topic.

So quite in-accurately he was fictionally portrayed.

I’ve watched this movie a dozen times. So I know what I’m talking about.  And your standard means it’s not a war-movie.  And it’s ok to admit you were -mistaken-.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0531279/ 
James MacArthur plays the Lt in question

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001699/
Telly Savalas plays Sgy Guffy, who falls in love, and is driven to “ramming” rage when he his love is killed.

Jochem Pieper was not a -fanatic- he was plainly a soldier that did his job.

LOL!  Right. An ardent SS officer who led Hitler 1ss Panzer Division. Not even remotely a “plain soldier”

Admittance in that outfit is for the most hardened fanatical soldiers. Ordered the murder of Americans as Malmedy. Certainly a normal “plain soldier” action.

LOL

and is driven to “ramming” rage when he his love is killed.

He showed more emotion when his tank was destroyed.

James MacArthur plays the Lt in question

He plays a minor role, very minor.

In Battle of the Bulge the action of the battle drives the plot, not the characters. They react to the events and the events are more or less accurate.

I wish we had a popcorn eating smiley. I’ve mostly seen just the big budget war movies from the last 20 years or so and am glad to watch these discussions and will try to catch up on these suggestions.

curious to know if IL has ever been in a combat scenario (naval or land)….I know there are military guys on here…

Right. Good post. We should ask veterans of the Bulge if the commander of Hitlers most elite SS Panzer division that ordered the Malmedy Massacre was a “plain soldier”.

The SS takes volunteers and closely scrutinizes the record of each soldier. They are indoctrinated in political NAZI leanings so they are not “plain soldiers” They are most definatly fanatics to the cause.

It’s well documented that Pieper didn’t -order- his troops to commit the murders at malemedy.

Instead, as a soldier, he accepted responsibility, because the actions were committed-by/attributed-to men under his command.

I suggest you read about it.

It’s also well documented that he was a soldier through and through, and when the time came to surrender. He did.  Surrender usually doesn’t follow the term “Fanatic”.

Inner Circle, Upper elite, inside track, white glove society - sure, but a Fanatic, not so much.  Just because someone was part of HQ, or High Command, for example Rommel, didn’t make them a fanatic.  Fanaticism, is akin to holding onto a hopeless ideal, like the the “imperious” definition of “war-movie” presented in this thread.  An ideal I am going to -fanatically- support, because you’re totally right IL, except about one thing… Battle of the Bulge, by your definition is NOT a war movie.

Thus either the definition of -war movie- changes, or Battle of the Bulge is recognized as -not a war movie-.  Take your pick. It would be the position of a -Fanatic- to try and hold on to any other possibility.

Irrregardless, Peiper isn’t mentioned in the movie, and instead we get “fictional” characters, going through “fictional problems” with a historical context as a background, that’s “fictionally” altered on a massive scale. Again, not a war movie.

Just like how you say Saving Private Ryan isn’t a war movie.  How do you reach that conclusion again?  I just want to make sure my support or your -war movie- definition is absolutely and wholeheartedly honest.  I’m in all the way with you IL, 100%.

He showed more emotion when his tank was destroyed.

The emotion he is displaying when his tank is destroyed, is hatred for the germans, which starts, and ends with them killing his lady friend.  The tank is irrelevant.  Watch it again.  Great love/tragedy.

It’s well documented that Pieper didn’t -order- his troops to commit the murders at malemedy.

It is well known that he was responsible because the commander always takes the blame when his men do the wrong thing.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Oo5CK9rIx5QC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=jochem+pieper+a+fanatical+nazi&source=bl&ots=LTNZB6pCIT&sig=0mQbw3e6IKhP5rXaD_w_IVlfVYU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2ebrT76XIMTL2QWdudnTAQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jochem pieper a fanatical nazi&f=false

“Peiper clearly stated that no quarter should be given nor prisoners taken and that no pity should be shown towards the Belgian civilians”

“Other murders of POWs were reported in B�llingen, Ligneuville, Stavelot, Cheneux, La Gleize, Stoumont, and Wereth on 17, 18, 19 and 20 December[citation needed]. On 19 December 1944, in the area between Stavelot and Trois-Ponts, while the Germans were trying to regain control of the bridge over the Ambl�ve River (crucial for allowing reinforcements and supplies to reach the Kampfgruppe) men of Kampfgruppe Peiper killed a number of Belgian civilians. Kampfgruppe Peiper was eventually declared responsible for the deaths of 362 prisoners of war and 111 civilians.”

Instead, as a soldier, he accepted responsibility, because the actions were committed-by/attributed-to men under his command.

And because of it he was a fanatic because the best crack SS Panzer division would not be commanded by any other type. He was convicted and served 11 years and released. “plain” soldiers don’t get charged with massacres.

It’s also well documented that he was a soldier through and through, and when the time came to surrender. He did.  Surrender usually doesn’t follow the term “Fanatic”.

Yea one who was declared responsible for war crimes and massacres, like most “plain soldiers”

Inner Circle, Upper elite, inside track, white glove society - sure, but a Fanatic, not so much.  Just because someone was part of HQ, or High Command, for example Rommel, didn’t make them a fanatic.  Fanaticism, is akin to holding onto a hopeless ideal, like the the “imperious” definition of “war-movie” presented in this thread.

Rommel was not part of the SS, Pieper was. Another poor example of comparison.

Thus either the definition of -war movie- changes, or Battle of the Bulge is recognized as -not a war movie-.  Take your pick. It would be the position of a -Fanatic- to try and hold on to any other possibility.

I guess you didn’t get the part that the war events drive the plot in a more or less Historical setting, not the characters, love stories or Ben Afleck. So nope no changes needed.

Irrregardless, Peiper isn’t mentioned in the movie, and instead we get “fictional” characters, going through “fictional problems” with a historical context as a background, that’s “fictionally” altered on a massive scale. Again, not a war movie.

Some of them were fictional names BECAUSE Pieper was still alive as well as others who may not want their story and their name soiled in some movie. Hello? The characters do portray the actual leaders in the battle.

Just like how you say Saving Private Ryan isn’t a war movie.  How do you reach that conclusion again?

Because it is not based on any actual time scale of events or specific people and battles. The characters are not representing real figures or real events. The Pacific does represent real people and real events.

Oh and one more thing…

“Jochen Peiper, was a field officer in the Waffen-SS during World War II and personal adjutant to Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler between November 1940 and August 1941”

No “Plain soldier” would EVER be in Himmlers company, certainly not an adjutant. Commanders of the highest political sympathy are selected to head the 1st Waffen SS Panzer Division.

Hope that clears you up.