Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]
Who is online
In total there are 43 users online :: 3 registered, 0 hidden and 40 guests
Most users ever online was 218 on Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:58 pm
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes
Wow, finished watching Europa and that was incredible. Really good movie, but I haven't seen many so there are probably better ones.
You better add Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo to that list.
I got to go the 70th anniversary Doolittle Raider Reunion last Tuesday. Got up to Urbana, OH, in time to watch the fly-out from the staging area at Grimes Field.
Twenty B-25 Mitchell bombers and gunships taking off at dawn, you couldn't ask for a more amazing sight. Plus, The Zero made an appearance. As in, the ONLY Zero. It's the only flying Zero in the world with the original Sakae motor. The two or three others that are flying use American-made replacement engines. That thing is amazingly quiet, quieter than most modern civilian small aircraft.
Sorry for the lack of zoom, I had to record with my phone. I need a camera. Order of take-off is in the description:
The Official High-Tech Redneck
"There is no such thing as overkill." ~Solomon Short
Well apparently this one happened as well; according to the guy who wrote the book and fought in the Ardennes. Maybe the main events, like the fake skirmish, did in fact happen but there has to be more to it than the film shows.
Exactly; it forgets it's a war film and just uses the ridiculous story line as a boat for the psychological message it wants to convey. I love an anti-war film as much as the next guy but this is rubbish if you watch it with the notion that it's going to be realistic.
There are so many occasions in the film where I'm thinking "there's no way soldiers would do that" that either the film or book, or both, were done with heavy artistic licence.
So the main plot boils down to five of the six U.S. Army guys making contact with a group of seven Germans who want to surrender via a fake skirmish. They decide not to tell the sixth member of their squad as he's a psychological wreck and want to bring the prisoners back as a 'present' for him. Anyway, they go off and leave him by himself telling him to keep watch. They go off and do the fake skirmish with the Germans but the sixth guy turns up and starts shooting the Germans because he doesn't know about the truce. All the Germans die except one, one G.I. dies and another is injured.
A U.S. army Major comes out to this house (remember, it's "hours" away by jeep) with a Lieutenant to get the prisoner. The G.I.s tell the Major that an attack is impending (the Ardennes offensive) and the Major tells the remaning four G.I.s to hold their post and radio a warning when the attack comes. The attack comes, the G.I.s try to radio in but there's no response. They find out that their entire unit was withdrawn and the Major had purposefully failed to radio them and let them know. They sneak back through enemy lines by carrying a dead soldier and painting the Red Cross on themselves.
The problem with this film is that it focuses too much on the anti-war and psychological aspect but forgets that it's actually a war film, that it's actually a film that should have realistic story lines, characters and flow well.
That must have been amazing to witness first hand. When I saw Sally B as she started up and taxied to the runway, it literally brought a tear to my eye.
This next guy doesn't
Well they say The Bridge On The River Kwai, Das Boot, Cross of Iron, Stalingrad and The Thin Red Line are all anti-war films. Surely you can't hate them all?
...Idi I Smotri and Kelly's Heroes (originally supposed to be more anti-war than it seems).
Last edited by MrCrowley on Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If a historical depiction of war makes one anti-war, then that's just an interpretation
Well I don't think it's just the depiction of war as that would make most war films 'anti-war' depending on interpretation. It's not necessarily anti-war either; perhaps just anti-that particular war.
I think The Bridge On The River Kwai takes as much a dig at the British as it does war. Das Boot is obviously anti-Nazi and the Kaleun talks about how he hates the politicians who send people to fight a war to benefit themselves. Other characters from Das Boot also take a dig at war, including the narrator. Cross of Iron is at least an anti-Nazi film and I think that would make it anti-WWII.
Stalingrad is similar to Cross of Iron and Das Boot in its anti-Nazi sentiments as well as it's disdain towards the 'High Command'. The Thin Red Line would be the American version of Cross of Iron/Das Boot/Stalingrad but it has a bigger emphasis on the wasting of life. Idi I Smotri is again, more anti-Nazi but the final twenty minutes seem to focus on how war can make adults do bad things yet this child is still able to draw a line between killing an adult Hitler and killing a child or infant Hitler.
Apparently Clint wanted Kelly's Heroes to be more anti-war than it actually is. I think there are anti-war sentiments when the main characters talk about how they do the bidding for the 'big wigs' yet get a measly salary for sacrificing their lives. They also bargain with the German tank crew showing that they don't care about fighting the Germans, they just want to take what they deserve and go home.
All those films are brilliant war films, they just also have anti-war sentiments. Two of my favourite films of all time are included above and I would count them both as a war film because they are about war; regardless of their attitude towards war.
I see what you mean, but at the same time a few people at war while moaning about it because they're having a bit of a miserable time isn't exactly going to stop human conflict.
On a slightly related note,
A TACTICOOL MODERN REMAKE OF THE FG42!
Damn, I thought that looked familiar
I'm spewing rainbows over here too.
For those that would cry philistine, here's a more historically accurate replica: http://smgguns.com/?page_id=99
That tactical FG-42 was ing, glad there's a historically accurate version, but I can one up it.
This made me boycott Marlin, I was considering getting a little stainless .22WMR, cut it down to minimum legal length, thread the muzzle for a "break", when I'm shooting 77gr subsonic loads, get the stainless blacked (I hate stainless on a rifle), but no, Marlin wrecked that.
Now I'm getting a Savage.
If they did that to an actual FG 42 I would be up in arms, but hey, since it's a replica, why not have a bit of fun with it
Speaking of inappropriate tacticoolness, I have to make a hybrid cartridge fed replica of this:
Last edited by jackssmirkingrevenge on Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
JSR, let's be hypothetical here. If you were religious, and someone was smearing faeces over your holy book, even if it's a copy, would you be offended? That's how I feel about mall ninja'd firearms.
I don't mind modular platforms being modified, I can tolerate railz upon railz on AR-15s, but if I see Tapco on an SKS, I suffer the most incredible buttfury. Even worse is a modified nugget.
But the most terrible of sins is defiling the work of our savior, John Moses Browning.
I do like that <s>Encore</s> Contender.
This is the 4th god damned shitting dick nippled edit
I see what you mean. Personally I would be appalled if someone did that to the original "god given" text which had historical value, but a copy, so what.
If more people felt the same, at least 41 of them would still be alive today.
Not a fan of this then
Not my style, but hey, I'm sure someone loves it
This is much prettier in my opinion, please restrain Brian!
I have no problem with reimaginings of older weapons, I would love to have this Delisle variation in my armoury:
God you guys are making me ache for a gun license now! Those are awesome.
Zeus, the lever action would be something to see in a PCP version. As soon as I get access to machining tools, I know what I'm making.
Who is online
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]