Casino

We will stick our neck out here and say that Casino is the best film that has ever been made about Casinos. Directed by Martin Scorsese and with an outstanding cast including Sharon Stone, Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, and Frank Vincent the theme is how the mobs first took and subsequently lost control of the Vegas casino scene. The best scene – nothing to do with gambling, but when Sharon Stone is swimming in the glass sided pool.

21

Perhaps 21 was not a great success as a movie, but as a cautionary tale about card counting at blackjack it has a lot going for it. It is based on the true life story of a group of MIT students who won some money counting cards in various casinos. All of the casino scenes are interesting.

Casino Royale

Casino Royale is one of the better James Bond movies, and in it Daniel Craig played Bond on his first 007 mission. It concerned a huge poker tournament organised by a banker who needed the money as he owed it to a group terrorists because of a scam that Bond had foiled. Really it was all about the poker game which was played out in a great deal of detail; a fascinating scene. James Bond casino scenes probably have something to do with the glam that surrounds casinos today – the legacy is felt all over, with online casinos like www.onlinecasinoaustralia.com.au even basing a slots game on him – “Agent Jane Blonde”.

Rounders

Rounders is also centered on poker, but at a different level. It tells the tale of a pair of friends and their poker adventures while trying to win a large amount of money to repay a debt. There are some great poker scenes in this cult movie.

Rain Man

Rain Man is about so many other things than gambling, and in particular the changing relationship between Charlie Babbitt played by Tom Cruise and his autistic brother Raymond played by Dustin Hoffman. However, the gambling scene in which Raymond counts cards at a blackjack table in Las Vegas is a pivotal episode of the film.

What is your favorite Casino movie scene. Share your experience and suggestions in comments.

Throughout the years and right up to the modern day, film posters have been a source of great artistic interpretation.  The recent billboard poster for the film Lincoln draws us in to what we can expect to be a weighty film with a weighty performance from Daniel day Lewis.  It shows a high detail black and white image of Day Lewis’ portrayal of Lincoln lowering his gaze pensively to indicate the struggles and troubles of the great American leader.  In short it encapsulates what the film is about; a trait of many a great film poster.

Look through the ages and you will instantly recognize many iconic posters that you may well have seen in homes, bedrooms and offices now that they’re readily available through services like Instant Print posters.

The poster for Hitchcock’s masterpiece ‘Vertigo’ is one such example where a movie poster is also a genuine piece of art.  The sketchy lettering, orange background and spiraling stencil are courtesy of an artist named Saul Bass who was responsible for the dizzying opening sequence of a film that challenges one man’s grasp on reality.  The protagonist – Scottie – is never sure whether he’s being framed or who he can trust against a theme of his incurable vertigo; the poster grabs these themes perfectly.  Take a look at the poster for recent film ‘Moon’ and you may see some thematic similarities in what is another great poster – minimalist, blunt and eerie – one man pitted against the nightmare of his own erratic thoughts.  Instant Print posters are a great source for these prints.

‘Metropolis’ is a 1927 film that, like ‘Vertigo’, declares someone’s taste in great cult films.  ‘Metropolis’ paints a vivid and disturbing dystopia of twisted ideologies and attempts at mass control of the workers.  Its Orwellian subject matter is as much a declaration of a questioning mind as good taste in films and great art work.  This is a poster well worthy of adorning and adding intrigue to any room.

Other posters are less modern in their artistic outlook, but equally as effective.  The simply representational poster for ‘The Exorcist’ is a lesson in creating a dark atmosphere, with the silhouette of a lonely priest looking up towards a lonely house where light floods from one window.  The viewer already has some preconception of what is at large and the artwork delivers that sense of foreboding and intrigue.

Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, The Tree of Life and Moon are some more up to date examples of what makes a great poster.

Directed by: Ben Affleck
Produced by: Ben Affleck, George Clooney and Grant Heslov
Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, John Goodman

It is popularly suggested that there are no seconds acts in American life, let alone Hollywood, this is untrue. There are many Hollywood talents that while not exactly gone away may seem to be on have been on a semi-permanent hiatus, they usually end up making a comeback of sorts (a la John Travolta) or re-invent themselves (Kevin Costner, Clint Eastwood).

Maybe Ben Affleck’s acting standing may have been at a standstill since the early 2000’s disasters (Gigli, Jersey Girl) but could in no sense have been said to have been away. His performance in The Company Men-2010, a criminally underrated film, was not the performance of someone ‘on the way out’. His directing chops have been well evidence since 2007’s Gone Baby Gone and The Town-2010. I do not think it was a coincidence that Affleck’s assuredness and confidence was well evident in films that were set in his own hometown of Boston. As important as the feel for place was a keen understanding of the social milieu in which both these films were set.

In Argo, Affleck shows the same confidence, maybe because of his familiarity with the machinations of Hollywood and/or because he studied Middle Eastern Affairs while in college. The plot of the movie certainly seems in the realms of fiction but in fact is based on real life events and people. The opening sequence perfectly captures the tension and upheaval of the time and contextualizes US involvement in the history of Iran.

A CIA operative Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) is set the task of rescuing some six USA Embassy employees who are hiding out in the Canadian Embassy in Tehran; having escaped the fate of their colleagues who were held hostage during the Iranian Revolution. Obviously their existence had to remain a secret and their escape had to be effected by other than diplomatic means. Mendez with the assistance of special effects friend in Hollywood comes up with the bizarre idea (“the best bad idea we have”) of posing as a producer of a ‘fake’ (also called Argo) Hollywood sci-fi movie armed with fake Canadian passports for the Embassy refugees. The pretext is that even fanatically anti-American revolutionaries would be distracted by the universal draw of all things Hollywood.

Because of the delicacy of the operation they have to go through the whole process of a Hollywood production; financing, script, casting, etc. The film has great fun with the Hollywood sequences which are finely balanced by the tension of the Iranian ones. Even out of his comfort zone of Boston, Affleck still delivers probably the most perfectly executed movie of the year.

This is a caper film which pokes gentle fun at the Hollywood industry, set against the real world political upheaval and all with a fantastic feel for the period detail of the late 70’s and early 80’s. What’s not to like?

MoviesCrunch Rating – 8/10

Share your experience about the movie in Comments. Cheers.

Whatever justification they have foisting this awful music on us there can be no excuse for submitting us to a musical interlude of Chicago, apparently due to some manufactured anniversary. The awfulness and bloated reputation that both these film enjoy was only highlighted by the classy performances of Adele, Shirley Bassey and the evergreen Barbra Streisand. Basseys performance reminding us of the thing that made so many of the James Bond title songs so memorable; a lesson not lost either on Adele who with Skyfall has brought us the best Bond song since License To Kill.

 The real buzz about this years Oscar ceremony though was whether presenter Seth MacFarlane would bring his withering and unsparing humour to bear on the Tinseltown love-in. The verdict on his performance seems to have been a bit negative; wonderfully anticipated by him in Star Trek sequence. I however (as a big Family Guy fan) found him very funny and finding just the right balance between insulting and incisive humour. He also had the best dance/musical sequence with his ode to Hollywood’s actress’ propensity to have a ‘topless’ clause in their contracts! However his nominated song from his movie Ted was the only low point of his night. That and no Gywneth Paltrow acceptance speech joke, which I thought was a contractual obligation for all Oscar hosts.

We all know how the Hollywood industry mostly vote Democrat but the introduction of politics to the proceedings in the guise of First Lady Michelle Obama presenting the award for best film seems a jarring misstep by the Academy. I wonder what the audience reaction might have been say if a Republican First Lady was presenting the Best Film Award for a film about a C.I.A.operation in a foreign country. If you get over the ridiculousness of having any awards at all; how do you compare Lincoln with Django Unchained, Christoph Waltz with Alan Arkin – then it all comes down to a showcase for the movie industry. Apparently this year the viewing figures were 42.40 million viewers; some market for your wares!

As usual most of the major awards are easily predicted more to do with knowledge of how the Academy actually votes rather than merit. Argo (Best Film, Adapted Screenplay) and Life of Pi (Best Director, Cinematography) were the big winners and it is hard to argue against either as both were standout movies in a very good year for film.

I fear that by winning the Best Actress Award that Jennifer Lawrence may now be too ‘big’ for roles such as her stunning breakthrough one in Winter’s Bone and indeed her award winning one here in Silver Linings Playbook. As regards Daniel Day Lewis, maybe from hereon, for fear of winning the Best Actor Award for a possible 4th time, he will ONLY take on roles in ‘small’ movies and be careful never to go anywhere near a Weinstein project. While the Oscars can be great fun for any movie lovers it does tend to be a bit of a black-hole for cinema in general. There are plenty of equally worthy movies which do not make the nominations (The Sessions, Moonrise Kingdom, etc,) while independent and foreign movies barely get a look in; the former could not afford the costly lobbying campaign and the latter is stymied by Academy rules.

Also can we ever hope to see a documentary make a breakthrough out if it’s own category to the Best Film category as some foreign movies have done (Amour this year for instance); if it was ever going to happen it had to be this year (Searching for Sugarman, Queen of Versailles, were not even nominated in their category such was the competition)?

Finally I thought the Academy might own up as to why or how Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close got nominated for Best Picture at last years Oscars. I am still waiting!

This article is written by K.J. Fitzpatrick. The first Guest author review in Our Movie Blog.  Share your views in Comments. Cheers.

1. First up on the list is a story sure to chill your spine, rampant with exorcism and demons, in the horror thrill ride, The Devil Inside. Set in Italy, a woman seeks to discover the truth of what happened during her own mother’s exorcism. It hits theaters in January. Be sure to bring holy water.
2. One month later, The Innkeepers will arrive, promising more than just your average haunted hotel plot. Set in New England, two lone employees of The Yankee Pedlar Inn set off to find proof of haunting during the final days of business at the inn. Strange events happen, and a heck of a good time ensues for the audience. Ready to book a room?
3. March brings a new twist to an old tale, Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters. Fifteen years after their terrifying encounter at the gingerbread house, they have grown up and become hunters of the object of their fear. Their dark adventure is a twisted journey that shouldn’t be missed. Still love fairy tales?
4. May finds a once popular daytime drama revamped for the big screen. Dark Shadows will bring to life the ghoulish world of Barnabas Collins, the vampire patriarch of this creepy family. Enjoy the amped up version of this story as witches, monsters, werewolves, ghosts, and zombies come along on this spooktacular ride. A guilty pleasure for soap fans.
5. Summer is always full of blockbusters, and one looking particularly interesting is Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Ever think there was more to the Civil War than meets the eye? This movie shows you that you might just be right. Care to battle the undead, anyone?
6. A parapsychology experiment goes horribly wrong for a couple in next fall’s The Apparition. Feeding on torture and fear, their only hope is an expert in the supernatural. But is it too late?2012 is set to be a year full of fright, shock, and a grisly good time for all!

Directed by :  Arthur Penn
Written by :    David Newman, Robert Benton
Starring :         Warren Beatty, Faye Dunaway, Gene Hackman and Michael J. Pollard

Commonly thought of as the birth of the New Hollywood, Bonnie and Clyde paved the way for movies for the next two glorious and innovative decades of cinema. Conceived by its writers as an attempt to retake and remake American themed cinema from their French New Wave heroes even going so far as to offer directorial duties to Truffaut and Godard. Despite great difficulty in getting the film made, once Beatty signed on as both star and producer it was locked into the Hollywood system. Crucially Beatty brought script doctor supreme Robert Towne (Chinatown, Shampoo) and director Penn (Night Moves, Missouri Breaks) on board also.

Ostensibly a straight forward telling of the escalating escapades of the real life bank robber Clyde Barrow (Beatty) and his moll Bonnie Parker (Dunaway) and their odd entourage in Depression era 1930’s American South. It begins with Beatty ‘luring’ Bonnie away from her home and at first they just rob a few convenience stores and progress from there to robbing banks, hooking up along the way with a mechanic and simpleton, C.W. Moss (Pollard). When during another clumsy bank raid Clyde has no option but to shoot someone it becomes clear that the gangs fate is doomed, even more so when having been joined by Clyde’s brother Buck (Hackman) and his highly strung wife, the dynamic of the gang changes and tension ensues, especially between the ill met females.

In one getaway scene Bonnie gets Clyde to stop the car to remonstrate about his sister in law. There is also the small matter of Clyde being unable to consummate his relationship with Bonnie. For an actor of Beatty’s libertine reputation this seems like a brave move except when we learn that Beatty baulked at the original script idea to have a ménage a trois between the pair and Moss, hinted at in one scene where they all sleep in the same room. This might help explain more readily the couple’s ultimate betrayal by Moss’ father or maybe it was simply because “they didn’t. even get your name (Moss) in the paper, boy”!

Yes as well as violence and sex this film is also very much about fame and though set in the thirties there was a definite sixties counterculture vibe about it. Bonnie and Clyde are very concerned with their reputations and thrive on the publicity that they themselves help to create, they pose for photographs and write poems but ultimately they know they are doomed and that their demise will be their ultimate legacy and consummation. This is brilliantly illustrated in a fantastic edit at the end when in the balletic but brutal and violent ambush they glance momentarily at each other, finally getting off with each other only when they are being sent off, so to speak.

As stylised as Bonnie and Clyde undoubtedly is it is always grounded in realism and as much as it nods to time it was made it has great design, a fantastic period score and a great feel for the era interweaving social commentary on the Depression seamlessly into to the story. What do you think about this movie. Share your thoughts in comments.

MoviesCrunch Rating – 7/10

Directed by :  David Yates
Written by :    Steve Kloves, J.K. Rowling (novel)
Starring :    Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint

The final instalment in the Harry Potter films (8) is the second part of the final book (7) and is a worthy and fitting finish to the record breaking franchise; phenomenon would be more precise. If HPatDH1 suffered from some ponderous scene setting and the emptiness of incompleteness, then HPatDH2 reaps all the benefits of not having to bother with exposition and therefore is a super-charged ride all the way to its thunderous payoff and rightful conclusion.

One of the obstacles to be overcome in the previous movies, both good and bad ones, is that while remaining faithful to the books (and their massive and obsessive fan base) they had to make movies that also appealed to the casual viewer. For the most part this has been achieved but here it seems that all the bets are off and someone who is not familiar with the series or has seen the previous instalment will be lost.

This time our three magical friends Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) return, in a delightful completion of the circle, to their alma mater Hogwarts which is under attack from Dark Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) the slayer of Harry’s parents and intent on being a dominant world wide wizard. To neutralise Voldemort’s power they must destroy his remaining horcruxes, the receptacles of his divided soul and to achieve this Harry must procure the eponymous mythical items.

While the battle royal for Hogwarts is one worthy of any summer blockbuster, it also serves the purpose of a sort of roll call and farewell (some literally) for some favourite characters from the previous movies. But the real dramatic impetus of this instalment is the final showdown between Harry and his snake-faced nemesis embodying the battle between good and evil; loyalty and desertion; love and hate.

In all the other movies and indeed the books themselves and despite the magical realm the human element was always prevalent. Here the grand scale of the action is always underlined by the intimate and emotional aspects of normal human behaviour giving it a true third dimension and depth (rather than the unnecessary 3D) and therefore unlike other blockbusters on a similar scale we really care about the characters; we have all either grown up with or watched these kids grow into adulthood.

There is a wonderful epilogue where at once we are given a wistful look into the future with a true closing of the circle with the past. Ultimately all concerned (the actors seemed to have upped their game for this one) can be proud of their contribution to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 and for their stewardship and safe delivery of a much loved pop culture institution.

“You’re a wizard, Harry” and so is this movie. What do you think about this movie. How was your experience of whole Harry Potter series. Which part do you like most. And who is your favorite character in the whole Harry Potter series. Share your thoughts in comments.

MoviesCrunch Rating – 8/10

For an actor who begun his career with a ‘Big’ ‘Splash’ and is today not only one of the most bankable stars in the world but one of the most critically acclaimed it is hard to imagine that Hanks had begun to lose his way in the mid to late Eighties. By the time of the disastrous non-comedy that was Bonfire of the Vanities perhaps Hanks was grasping at straws and over-reached as badly here as did it’s director Brian De Palma. Thankfully he came back on track with his memorable comic cameo in A League of Their Own, his easy charm and comic timing in Sleepless in Seattle followed by his most serious and against type role to date as the dying lawyer in Philadelphia. The rest as they say is history.

And what a history, as Hanks went on to star in some of the most iconic parts in some of the best movies under the direction of some of the most important directors (Spielberg, Nichols, Demme) of the last 20 years. Invariably the best reason for seeing these movies is Tom Hanks and in all his roles he exudes a disarming and easy persona which immediately lets the audience in no doubt that his character is a real easy person with which to spend some time and get to know. But never once is he a great black hole sucking all the energy from his co-actors; even in Cast Away he is generous enough to share his ample screen time with a volleyball!

BEST OF

Forrest Gump (1994)

Portraying the eponymous slow witted young man into adulthood through some of the most tumultuous and iconic events of 20th Century American history, to which he is a close at hand and guileless witness. What one remembers is the heart warming human story at its core.

The Green Mile (1999)

In Frank Darabont’s overlong and fanciful take on another Stephen King gothic prison drama Hanks is memorable as an empathetic but professional prison guard who is haunted through to old age by a momentous event and his part in it.2

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

An outstanding and nuanced portrayal of an ordinary man in the midst of the extraordinary hell on earth situation that was the WW2 Normandy landings.

Catch Me If You Can (2002)

In another Spielberg outing Hanks in an unusual second billing role is never less than compelling as the FBI man more consumed by the prey than the pursuit.

Big (1988)

Hanks’ early career triumph as a 12 year old boy in a young mans body is one of the greatest, funniest and affectionate portrayals of youthful innocence on screen.

WORST OF

The Da Vince Code/Angels and Demons

Plodding workmanlike performance by Hanks in a plodding workmanlike movie from a plodding workmanlike (and way overrated) novel. The leads lack of chemistry is so bad it’s good.

Joe versus the Volcano

Hanks’ has spent his whole career finding new depths in everyman roles but here he is all at sea in a ludicrously contrived and manipulative plot which drains even Hanks normal effortless charm of all its humour.

The Money Pit

For a lot of this movie Hank turns in a great comic performance but when the movie veers way beyond farce and slapstick the movie loses its reality based humour and Hanks his way.

These days Hanks does as much behind the scenes with his TV (Band of Brothers, The Pacific) and movie production work (Where the Wild Things Are, Mamma Mia!) and has even directed two of his own movies to date, That Thing You Do and Larry Crowne. In an acting capacity Hanks is still thankfully active and his upcoming projects are both based on acclaimed contemporary novels, Cloud Atlas and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.

What is your favorite movie of Tom Hanks. What do you think about this article. Share your thoughts in comments.

Directed by :   Sidney Lumet
Written by :    Reginald Rose
Starring :         Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb and Martin Balsam

For a director who cut his teeth on television it is no surprise that Lumet chose this movie, adapted from a teleplay, as his debut. The writer Rose was also a seasoned television writer and the film, almost entirely set in one room, has the feel of television drama or a theatrical piece. The liberal intent of the director (and producer/star Fonda) is as evident here as it would be throughout a prolific and consistently brilliant career. Also notable as an actor’s director and keen advocate of exhaustive rehearsal, both of which are manifest here.

The scene is set when twelve men sit down in a sweltering jury room to deliberate on the apparently cut and dried case of a Hispanic kid charged with the killing of his own father. Only one juror (Fonda) demurs and dares to invite the disdain of his peers most of whom wish, for their own conscious and unconscious reasons, for a quick verdict. It is clear from the outset that a few outspoken jurors wish to bully the others with bombastic argument much as they are used to doing in wider society in general.

These range from a racist to a father estranged from his own son and even to an ordinary joe who just happens to have two tickets for that night’s action at Madison Square Garden. From there much debate and many arguments take place and piece by piece many bits of heretofore cast iron evidence are, if not torn asunder at least are robustly challenged. As more and more reasonable doubts are raised in the minds of the jurors the majority switch their verdicts until just a few core jurors remain unswayable.

The real dynamic of the movie is not the court case (based on a flighty and unlikely trial anyway), which of itself would not stand up to the test of time and repeated viewing that this film invites, but the social interaction of this cross-section of humanity.. The real action is the social and psychological jostling between the jurors and how the less confident and lower strata (be it class, economic, immigrant or age) begin to assert themselves and expose the frailties and prejudices of their supposed superiors.

The lesser characters reveal themselves gradually not by trite exposition or grandstanding but by mostly seemingly throwaway lines or asides that are nevertheless trenchant This would not work without the assistance of a wonderful group of actors and testament to their craft and that of the screenwriter is the fact that by the end of the movie we know all we need to know about them and no more.

The tension much as the sweltering temperature is turned up by impressive camera work and lighting with the camera increasing focus and the lighting becoming more intense as the film progresses. The height of the camera also drops in that at the beginning we see the drama from just above the jurors heads whereas by the end we are looking upward into their sweating faces.

Above all Twelve Angry Men has that component which was so prevalent in all subsequent Lumet movies (Prince of the City, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, etc.,) that is realism; at no time do we not see that these are real people reacting in authentic situations. O.k. maybe The Wiz was an exception and Murder on the Orient Express too but you get my drift! What is your experience about this movie. Share your thoughts in comments.

MoviesCrunch Rating – 9/10

While the War movie has been a staple of cinema since the beginning of that art form the definition of that genre is rather vague as to what constitutes such a movie. While some delight in the visceral reality of war others use it as an anti-war statement and even a few use it as a more general statement on society’s woes. Some concentrate on the home front and the battle for hearts and minds there while there are many instances of a movie about one war acting as either a rallying cry or a censure for another. There is even more discussion as to what constitutes a war; some worthy struggles for independence are denied that imprimatur by their oppressors. Thankfully there are many comic takes on the futility and surrealism of all wars. If we cannot agree on what constitutes the genre and how much of a war must feature in a film to qualify then there could not be much agreement on a list.

Unfortunately there is so much material to choose from, testament to the ease throughout history with which humankind resorts to greatest war, that a TOP 100 would do more justice to the genre. The hardest thing in compiling this top ten list is as to what to leave out. 

1. Schindlers List (1993)

A movie that was obviously close to director Steven Spielberg’s heart is fully realised in the hands of three diverse but equally brilliant performances by his actors. Liam Neeson is a particular standout in the eponymous role of the capitalist and collaborator who turns altruist.

2. Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Spielberg again elicits a great performance from his main actor, this time Tom Hanks as an ordinary man in extraordinarily hellish circumstances tasked with the mission to find and return home to his parents the last surviving sibling of four serving brothers. The opening battle footage of the Normandy landings is harrowingly realistic and would change the way war was portrayed on film.

3. Downfall (2004)

A long and necessarily claustrophobic examination of the last days of Hitler in his bunker as witnessed by his female secretary and based on her account. As his Reich collapses around him he rails at those close at hand; the response from his entourage is an examination of the German reaction to his reign. In the title role Bruno Ganz is outstanding and delivers the most realistic portrayal of Hitler on any screen.

4. Tae Guk Gi : The Brotherhood of War (2004)

Set during the Korean War this movie displays the violence and the ultimate physical cost of war with its harrowing and often graphic (and aural) scenes of battle. If anything the human cost as displayed by the toll it takes on the bond between two brothers conflicted by the moral ambiguities that war presents (especially a civil war) is even more wrenching.

5. The Pianist (2002)

Based on a true story of an unlikely encounter and fight for survival in the face of the Nazi occupation in the Warsaw ghetto in 1939. This film benefits immeasurably from director Roman Polanski’s proximity to the material, as a Nazi survivor himself. Despite the many and casual brutalities of the Nazis, what one remembers is the pain on Adrien Brody’s (Best Actor Oscar winner) face as a concert pianist who has to mimic playing the piano in order to maintain his concealment.

6. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

Despite the long running time, the liberties taken with the life of T.E. Lawrence, on whose book this is based, and some thematic confusion what one remembers is some of the best images ever put on screen, an iconic score and a beguiling central performance by O’Toole. To fully appreciate it make sure you catch this on the big screen sometime.

7. The Battle of Algiers (1965)

A brilliant and seminal documentary-like take on the guerrilla struggle for Algerian independence from France which although its wears its sympathies on its sleeve never short-changes the conflict by caricaturising the latter or romanticising the former.

8. Apocalypse Now (1979)

A powerful and simple tale of one mans and one nations journey into ‘The Heart of Darkness’ (based on Joseph Conrad’s novel) is full of unforgettable cameos and many quotable scenes. Only a movie as excessive and surreal as this could do justice to the folly and fallout of that war.

9. Platoon (1986)

Oliver Stone’s semi-autobiographical take on the Vietnam War is so full of in your face force that the audience feels like it is in the middle of the action in the searing jungle heat. The frustration and fear of not making any headway against the Vietcong make this particular platoon turn in on itself and what might normally be social or personality differences are heightened to shattering
effect.

10. Paths of Glory (1957)

More an anti-military film than an anti-war one, it exposes the class system inherent in the French Army during WW1. Three foot soldiers are court marshalled and sacrificed rather than expose their craven commanders. The look of the movie is stunning juxtaposing the battle scenes of trench warfare with the court scenes all carried out with sumptuous tracking shots.

What do you think about this list. What is your favourite war movie. Share your thoughts in comments.