-
Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
-
Please read our Rules & Guidelines
Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request
WW2 - World War II
- Thread starter Gaith
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,618
- Reaction score
- 1,695
- Trophy Points
- 148
Just caught up on this thread and I thought I'd add these to the list.
Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970) is a fantastic movie dealing with Pearl harbor. In terms of historical details it's spot on and it did win an Oscar for best special effects although they haven't aged particularly well.
Murphy's War (1971) This a great film and one I rarely see talked about. Peter O'Toole is fabulous as a the titular Murphy who is out for revenge against the U-boat that attacked and mercilessly killed his crew. If you've not seen it it's a corker.
Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970) is a fantastic movie dealing with Pearl harbor. In terms of historical details it's spot on and it did win an Oscar for best special effects although they haven't aged particularly well.
Murphy's War (1971) This a great film and one I rarely see talked about. Peter O'Toole is fabulous as a the titular Murphy who is out for revenge against the U-boat that attacked and mercilessly killed his crew. If you've not seen it it's a corker.
- Messages
- 14,899
- Reaction score
- 2,425
- Trophy Points
- 228
^ Fascinating video thanks. I saw the 1943 Titanic in 2012 at a British Film Institute season which screened all (I think) movie versions of the tragedy, from the first (pretty laughable) silent short, up to Cameron's popular epic. The video describes it well, a decent enough, quite lavish and technically impressive film for it's time with some blatant and ridiculous evil capitalist characters. IIRC the superior 1958 Titanic film 'A Night to Remember' re-used shots from the 1943 movie (probably figuring virtually nobody had seen the earlier film).
- Messages
- 5,794
- Reaction score
- 299
- Trophy Points
- 123
Greyhound (2020) (Apple TV+)
Greyhound was shot in the Before Times, but it feels like something filmed during the pandemic - as if Hanks and HBO were prepping one of their multi-part WW2 miniseries, but were then told, due to covid, they could only film with a cast of 20 on one New Zealand soundstage, and that, rather than make a proper feature film, with characters, subplots, quiet scenes, and all that, they'd just be filming several action sequences. Luckily, they'd already shot one scene of civilians in a San Francisco hotel, featuring Elizabeth Shue, so they could use that, too. The result is thus pretty much one 80-minute barrage of naval warfare, plus credits, and that that one hotel scene.
As such, it's fairly well done, treading a line between keeping things comprehensible to laymen, but with an absolute minimum of moments that feel like exposition for the audience's sake. There are voice cameos from Star Trek: Enterprise's Dominic Keating and U-571/Downfall/Valkyrie's Thomas Kretschmann. Overall, it was fine for a single viewing, but I would have appreciated that full miniseries, or at least a more conventional, character-filled drama, rather more.
Grade: B
Greyhound was shot in the Before Times, but it feels like something filmed during the pandemic - as if Hanks and HBO were prepping one of their multi-part WW2 miniseries, but were then told, due to covid, they could only film with a cast of 20 on one New Zealand soundstage, and that, rather than make a proper feature film, with characters, subplots, quiet scenes, and all that, they'd just be filming several action sequences. Luckily, they'd already shot one scene of civilians in a San Francisco hotel, featuring Elizabeth Shue, so they could use that, too. The result is thus pretty much one 80-minute barrage of naval warfare, plus credits, and that that one hotel scene.
As such, it's fairly well done, treading a line between keeping things comprehensible to laymen, but with an absolute minimum of moments that feel like exposition for the audience's sake. There are voice cameos from Star Trek: Enterprise's Dominic Keating and U-571/Downfall/Valkyrie's Thomas Kretschmann. Overall, it was fine for a single viewing, but I would have appreciated that full miniseries, or at least a more conventional, character-filled drama, rather more.
Grade: B
- Messages
- 5,794
- Reaction score
- 299
- Trophy Points
- 123
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
What more is there to say? The Bridge on the River Kwai is a must-watch classic of not only WWII films, but cinema in general. However, the last act could use a bit of tightening. Several scenes of whacking through the jungle, floating down a river, and mining the titular bridge could use some trimming. Sure, the deliberate pacing is part of the charm, but even so, there's at least five minutes of flab in this three-hour epic. That said, I wish there were more films starring Jack Hawkins' Major Warden, who just about steals the show.
Grade: A-
No, dang it, Shears is a Sailor! A US Navy Sailor!
What more is there to say? The Bridge on the River Kwai is a must-watch classic of not only WWII films, but cinema in general. However, the last act could use a bit of tightening. Several scenes of whacking through the jungle, floating down a river, and mining the titular bridge could use some trimming. Sure, the deliberate pacing is part of the charm, but even so, there's at least five minutes of flab in this three-hour epic. That said, I wish there were more films starring Jack Hawkins' Major Warden, who just about steals the show.
Grade: A-
TM2YC said:
No, dang it, Shears is a Sailor! A US Navy Sailor!
- Messages
- 14,899
- Reaction score
- 2,425
- Trophy Points
- 228
Gaith said:
Hawkins starred in a few other 1950s WW2 films 'Angels One Five' (1952), 'The Cruel Sea' (1953) and 'Malta Story' (1953) if that's any consolation.
Gaith said:TM2YC said:
No, dang it, Shears is a Sailor! A US Navy Sailor!
Whoops.
- Messages
- 5,794
- Reaction score
- 299
- Trophy Points
- 123
Hitler's Hollywood (2017)
Don't expect much hand-holding from this 100-minute documentary about Germany's film production from Hitler's ascension to the end of WWII: the English narration is thickly accented, some onscreen film titles are untranslated, names are thrown around rapid-fire, and one is assumed to be enough of a historian to know what the Wansee Conference was.
Given that I barely know about British and American films from the era, I can't say I retained all that much from an intellectual standpoint. That said, some of the surveyed color films (!) in particular look tantalizingly beautiful, and it would be fascinating to see them, though I doubt many are available in HD, for understandable if unfortunate reasons. Given that the script seem to have been written for a German audience, I would love to see a British or American filmmaker with the same access to footage craft a longer miniseries that's a bit more accessible to the likes of Yanks such as myself.
Grade: B
Don't expect much hand-holding from this 100-minute documentary about Germany's film production from Hitler's ascension to the end of WWII: the English narration is thickly accented, some onscreen film titles are untranslated, names are thrown around rapid-fire, and one is assumed to be enough of a historian to know what the Wansee Conference was.
Given that I barely know about British and American films from the era, I can't say I retained all that much from an intellectual standpoint. That said, some of the surveyed color films (!) in particular look tantalizingly beautiful, and it would be fascinating to see them, though I doubt many are available in HD, for understandable if unfortunate reasons. Given that the script seem to have been written for a German audience, I would love to see a British or American filmmaker with the same access to footage craft a longer miniseries that's a bit more accessible to the likes of Yanks such as myself.
Grade: B
- Messages
- 5,794
- Reaction score
- 299
- Trophy Points
- 123
I'm obviously all for more WWII stories, and I'm intrigued by the budget-saving possibilities of this sort of hybrid live-action/animation filmmaking. That said, I'm not seeing anything in this preview or this review that suggests there's more here than a low-budget companion piece to Band of Brothers...
- Messages
- 5,794
- Reaction score
- 299
- Trophy Points
- 123
Foreign Correspondent (1940)
Ah, 1940... a time of international intrigue, fears of war, and scenes in which 34-y.o. men propose to 19-y.o. women they barely know, and it's meant to be charming. Foreign Correspondent was in development for several years, during which the Production Code forbade identifying Germans/Nazis as villains, leading to vague and euphemistic names, such as this film's international "Peace Party," which has been corrupted by unnamed foreign influence into being a weapon against the British. By the time the movie was completed, however, Britain and Germany were at war, and so there are several overt references to Germany in newspaper headlines, Hitler is name-dropped (albeit fairly innocuously), and a tacked-on coda takes place during the Blitz.
Enough history, though; what of the movie? It's... pretty okay, as others here have said. The leads are charismatic, and there's some nifty photography, but the plot stumbles from incident to incident without much driving suspense, and the story is pretty much over by the time the climactic (and quite impressive) plane crash sequence kicks in. It's a fun time capsule flick, sure, but a classic worthy of the Criterion label? Nah.
Grade: B-
Ah, 1940... a time of international intrigue, fears of war, and scenes in which 34-y.o. men propose to 19-y.o. women they barely know, and it's meant to be charming. Foreign Correspondent was in development for several years, during which the Production Code forbade identifying Germans/Nazis as villains, leading to vague and euphemistic names, such as this film's international "Peace Party," which has been corrupted by unnamed foreign influence into being a weapon against the British. By the time the movie was completed, however, Britain and Germany were at war, and so there are several overt references to Germany in newspaper headlines, Hitler is name-dropped (albeit fairly innocuously), and a tacked-on coda takes place during the Blitz.
Enough history, though; what of the movie? It's... pretty okay, as others here have said. The leads are charismatic, and there's some nifty photography, but the plot stumbles from incident to incident without much driving suspense, and the story is pretty much over by the time the climactic (and quite impressive) plane crash sequence kicks in. It's a fun time capsule flick, sure, but a classic worthy of the Criterion label? Nah.
Grade: B-
- Messages
- 5,794
- Reaction score
- 299
- Trophy Points
- 123
Babylon Berlin, Season 3 (2020) (US Netflix)
(S1/2 thoughts here.)
What with a new mystery to solve (a suspicious death at a film studio), I expected S3 of Babylon Berlin to be a substantially new story from S1/2 (which was really one big season). Instead, S3, which takes place a few months after S1/2, is very much a continuation of what came before, with nearly all unresolved plot lines pertaining to the main characters continuing to develop.
Despite the new crime scenes and mysterious antagonist, S3 lacks S1/2's pulpy hook of a train full of gold, and several episodes seem to meander about without accomplishing much. That said, the acting is excellent across the board, the production and photography are magnificent, and the last two episodes really hit the gas, leaving me totally satisfied and eager for more. S3 may not be quite up to the level of S1/2, and I've seen some people online complaining of a steep drop in quality, but I can't agree to that at all. Will our troubled heroes ever find happiness, as their country teeters on the precipice of catastrophe?!
S1/2 grade: A-
S3 grade: B+
Series so far grade: A-
(S1/2 thoughts here.)
What with a new mystery to solve (a suspicious death at a film studio), I expected S3 of Babylon Berlin to be a substantially new story from S1/2 (which was really one big season). Instead, S3, which takes place a few months after S1/2, is very much a continuation of what came before, with nearly all unresolved plot lines pertaining to the main characters continuing to develop.
Despite the new crime scenes and mysterious antagonist, S3 lacks S1/2's pulpy hook of a train full of gold, and several episodes seem to meander about without accomplishing much. That said, the acting is excellent across the board, the production and photography are magnificent, and the last two episodes really hit the gas, leaving me totally satisfied and eager for more. S3 may not be quite up to the level of S1/2, and I've seen some people online complaining of a steep drop in quality, but I can't agree to that at all. Will our troubled heroes ever find happiness, as their country teeters on the precipice of catastrophe?!
S1/2 grade: A-
S3 grade: B+
Series so far grade: A-
Last edited:
- Messages
- 5,794
- Reaction score
- 299
- Trophy Points
- 123
The King's Choice (2016)
April, 1940: Germany unexpectedly invades Norway. Hitler of course has no interest in elected leaders, but he (at least nominally) respects monarchs, so he gives King Haakon VII a choice: ensure his country surrenders, or face Nazis' wrath. The thing is, Haakon is actually the first ever King of Norway, and his position, conceived in 1905, was always intended to be purely ceremonial. He tells the politicians he will do as they instruct. But will he even nudge them one way or the other?
This is a very matter-of-fact film with razor-sharp digital (I'm assuming) photography, some mildly annoying shaky cam, and strong performances in a story that's interesting and high on drama in the abstract, but a bit short on drama between the characters we follow. The 130-minute runtime feels a tad long, but gives the historical proceedings a credible, you-are-there immediacy. Karl Markovics is quite good as Curt Bräuer, a German diplomat who is appalled by his country's actions, but nevertheless believes his mission of securing a surrender is the most humane possible outcome, even if it comes from Hitler himself. A worthwhile watch for serious WW2 fans; others can safely give it a miss.
Grade: B+
April, 1940: Germany unexpectedly invades Norway. Hitler of course has no interest in elected leaders, but he (at least nominally) respects monarchs, so he gives King Haakon VII a choice: ensure his country surrenders, or face Nazis' wrath. The thing is, Haakon is actually the first ever King of Norway, and his position, conceived in 1905, was always intended to be purely ceremonial. He tells the politicians he will do as they instruct. But will he even nudge them one way or the other?
This is a very matter-of-fact film with razor-sharp digital (I'm assuming) photography, some mildly annoying shaky cam, and strong performances in a story that's interesting and high on drama in the abstract, but a bit short on drama between the characters we follow. The 130-minute runtime feels a tad long, but gives the historical proceedings a credible, you-are-there immediacy. Karl Markovics is quite good as Curt Bräuer, a German diplomat who is appalled by his country's actions, but nevertheless believes his mission of securing a surrender is the most humane possible outcome, even if it comes from Hitler himself. A worthwhile watch for serious WW2 fans; others can safely give it a miss.
Grade: B+
- Messages
- 14,899
- Reaction score
- 2,425
- Trophy Points
- 228
Sorry @Gaith , I didn't think this was quite the masterpiece you love but it was well worth a watch nonetheless...
Valkyrie (2008)
As a big fan of the 2005-2007 HBO/BBC series 'Rome', I was pleased to see that half of that marvellous cast seemed to of left that job then walked right into employment on 'Valkyrie'. There's little in the way of character development and depth here but the realisation of the "Operation Valkyrie" based coup attempt is brilliantly staged. The second half showing the plot unfold and unravel had me gripped. From what I gather the dramatisation is pretty accurate to the real-life details but I wasn't a fan of the glossy "Hollywood" style. It's a fundamentally exciting story already, so it didn't need every possible moment being hyped with false jeopardy and telegraphed tension music (which actually deflates tension). It reminded me of 2012's 'Argo' in that respect e.g. take something real and exciting, then make it feel fake by layering artificial excitement on top. For example, the scene of Goebbels putting a cyanide capsule in his mouth then continuing a conversation, before taking it out afterwards, smelled like total bullsh*t. I gather that conversation did happen and we all know he did take cyanide a year later but slapping the two things together for the purposes of heightened jeopardy just looked ridiculous. More Ken Branagh was needed too.
Valkyrie (2008)
As a big fan of the 2005-2007 HBO/BBC series 'Rome', I was pleased to see that half of that marvellous cast seemed to of left that job then walked right into employment on 'Valkyrie'. There's little in the way of character development and depth here but the realisation of the "Operation Valkyrie" based coup attempt is brilliantly staged. The second half showing the plot unfold and unravel had me gripped. From what I gather the dramatisation is pretty accurate to the real-life details but I wasn't a fan of the glossy "Hollywood" style. It's a fundamentally exciting story already, so it didn't need every possible moment being hyped with false jeopardy and telegraphed tension music (which actually deflates tension). It reminded me of 2012's 'Argo' in that respect e.g. take something real and exciting, then make it feel fake by layering artificial excitement on top. For example, the scene of Goebbels putting a cyanide capsule in his mouth then continuing a conversation, before taking it out afterwards, smelled like total bullsh*t. I gather that conversation did happen and we all know he did take cyanide a year later but slapping the two things together for the purposes of heightened jeopardy just looked ridiculous. More Ken Branagh was needed too.
- Messages
- 5,794
- Reaction score
- 299
- Trophy Points
- 123
^ Eh, that particular moment works great for me! But, I'll happily take a "well worth a watch" from the esteemed Mr. Cinema on this one. (I don't recall any Rome actors apart from Cicero/Hitler, though? Whereas HBO's Conspiracy and Rome share a good five or six actors, and Valkyrie has five or six actors from Conspiracy, which Singer and Cruise acknowledge on the commentary track.)
(I don't recall any Rome actors apart from Cicero/Hitler, though? Whereas HBO's Conspiracy and Rome share a good five or six actors, and Valkyrie has five or six actors from Conspiracy, which Singer and Cruise acknowledge on the commentary track.)
- Messages
- 14,899
- Reaction score
- 2,425
- Trophy Points
- 228
I thought there were a few more but I must have been confusing them with other shows/people. It's at least got Kenneth Cranham (Pompey), David Bamber (Cicero) and Ian McNeice (the announcer of the news).
I would have preferred if Branagh had reprised his role from Conspiracy, so you could pretend this was a cinematic universe.
- Messages
- 14,899
- Reaction score
- 2,425
- Trophy Points
- 228
Munich: The Edge of War (2021)
An average "TV movie" that can't be rescued by the usually reliable George MacKay and a superb Jeremy Irons as a very convincing Neville Chamberlain. I'm a big fan of Robert Harris' meticulously researched historical novels but I've not read 'Munich' yet, so I can only assume the deficiencies of this movie are down to the adaptation from page, to screen. I find it hard to believe that unlikely moments like a German officer taking it into his own hands to beat up and spit on the UK PM's private secretary in the middle of a tense treaty negotiation were Harris' ideas. Anachronistic details, shaky-cam and chaotic editing are distracting. I was very impressed by co-lead Jannis Niewöhner, who is an established German actor but who was new to me.
An average "TV movie" that can't be rescued by the usually reliable George MacKay and a superb Jeremy Irons as a very convincing Neville Chamberlain. I'm a big fan of Robert Harris' meticulously researched historical novels but I've not read 'Munich' yet, so I can only assume the deficiencies of this movie are down to the adaptation from page, to screen. I find it hard to believe that unlikely moments like a German officer taking it into his own hands to beat up and spit on the UK PM's private secretary in the middle of a tense treaty negotiation were Harris' ideas. Anachronistic details, shaky-cam and chaotic editing are distracting. I was very impressed by co-lead Jannis Niewöhner, who is an established German actor but who was new to me.
- Messages
- 5,794
- Reaction score
- 299
- Trophy Points
- 123
Sink the Bismarck! (1960)
May, 1941: the Bismark, an enormous German battleship, leaves the safe harbor of Axis waters for the first time, striking out for the Atlantic on a mission to devastate Britain's naval supply lines. When it destroys the famed British destroyer Hood early on during its deadly voyage, the Admiralty receives orders from the PM: destroy that ship.
A gripping story, but how's the movie? It's... okay. It mainly focuses on the chess game playing out in the London naval bunker, which feels overlit, too spacious, and understaffed. There are frequent cutaways to Bismarck's Admiral Lütjens and Captain Lindemann, but Lütjens is portrayed as a full-throated Nazi believer, whereas the actual man was far less enthusiastic. There's also an unnecessary, albeit fairly restrained, quasi-romantic subplot between the two leads, playing fictional characters. The battle scenes employ a mix of historical footage, new footage of naval ships (several of which were about to be decommissioned), and model work. The scenes of the Bismarck's crew enduring hell as the ship sank may have been impressive for the time, but they look meh and underpopulated now.
Finally, there's the dramatic problem that, while the threat the enemy ship poses to British-North American shipping is very real, the film winds up being a story of many ships mercilessly clobbering one, until it somewhat anticlimactically succumbs. This one is recommended for WWII completists only.
Grade: B-
May, 1941: the Bismark, an enormous German battleship, leaves the safe harbor of Axis waters for the first time, striking out for the Atlantic on a mission to devastate Britain's naval supply lines. When it destroys the famed British destroyer Hood early on during its deadly voyage, the Admiralty receives orders from the PM: destroy that ship.
A gripping story, but how's the movie? It's... okay. It mainly focuses on the chess game playing out in the London naval bunker, which feels overlit, too spacious, and understaffed. There are frequent cutaways to Bismarck's Admiral Lütjens and Captain Lindemann, but Lütjens is portrayed as a full-throated Nazi believer, whereas the actual man was far less enthusiastic. There's also an unnecessary, albeit fairly restrained, quasi-romantic subplot between the two leads, playing fictional characters. The battle scenes employ a mix of historical footage, new footage of naval ships (several of which were about to be decommissioned), and model work. The scenes of the Bismarck's crew enduring hell as the ship sank may have been impressive for the time, but they look meh and underpopulated now.
Finally, there's the dramatic problem that, while the threat the enemy ship poses to British-North American shipping is very real, the film winds up being a story of many ships mercilessly clobbering one, until it somewhat anticlimactically succumbs. This one is recommended for WWII completists only.
Grade: B-
Last edited:
CourtlyHades296
Well-known member
- Messages
- 145
- Reaction score
- 11
- Trophy Points
- 18
What do people here think of "And Not to Yield"?