Anyone who watched both Battle of Britain and Dunkirk understands which of the two is a better war movie
Top three favorite war movies
-
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 questionhttp://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.
-
curious to know if IL has ever been in a combat scenario (naval or land)….I know there are military guys on here and I find it hard to believe a majority would side with you.
-
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.
“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.
-
@Imperious:
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.
“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.
Cause yeah, this is all totally relevant to the topic of peoples favorite war movie and not you and Gar nit-picking the specifics of one set of historical “back-drops” to a movie
-
You’re way off topic IL, you better get back on it, or Commander Jennifer will lock this thread.
No one needs to hear your food blockade commentary on SS fanatics, we’re here to talk about movies.
STOP SIDE-TRACKING the thread, or else.
-
The point is some of these choices are not war movies, but stories that use the war as background to another story.
War movies:
Longest Day
Midway
Tora Tora Tora
Operation DaybreakNot war movies:
Pearl Harbor
Iron Cross
Kelly’s Hero’s -
What about Mission of the Shark?
-
Have not seen that. No opinion
BUT:
Reading about it makes it not a war movie, but rather the story of sailors who died from shark attacks.
The war events are not driving the story, the focus is on what they do to cope with the sharks.
-
How are War events not driving the story?
They deliver the atomic bomb, and that’s why no-one knows where they are, and they are sunk by the Japanese, all true historical events, and it’s the story of the war-battle for survival, based on REAL characters, and REAL events, that drive the war story.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102455/
True Story + Driven by War Events = War movie.
Following your ever-correct lead:
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.
with a simple adjustment to this:
It is based on memoirs of
a marinesailors andhisthier account and experiences during the Pacific War. The war is entirely driving the plot and the characters are real people. -
Amazing IL! The FILM community on a WHOLE, totally disagree’s with your entire sentiment on war movies! That’s terrible!
I propose you and I write some letters to them, how could they be so wrong! Clearly our combined IQ, is superior to the entire film industry put together.
Those Fanatics, holding to their ideals, that the Painist is a war movie, pfftp.
-
Amazing IL! The FILM community on a WHOLE, totally disagree’s with your entire sentiment on war movies! That’s terrible!
I propose you and I write some letters to them, how could they be so wrong! Clearly our combined IQ, is superior to the entire film industry put together.
Those Fanatics, holding to their ideals, that the Painist is a war movie, pfftp.
Sigh…
That list is bogus. The Great Dictator is a comedy! Not a war movie. Just because you find a list on the internet where people voted does not make truth or an argument. Try again.
You really should read before posting. Please.
-
Just because someone refuses to admit when they are wrong, doesn’t make them right.
Ironically, that’s the moral of the story in Battle of the Bulge.
You should watch that great Drama again, and learn the lesson for yourself. :)
-
How are War events not driving the story?
They deliver the atomic bomb, and that’s why no-one knows where they are, and they are sunk by the Japanese, all true historical events, and it’s the story of the war-battle for survival, based on REAL characters, and REAL events, that drive the war story.
"True story of the sinking of the U.S.S. Indianapolis, its crew’s struggle to survive the sharks and exposure, and the captain’s scape-goat court-martial. "
Yea its not really a war movie. Problem is that it’s more a Historical account of events not relating directly to War.
I mean you could have a “war movie” about women serving as nurses in London and it can be accurate and based on real people, but it’s not a war movie.
War movies need battles fought more or less along the Historical narrative. Other than the sinking of the ship by a sub, thats it for the “war part”
-
Just because someone refuses to admit when they are wrong, doesn’t make them right.
Ironically, that’s the moral of the story in Battle of the Bulge.
The actual moral of the story was to stage the American experience in dealing with adversity thru bravery
If it was anything else, it was about “plain soldiers” leading Waffen SS Panzer Divisions, who served under Himmler and were declared responsible for killing Americans at Malmedy :mrgreen:
You should watch that great War Movie again, and learn the lesson for yourself :-D
Suggested Topics
