Related posts:

1. The Great Raid (2005)
2. Jarhead (2005)
3. A Bridge Too Far (1977)
4. Stealth (2005)

Looks damn hilarious, though.

Here’s the official movie site: http://www.themenwhostareatgoatsmovie.com/

No related posts.

Tens of thousands of cheering people filled the streets in front of Georgia’s parliament, but they came to make a movie, not stage one of the capital’s frequent mass demonstrations.

Tuesday night’s crowd gathered for a scene in a new Hollywood film about the 2008 Russia-Georgia war, with the working title “Georgia,” in which movie star Andy Garcia plays Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili.

The filmmakers have said they aren’t making propaganda, but the movie seems certain to figure in the ongoing struggle between Russia and Georgia over how their short war is remembered.

Link: Hollywood film recreates Russia-Georgia war – Entertainment – BradentonHerald.com

No related posts.

RED CLIFF is the most expensive Chinese film ever made, and as far as I’m concerned, worth every penny. This story of the Battle of Red Cliff is very familiar to Asian audiences, but new to most Americans. In the year 208 C.E. (A.D.), Prime Minister-turned General Cao Cao (Zhang Fengyi) gets permission from the Han dynasty Emperor to begin a campaign to crush the two warlords ruling the south. Liu Bei (You Yong) and Sun Quan (Chang Chen) must work together to fight off this threat from the North. Liu Bei’s brilliant stratigest Zhuge Liang (Takeshi Kaneshiro, who looks shockingly like Orlando Bloom) joins forces with Sun Quan’s trusted advisor Zhou Yu (Tony Leung) and, with the aid of Princess Sun Shangxiang, (Wei Zhao) fight to save their land.

A FIVE HOUR version? Gack! Wonder if we’ll see the long cut here in the states, ever!  Also of note is another project he’s working on, another telling of the “Flying Tigers” story, although I bet this has quite a different take than the John Wayne classic…

I do have another one. It’s called THE FLYING TIGER. THE FLYING TIGER is about, in WWII, there was an American volunteer group of pilot fighters who are helping the China government against the Japanese. Very special true story. The whole story is about the friendship between the Chinese and the American[s]. They work together to win the war, so it’s another war movie again. [laughs]

There’s a lot more in the interview, check it out here:

Link: INT: John Woo (photo above from the same)

Related posts:

1. Flying Tigers (1942)
2. Review of Sands of Iwo Jima/Flying Tigers DVD
3. Flying Leathernecks (1951)

Max Manus fought Adolf Hitler’s forces in Finland, then returned home to lead a group of saboteurs to battle them in his homeland. What distinguishes the film is its depiction of Manus as a vulnerable leader and a refusal to stereotype the invaders as heartless thugs.

While its setting is World War II, Sandberg sees Max Manus outside those terms. ”It’s about friendship and love. It’s about a guy who loses almost all of his friends. But he finds love, and that’s what saves him.”

The film is based on Manus’s own books, with the script by Thomas Nordseth-Tiller, a graduate of Edith Cowan University in Perth and the Academy of Art University in San Francisco. Roenning and Sandberg were working on a remake of The Heroes of Telemark, a 1965 Kirk Douglas film about Norwegian efforts to thwart Hitler’s work on an atomic bomb, when Nordseth-Tiller won a script competition judged by Liv Ullmann. Fans of the war movie genre, the two directors dropped everything to embrace the new opportunity.

Sounds interesting…  note the bit about the remake of “The Heroes of Telemark” as well…

Link: Saboteurs versus Nazis, minus the stereotypes – Film – Entertainment

Related posts:

1. From the Navy Archives

Related posts:

1. A Bridge Too Far (1977)
2. Braveheart (1995, Blu Ray)
3. Outpost (2007)

The tale of William Wallace, 13th century champion of Scottish independence, Braveheart is indeed an epic film in every sense of the word.

Painted here as a simple man from a simple upbringing, Wallace (Mel Gibson) loses his wife Murron (Catherine McCormack) to the blade of English tyranny, and so begins his quest to bring freedom to Scotland.  Well, firstly to just kick some English arse, as it were, but destiny has other plans for William.

Early on,  he starts to unite the clans, and bring them together under the flag of Scotland and Robert the Bruce.  Together they fight in several battles, complete with plenty of gratuitous piercings, slashings, crushings, and dismemberments.

King Edward Longshanks (Patrick McGoohan) sends his daughter-in-law, Princess Isabelle (Sophie Marceau) to try to make peace, but is turned down each time.

In the end, he is betrayed and subsequently captured, tortured and killed, while Longshanks lay on his deathbed.

OK, so its quite well known that the film isn’t exactly getting high marks for historical accuracy.  Even the script writer seems to acknowledge this, basing it on the 15th century tales of Wallace by Blind Harry.

But it really doesn’t matter.  What you get here is a brilliant epic about good triumphing over evil, about standing up for principle, even to the very end.  Pie-in-the-sky? Yeah, probably, but it makes for a damn good movie.

Although some aspects I think could have been left out, such as the Prince’s, ah, preferences shall we say.  Comedic, yes, but necessary, no. Ditto the weird Irishman.  (Although I’ll let him stay, just because he did bring some welcome comedy relief!)

The performances are good across the board.  McGoohan is simply regal as Longshanks.  Gibson is, well, Gibson, what else can you say.  That “Sergeant Riggs” look is perfect for the role.  Sophie Marceau is stunning as always, and you couldn’t have picked a better sidekick than Gleeson as Hamish.

The battle scenes though (this is a war movie blog, remember) are the true gems of the movie.  The carnage, the strategy, the carnage (wait, did I already say that?) are spectacular.  If you get nothing else from it, watch for these alone.

As for the Blu Ray (thanks Netflix!), I’m afraid I was somewhat disappointed.  They’ve done a more-or-less straight transfer from film here, complete with numerous (and noticable) specks and dust and the like.  I would have thought a proper restoration might have been in order, but apparently not.  Neither is the sound anything really to shout about, at least I didn’t notice anything that would set it apart from a DVD copy.  And unfortunately, there are spots where the transfer starts to take on some of that eternally annoying “low light noise.”  How this happened is beyond me, but it was noticeable.  Not very often, but I did see it.

If you’ve already got Braveheart on DVD, I don’t think I’d upgrade just yet.  But even with the aforementioned flaws the picture was still excellent.

Just on the ‘epic’ and well-done nature of the entire package, I’m throwing it an eight.  I’m sure I’ll hear about it, but it definitely qualifies as a classic.

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112573/
Amazon: Braveheart [Blu-ray]
Netflix: Braveheart

Related posts:

1. Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie (1995)
2. Crimson Tide (1995)
3. We Were Soldiers (2002)

Trademonk has discovered that Activision has filed a trademark to protect the video game property Call Of Duty in relation to “pre-recorded movies featuring comedy, drama, action, adventure, music, theatrical performances and/or animation.”

You might recall, in May Activision Blizzard CEO refused to comment ion f a Call of Duty movie was in the works, despite trade rumors that the video game publisher was shopping the idea around in Hollywood. Well the new trademark filing seems to confirm that a feature is in some form of development.

Link: Activision Blizzard Files Trademark for Call of Duty Movie | /Film

Related posts:

1. Memorial Day 2009 TV War Movie Schedule
2. Memorial Day Movies from Fox Movie Channel
3. British Vets Name Their Favorite War Movie

It seems that Australia has “dodged the bullet” as it were, and was spared annihilation.  US Submarine captain Lionel Towers (Gregory Peck) brings his ship into port at the last stand of humanity.  There he teams up with the Australian Navy, and they devise a mission to determine the extent of the fallout damage to the rest of the planet.

Aussie Mariner Peter Holmes (Anthony Perkins), and scientist Julian Osborne (Fred Astaire) join him on this futile mission.  But the mission is really only a sliver of what the film is about.

What is mainly is, is a look at how the remaining shred of humanity deals with the inevitability of their own doom.  They know full well that the radiation will eventually creep in on them, and sure enough, it does.  Towers’ relationship with Moira (Ava Gardner), Holmes with his wife, the guilt and finger-pointing over the root causes of this calamity…  That’s the real meat of the picture, and the philosophical elements greatly outweigh the mechanics of the mission.  Even when one of the sailors abadons ship to knowingly die in his home port of San Fransisco, that’s the gist of the story.

A big gold star goes to Fred Astaire in this picture.  I’ve never seen him in a role that didn’t involve a song-and-dance number, let alone a grim, troubled, alcoholic, but he knocked this one out of the park.  Peck was, well, Peck, what else is there to say.  Anthony Perkins was also stellar in his portrayal of the husband torn between his family and his duty, and his having to, for all practical purposes, tell his wife that she will one day have to kill herself and their new baby.  Yeah, its that heavy.

What could have been an absolute ball-buster of a movie, though, is made somewhat laughable by today’s standards by including massive amounts of 1950’s melodrama.  All sorts of “John! Marsha!” moments, accompanied by the requisite soundtrack swells…  You can’t help but roll  your eyes a bit.

Overall, though, you’re looking at a fine example of an early anti-war cold war movie, ending in a classically depressing yet prophetic manner. On The Beach was remade in 2000, and I’ve yet to see that one, so it will be interesting to note the differences in perspective, if any.

Thanks to Netflix and Roku for making this available via streaming to my TV.  Picture was fair (experienced getting knocked down a “dot” for this one) and the sound was good for an older film.

Here’s the final scenes of the film, thanks to YouTube.  I’m sure you can get a general idea of what to expect from this:

Related posts:

1. The Guns of Navarone (1961)
2. Twelve O’Clock High (1949)

Young Bruno (Asa Butterfield) is the son of a Nazi officer (David Thewlis) who moves his family to a country house/bunker to avoid the coming Berlin air raids.  At least on the surface.  In actuality he’s there to oversee the Jewish work camp next door.

Bruno, however, isn’t aware of what’s going on, and in typical eight-year old fashion, tries to make the best of his situation.  He spots a “farm” a short distance away, and makes plans to visit this forbidden place where his friend, and prisoner, Pavel (David Hayman) lives.

When he arrives, he finds another young boy, Shmuel (Jack Scanlon) on the other side of a forbiding electric barb wire fence.  He makes friends with Shmuel, and its clear that neither of them really understands what is going on around them, or what is happening to them.

I’m not going to spoil the ending, that’s just something you’ll have to experience for yourself.  If it doesn’t make you squirm in your easy chair then you must not be human, that’s the long and short of it.

Throughout the picture, Bruno’s viewpoint is the key.  You have to put yourself in his shoes, how could an innocent naive kid even begin to comprehend the events unfolding around him?  He can’t, and its this innocence that makes the story, and the ending, even more moving, and yes, I’ll say it, depressing.

The performances of the two kids are simply fantastic.  The confusion and despair on behalf of Shmuel.  The confusion and unrequited love for his father, and the loyalty to Shmuel on Bruno’s part.  Even the rest of the cast performs admirably, most notably Hayman (Pavel), especially in the few scenes between he and Butterfield, as he struggles to keep himself together in front of the innocent child.

If it weren’t simply for the subject matter alone, forget about the ending, I’d say this would be an excellent classroom picture.  But, much like Bruno, how do you even begin to explain these things to young kids?  Maybe older students…  There is, in fact, a “classroom edition” of the DVD, so I’m not the only one to think of this.

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas shouldn’t be missed.  If for nothing else but to think about what it used to be like, to just be a kid, and try and make sense of what life gives you…

Viewed via Netflix Instant Watch on the Roku Netflix Player…  excellent picture and sound.

Related posts:

1. Der Untergang, aka Downfall (2004)
2. Generation Kill (2008)
3. Valkyrie (2008, Blu-Ray)
4. The Children of Huang Shi (2008)
5. Tunnel Rats (2008)

The story revolves around one Francis Gifford (Robert Wagner), an affluent plantation owner in “the South.”  As luck would have it, he’s shipped off to the Pacific, and in the process, becomes a wholly changed man.

The combat scenes in this movie are quite impressive and to-the-point, probably as good as you’re going to get from any film from the 1950’s.  The beach landing ranks right up there as far as beach landings go.  But the combat is not the point of the film at all.

Gifford goes from being a typical well-to-do rich kid with connections and influence, to becoming close “war buddy” friends with the same people, the sharecroppers, he bossed around so unforgivingly back home.  When they’re killed in a stupid accident, he’s knocked back down to private due to his vengeful actions, and sent off to be a part of a remote outfit led by the overbearing “Waco.”

Throughout the picture, Gifford’s propensity for “shell shock” gets progressively worse, but only after the fact of combat.  During the fight he’s all there, and manages to pull off heroic feat after feat, ultimately saving another of his new close friends (and sharecropper) Willie (Buddy Ebsen) in a selfless mad dash down a Japanese-infested hillside….

Sure the entire film is dark and broody, but so is Gifford, and its through his trying to come to terms with everything that’s happened to him that at the end, we finally get that ray of light.  Wagner pulls off the introspective and just plain pissed-off character quite well.

The soundtrack is a bit heavy-handed, but then again, what 1950’s war movie doesn’t have that kind of track.  You will quickly lose sight of that, though.  Points also go to the production and effects team, for pulling off some totally believable (for the time) combat scenes and long-shots, not to mention a few sets that are quite amazing.

Between Heaven and Hell isn’t exactly a Saturday afternoon popcorn muncher.  If you aren’t prepared for the mood, you’ll likely get bored quickly, but the payoff is well worth it.  And yes, I’m aware of the potential racial issues that should have been brought up in this picture.  I don’t think 1950’s America was ready for it (do you?), and the film probably wouldn’t have been made anyway.

Watched it on the trusty Netflix Instant Watch via my Roku Player, and it went off without a glitch.  A bit blocky in spots, but otherwise good.

Related posts:

1. Attack! (1956)
2. Hell Raiders (1968, TV)
3. Hell In The Pacific (1968)
4. Heaven & Earth (1993)
5. Halls of Montezuma (1950)

The fun starts when a Russian submarine runs aground on a tiny Massachusetts island.  They send a party ashore, led by Lt. Rozanov (Alan Arkin) to commandeer a boat to get them free again.  They run into Walt Whittaker (Carl Reiner) and his family, and the chaos (and supposedly the hilarity) ensues.

Basically you’ve got a film trying to be a comedy, trying to thumb its nose at the entire cold war, and really doesn’t succeed at either.  The ending makes for a few typical Hollywood “feel good” moments, as forced and clumsy as it is.  The cast, with Reiner and Arkin, plus Jonathan Winters, Brian Keith, Eva Marie Saint, and a few other familiar faces, really never seems to gel to me.  Like they had somewhere else to be.  The Rozanov and Whittaker characters especially just seem to be going through the motions.  Rozanov particularly.  Maybe its an attempt at deadpan, I dunno.

What it really is, though, is a good look at how rumors get spread, changed and completely blown out of proportion.  By the end the entire island is up in arms, organizing, fighting amongst themselves, and ready to start world war 3!!  I’m sure there’s a sociology course that could use this as class material, as the handful of Russian sailors turn into a crack brigade of paratroopers, backed by the Russian Navy and everything else….

Apart from a few gags pulled from the “this should make em laugh” jar, I just didn’t find The Russians are Coming all that funny.  And that was the point.  Once again, The Netflix/Roku Instant Watch pays off though, with excellent delivery.

Here’s a few clips, enjoy:

Related posts:

1. What Did You Do In The War, Daddy? (1966)
2. Cast a Giant Shadow (1966)
3. The Battle of Algiers (1966)

The Rape of Europa chronicles these efforts, and more interestingly, delves into the world of the Nazi preoccupation with pillaging and hoarding these works of art.

The first part of the film explores how the Nazis, particularly the upper echelon including Hitler and Goering, went on a quest to capture and hoard the classical masters’ work.  “To the victors go the spoils” was their motto, and they took everything they could get their hands on, either by outright theft or through complicity of the parties they conquered and killed.

The second part follows the efforts of the Allied “Monuments Men” as they followed the invasion into Italy through the end of the war.  Through interviews and footage, we see the toll that the devastation took on irreplaceable pieces of history, such as the monastery at Monte Cassino, and the Campsanto at Piza.  There is a brief bit near the end exploring the Russian connection as well, although it doesn’t go into nearly the detail as the previous two sections.

I will say that the film takes a bit of a “surprised” view towards the actions of the Nazis, and even the Russians.  I don’t really see it as shocking at all, given the history of warfare over the centuries, the attitude of the conquering invaders taking what they can….  I think it was just accepted as par for the course.  A damn shame, to be sure, but expected.  Maybe not to the extent as might have been done in previous wars, due to the efficiency that modern transportation allowed, but expected anyway.

I think also that it does a fine job at showcasing one of the rarely discussed outcomes of war, which is the destruction of history.  As the man says in Raiders of the Lost Ark (I know, I know) “this is history.”  And faced with the nearly unavoidable destruction of buildings, paintings, statues, etc. for which there is no replacement, its certainly admirable that somebody was trying to “look out for” it all.

As a documentary I have to give it high marks, just because it is presented so well, and in such a manner as to fully outline the problem at hand.  From the legal difficulties sometimes present in determining who actually owns these pieces, to the ending where bits of Jewish religious artifacts are slowly being returned “to service” after their owners simply don’t exist anymore….  its certainly an eye-opener, and a thought-provoker.

The focus of The Rape of Europa is mainly on the art and architecture, but also touched on is the conflict between saving these artifacts, and saving the lives of the men fighting around them.  I was glad to see that viewpoint included.

I viewed The Rape of Europa via Netflix streaming and my handy Roku player, and the video and audio were superb, even on my big lcd.  The future rules.

Here’s a trailer if you’re so interested:

Related posts:

1. Black Book, aka Zwartboek (2006)
2. Flags of Our Fathers (2006)
3. Children of Men (2006)
4. Flyboys (2006)
5. Action in the North Atlantic (1943)

A renegade bunch of Nazi hunters loose in pre-invasion Germany? What could make for a better war movie?!  Yeah, if only that’s what the movie was about.  It’s not.  Actually I’m still trying to figure out what this movie is actually about, except as a cinema-snob-fan circle jerk.  And even that doesn’t quite cover it.

You’ve got Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) the leader of “The Basterds”, which are the aforementioned Nazi hunters.   They make themselves known early on, and then basically disappear for most of the film.  Tarantino even “sets up” a couple of them as “legends”, like “The Bear Jew” (Eli Roth) and “Hugo Stiglitz” (Til Schweiger)…  but then really doesn’t do much of anything with them.  What?  Oh, right, they’re supposed to mirror the infamous German war hero Frederick Zoller (Daniel Brühl), I get it, I think…  Erm, K.  Then there is the endless stretches of subtitled dialogue.  Building the story, but endless.

I do, however, *get* the ending, at least as I see it.  The lone survivor of the “Jew Hunter” Landa gets her revenge by burning the German high command alive in her theatre (whoops I spoiled it, damn.)  I will say that visually, anyway, this was a fine ending (albeit rather short) to an otherwise muddy and convoluted film.  In a way it also makes an under-the-table statement about “war movies” (and maybe a passing shot at Audie Murphy?) as the German high command and its guests applaud and laugh as the war hero Zoller, played by himself, snipes endless GI’s from the bell tower….

Unlike other of Tarantino’s work, where the myriad of seemingly out of place vignettes finally gel together at the end, or somewhere in between even, here they all seem rather fruitless.  What’s the point of the English infiltrator if all he’s going to do is be a prop for a “yer busted!” scene and instantly killed?  Hugo Stiglitz?

We’re also given endless visual and obvious nods to 30’s and 40’s foreign cinema, up to and including the aptly named “Operation Kino” (German for “cinema”) …. how transparent can you get?  Fuel for the “*fawn* Tarantino is such a film scholar *fawn*” crowd I suppose.

Yawn.  I will say that most of the other reviews I’ve read seem to be from the “OMG its Tarantino! it must be good!” school.  “His best yet!” “A vision!”  Yeah, I like what he’s done in the past, but I’m not feeling Basterds.  Yeah it totally rewrites the ending of the war, and I’ll let him have that.  Marketing this film around Pitt’s character certainly was misleading, to say the least.

Oh, and the “incredible graphic violence” everyone seems to crow about?  In the few scenes where anyone is actually getting shot at or beat up, it really ain’t all that.  Brutal? Absolutely, but not in any particularly shocking fashion.  Not only that, but it isn’t contained in that Tarantino-ish comedic bubble, at least that I noticed.  Also mostly missing is the usual at-times-philosophical “banter” between characters that makes his pictures something different.

Apart from the quite stylish ending, a good performance from Christoph Waltz as Landa, and the eventual appearance of said banter near the end, I just didn’t like the whole package.  A “war movie” its not, that’s for sure.  Much like this review has wound up, Inglourious Basterds just seems somewhat incoherent and inconsistent to me.  It definitely has its moments, but I guess I’m not seeing the big picture.  A soundtrack that ranges from the Morricone-styled first act to the wtf-out-of-place David Bowie near the end doesn’t help matters.  Somebody tell me what I’m missing.  First Act: Excellent, Last Act: Excellent, all points in between: no.

Oh, and the only thing Inglourious Basterds shares with its nearly identically titled older Italian cousin is just that, the name.  And I mean the only thing.

I’m sure I’ll hear from the Tarantino fanboys on this one….  Handing out five inglourious stars out of ten, three for the visual impact of the film’s climax alone, and two for Waltz.

Related posts:

1. Brad Pitt Cast in Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds”
2. Inglorious Bastards (Quel Maledetto Treno Blindato, 1978)
3. Memorial Day 2009 TV War Movie Schedule

Well you couldn’t be more wrong.  Oh, sure, 1941 starts out funny, I’ll give it that.  Where else are you going to have John Williams AND Spielberg lampooning *their own work* (namely the Jaws theme/opening sequence) as a naked lady gets hoisted high on the periscope of a bumbling Japanese submarine?!

But as it goes along, the whole thing quickly falls into a morass of chaos and even more chaos, degrading into a giant clusterf*ck that there is no recovering from.  The problem?  I think that they tried to do way too much with the picture.  Too many sub-stories that really didn’t interconnect in any way.  And enough already with the dance contest.  These scenes just dragged on way, way too far.

And don’t get me started on Belushi.  What. in. the. hell.  You’ve got to wonder how they were even able to stand him up straight to get him to utter the few unintelligible lines he does have.

The short version:  What starts off with a lot of promise, in premise AND on film, turns out to be a nightmarish trip into chaos.

The thought came to me that this thing might have been written by the SNL gang, all sitting around a big table filled with booze and whatever else was in vogue in ‘79, and as the night went on, the more wasted they got, throwing ideas onto the table and eventually into the final product.   “Wouldn’t it be cool if…?? Yeah! We need a ___, too! Awesome! And this that and the other! Sweet!”

Maybe as an example of what NOT to do, but otherwise, don’t bother.  Not only that, but the DVD I acquired from Netflix was an early (1999) example of widescreen formatted/letterboxed for 4:3, so some major zooming and formatting action was required to get a full picture on my screen.  I guess nobody’s bothered to update 1941 in the catalog, and probably for good reason.

Related posts:

1. Sergeant York (1941)
2. Time Slip, aka G.I. Samurai, aka Sengoku Jieitai (1979)
3. Apocalypse Now: Redux (1979/2001)
4. Dive Bomber (1941)
5. The Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel (1951)

Having not seen it, I really can’t comment very much, except to say…

1. Its Tarantino, what did you expect?
2. See #1
3. Using the ‘78 IB as a guidepost, again, what did you expect?

I just got through (unfortunately) watching Spielberg’s 1979 disappointment “1941.”  Its not like taking WWII and tweaking it to your comedic requirements is anything new.  “Operation Petticoat” anyone?  Stalag 17?  Hogan’s Heroes in its entirety?

I’m wondering if we’re not taking the whole thing and putting it on some kind of pedestal.  Dig back into war movie history and you’ll find plenty of examples which, in retrospect, might have been considered “inappropriate” or “trashing history.”  Doesn’t mean we need to all go “*gasp* *cover mouth* What would grandpa think?! *gasp*”

I’ll chime back in (via the comments, or an edit) once I’ve seen it.

FTA: (sorry for the weird formatting, still working the bugs out of the new theme apparently!)

He said that he thought Tarantino had stepped over a line of historical veracity, and that audiences, especially younger ones, might be led by Inglourious Basterds to embrace the idea that World War II was just another meaningless pulp fantasy. By now, I’ve heard this line of reasoning echoed in several other places; it could even be the core of a potential backlash. Yet the reason I was shocked is that even though I take history pretty seriously myself, it never even occurred to me to think of Inglourious Basterds as a “trashing” of history.

Link: Does Quentin Tarantino have the right to rewrite World War II? | EW.com

Related posts:

1. Brad Pitt Cast in Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds”
2. Inglorious Basterds (2009)

Just a glimpse, though.  Let’s just get it right out in the open.  As a Vietnam-Action movie, Tunnel Rats is right there.  The underground scenes are just brutal, scary, and just as I imagined they would be.  With no place to go but forward or back, these guys had to literally come face to face with whatever they found down there, and often went in…. and never came out again.

But there are a lot of problems with the movie that unfortunately overshadow everything else.  To start, I can’t remember a single name of any of the characters.  I realized this near the end, when I was thinking, “WTF was this guy’s name again?”  Kind of hard to get behind a character when you can’t remember his name.  I’m sure they were all mentioned, but it must not have been enough.

The other bit, which I still don’t quite understand, is how the entire firebase raid scene played into the overall plot.  Maybe I wasn’t paying attention, but to me that all happened rather suddenly, and for no particular reason.  It just didn’t fit.  It didn’t help that the above ground scenes during this part of the movie felt rushed, and corny.

But as I said, the parts of the movie following the guys as they raid the tunnels are the bright points (or dark points, depending on how you want to look at it.)  If you need a reason to see Tunnel Rats, this should be it.  Although the final tunnel scene seemed a little too “let’s be friends now, mmKay?” for my tastes.  Again, came out of nowhere….

As for the picture/audio quality, I watched Tunnel Rats via NetFlix’s Instant Watch on my Roku box, so I wasn’t getting the full DVD resolution or audio.  It was excellent for the medium, but I don’t really think I was missing all that much.

Despite how much I liked the tunnel bits, I have to give Tunnel Rats a 5/10.  See it for those parts, and forget the rest, along with the characters’ names!

Related posts:

1. 1968 Tunnel Rats
2. Generation Kill (2008)
3. Valkyrie (2008, Blu-Ray)
4. Stop-Loss (2008)
5. The Great Raid (2005)

To recap, Black Hawk Down is the story of a routine mission gone totally FUBAR in Somalia.  That’s about the long and short of the plot summary.

But there is just so much more to it than that, which I outlined in the previous review.

On Blu Ray, though, everything is even more intense, lending mostly to the uncompressed audio.  I don’t recall the film sounding quite like *this* on DVD.  The explosions rumble, the bullets zip through the surrounds clearer… its just that much better.  The video, well, its not as crystal-clear as some newer Blu Ray releases, that’s for sure.  There is a noticable amount of grain going on, but it’s not terrible, and actually (IMO) reflects a decent transfer… meaning that it looks exactly like it was meant to.  I didn’t notice any of that annoying digital noise in the dark spots, either.  The blacks are black, but even in the dark scenes (like the “last stand”) everything was brilliantly clear.  I don’t recall finding anything not-to-like about it. At all.  It still gets a 9/10 from me.

Extras?  I will admit to not checking them out, but the requisite commentary tracks are there, along with the “making of” feature.  Not a whole lot, but enough.

So, if you’ve got that brand new Blu-Ray player and sound system, and are looking for a title to really show it off, then Black Hawk Down should really be on your list.

Rent Black Hawk Down from NetFlix

Here’s a clip, enjoy!

Related posts:

1. Black Hawk Down (2002)
2. Black Book, aka Zwartboek (2006)
3. The Last Samurai (2003, Blu-ray)
4. Children of Men (2006)
5. We Were Soldiers (2002)

Join in (and start!) the discussion here:  http://warmovieblog.com/forum/

Right now its a bone stock theme, that will change.  Your user account for the main site will log you in to the forum, and vice-versa.  Please let me know if any issues arise with the forum or the integration via the contact form (see above for the link.)  Enjoy!  If you’ve got any ideas for different forum sections, please let me know as well.

I also fixed a bug that was causing the user profile to come up to a blank page.  Incompatible plugin removed.

No related posts.

I’ll reserve final judgement til after I’ve seen it (whenever that might be.)

Related posts:

1. Brad Pitt Cast in Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds”
2. First Look at the ‘Valkyrie’ Trailer
3. Inglorious Basterds (2009)
4. HBO’s “The Pacific” Trailer
5. Rambo – The Trailer

• Images need to be fixed, working on that
• Ratings aren’t showing on some of the template pages, working on that as well.
• General appearance/formatting/customization issues
• Navigation is a bit clumsy at the moment

Some improvements/additions:-

• User ratings for movies! Yeah!  Actually it works on any individual post page, but underneath the WMB Rating is a separate “star bar” for you to cast your vote.
• Forums are coming, soon.
• In order to use either of the above, you’ll need to register and log in.  Hurrah!
• I’m on Twitter now, as WarMovies.  Feel free to follow me.  I’ll keep you up to date on things quicker that way, if you’re interested.  Not entirely sure how I’ll use it yet.

Well, back to work getting things whipped into shape.  Hopefully by the end of the weekend It’ll be where it needs to be, along with a bunch of reviews I’m getting behind on because of the move.  Bear with me folks, its getting there!

No related posts.

First off, I just have to say this:  Brian DePalma should have used this as a reference for his similar but just-plain-awful faux-documentary Redacted.  If you’re going to do it, do it right.

That being said, there really isn’t anything all that spectacular about 84C.  The acting is not terrible, but not particularly wonderful either.  The only familiar face I recognized was that of a younger Glenn Morshower (Pierce from “24″)….  Yet despite that shortcoming, somehow this film manages to keep you engaged, and you’re able to connect with the characters and feel what they’re feeling.  And yeah, the “short” jokes get a little tiresome, and a bit forced (sorry Zack!)….

What you do have is a rather diverse group of men (albeit stereotypes), who under normal conditions “back home” likely wouldn’t have anything to do with each other.  Still they are able to band together, and as they one-by-one fall for various reasons, the bond they share becomes obvious.  And by the end, even MoPic has been accepted into their group, albeit a little too late.

Part of the reason 84 Charlie MoPic “gets it right” despite the production, is the attention to detail, and it appears they got Mr. Dale Dye to advise on this one (listen for him on the radio!)

All-in-all, if you want a glossy Hollywood rendition of things, then you might as well forget it.  But as a decent indy effort it really does the job well.

And it figures, the whole bleeding thing appears to be on YouTube if you want to follow the pieces.  Here’s a chunk for your amusement….

Related posts:

1. Born on the Fourth of July (1989)
2. Casualties of War (1989)
3. Charlie Wilson’s War (2007)
4. The Iron Triangle (1989)
5. Glory (1989)

What you get here is a surreal trip into one man’s nightmare after suffering extensive injuries on the battlefields of World War I… and a biting anti-war film to boot.

“Johnny” is really Joe Bonham, who does his civic duty and goes off to Europe to fight in the trenches.  He literally blown to bits by an inbound shell, losing his arms, legs, and face, losing all senses except touch.  He survives, and becomes a medical curiosity to the upper brass.  He’s kept alive, and in his sensory-deprived state, we get to go on some rather odd journeys down memory lane, among others.

Really I don’t want to spoil too much of it, because I think you really have to experience it for yourself.  Between his remembrances of his father, who apparently loved his fishing pole more than Joe, to his matrix-like train station conversations with Jesus (a trippy Donald Sutherland), and the absolute terror portrayed as he tries to figure out what is happening to him….  It’s just brilliant.  Yeah I know I said something before about it being not-so-much, but on another viewing I’ve changed my mind.

The only problem I think exists with the amount of anti-war “preaching” that goes on.  Some of it is just so obvious and “in your face” that it comes across wrong.  Take for example the bit with he and his father talking about Democracy….  While it might be true to a point, its almost pretentious.

But…  I guess that’s to be expected given the time it was made, right at the height of the Vietnam war and all. (Especially if you take a gander at the poster art…) I think it probably serves as a metaphor for that war more than anything.  Viewed in that respect it also adds another layer of depth to it.

Johnny Got His Gun is a mind-trip, that’s for sure, but I have to recommend it.

Related posts:

1. “Johnny Got His Gun” to be Remade? Why?!
2. Raid on Rommel (1971)

As the Japanese rout the Allies from the South Pacific in the early days of WWII, George Tweed (Geoffrey Hunter) managed to escape the invading Empire on Guam, and was able to hide out until the Allies eventually returned.

What could have been a harrowing tale of survival ends up being, well, just meh.  From the greatly exaggerated stereotypes of the natives and the Japanese, to the incredibly forced love story between Tweed and one of the natives….  There isn’t much to do but sit back and roll your eyes waiting for something really interesting to happen.

The actual invasion scenes aren’t very well executed.  His initial escapees are all eliminated save for George, but not very compellingly…  I don’t think I’ll go on.

You might give No Man is an Island a go if you’ve got nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon… but frankly I dont’ think I’d do it again.

Related posts:

1. The Longest Day (1962)
2. Wake Island (1942)
3. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
4. None But The Brave (1965)
5. The Thin Red Line (1998)

The Japanese are rolling through China and Manchuria in 1937, and to top it off, China itself has its own problems between the Communists and the Partisans….

Caught in the middle are a group of children holed up in an orphanage.  By a twist of fate, they and their part-time attendant Ms. Pearson (Radha Mitchell) are brought together with an English journalist, George Hogg (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) and Chinese partisan Chen Hansheng (Chow Yun-Fat).

As Hogg is thrust into the role of taking care of these children, it becomes clear that they must abandon their orphanage and head for neutral territory.  But this means marching on foot across some rather difficult terrain, and through Japanese and hostile Chinese outposts.  The journey, as they say, is more than the destination, and this film proves it spectactularly.

OK, so maybe its not a “war movie” in the traditional sense.  But it is still a damn fine film regardless.  It’s complex and engaging in about every way I can think of, it’ll make you laugh, cry, cringe, and think about an aspect of the war that we in the west don’t very often.

The Children of Huang Shi will probably never get the real respect it deserves, and thats unfortunate.  Check it out when you get the chance! Here’s the trailer….

Related posts:

1. Children of Men (2006)
2. Flying Tigers (1942)
3. The Boy in the Striped Pajamas (2008)
4. Rambo (2008)
5. The Purple Heart (1944)