Band of brothers

[Ruud van Nistelrooy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Antichrist @ Aug. 01 2002,13:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Since we are talking about war movies.... is Windtalkers any good? Cause I was thinking going to see it tomorrow.<span id='postcolor'>

I've watched the first half of it and its alright. Hardly an epic and boring sometimes, but its ok i suppose, hardly a classic

[Ruud van Nistelrooy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 01 2002,14:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 01 2002,13:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think if someone could combine and make a modern film about the russian front it'd kick ass. Brutal fighting (Urban fighting, massive tank battles, civlian brutality) and the insignificance of human life, all on a massive scale with many main characters from both sides it'd be amazing, especially with the special effects of spr for example. I think the russian front was probably thebest example of how terrible war is, so what could be a more effective setting for a WW2 war movie? It could potentially be an epic, and would probably rake in millions if done right<span id='postcolor'>

Enemy at the gates is a modern movie and about the russian front. Unfortunately it was in my opinion very weak and not very convincing.<span id='postcolor'>

It was a sniper vs sniper flick, something on a bigger scale would be wicked, such as something about Kursk

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (R. Gerschwarzenge @ Aug. 01 2002,13:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can you remember any names of good Russian war movies?<span id='postcolor'>

The names are in russian, which is kind of hard to remember, since I don't speak it.

Anyway, there was one cool movie about Afganistan. I loved when the main character, a sergeant, says (roughly translated): "Yeah, we got to assault that village tomorrow. There probably aren't any Mujahediin there by then, but who gives a fuck?"

Another nice one was about a platoon of russian guarding a road in some generic land (very much like Chechnya) being ocassionally harrashed by a sniper in the nearby woods. One nice scene in the movie shows one of the soldiers seeing movement in the woods and shooting there with his Dragunov. Instantly, a sergeant yells: "Cease fucking fire! It's the lieutenant! He's in the woods scouting!" In a short while, the lieutenant comes back and asks with an angry voice: "Who the fuck fired?" After a while, the soldier who did it steps forward. The lieutenant looks at the soldier for a while and says: "You'll use the Dragunov from here on..."

The third one I've seen tells about some engagement in the first Chechnyan war, specifically about a team of speznaz operatives.

I wish I remembered the names. Maybe Blaegis can help if he sees this...

[Oligo 1]

1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 01 2002,141)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Enemy at the gates is a modern movie and about the russian front. Unfortunately it was in my opinion very weak and not very convincing.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, it was quite a lame movie. Replace the soviets with americans and it could have (almost) been a movie modern U.S. flick from the western front.

Anyway, who the hell wrote the script of that thing? In the scene where Zaitsev has lost his rifle and is trying to pull it to him with a piece of string, the evil nazi sniper cuts the STRING with a single shot. What any REAL sniper would have done, IMO, is to shoot at Zaitsev's fucking rifle aiming at the lock! That rifle would have been unusable after that.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Enemy at the Gates was suppsoed to be more focussed on how one person's life is bigger than what it is and dynamics of propagandas. and director Jean-Jaques Annaud(Bear, Name of the Rose) chose to tell that story.

that's why most sniper scenes are screwed up. like the last scene btw Koenig/Thorvald and Zaitzev.

as for BoB, SPR whatever!

this is US movie! if you don't like it, don't watch it

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can you remember any names of good Russian war movies?<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wish I remembered the names. Maybe Blaegis can help if he sees this...<span id='postcolor'>

Lol, now I know for sure nobody reads my posts here : movie thread

Anyway the original names are:

Afganskij Izlom - "Afghan Break", directed by V.Bortko, tells about a Soviet unit in Afghanistan at the end of the Soviet involvement there.

Chistilische - "Purgatory", 1998, directed by A.Nevzorov, tells about fighting in Grozny in 1993.

Blokpost - "Checkpoint", tells about a squad manning a road checkpoint in a Chechnya look-alike country.

Oni Srazhalis' Za Rodinu - "They Fought for Motherland", Soviet-era WW2 movies which is not too heavy on the propaganda.

The Bastogne episode of BoB was pretty disappointing (although it's probably historically accurate) - I was expecting massive urban combat scenes - instead they sat in the trenches whining while being intermittenly shelled by the Germans.

Enemy at the Gates was pretty much total crap, mostly because the base for the story is total bollocks. While Zaitsev was an accomplished sniper with an impressive kill score, and did fight in 62nd army in Stalingrad, this whole duel-with-the-evil-German-sniper thing is pure fiction.

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ Aug. 01 2002,17:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Bastogne episode of BoB was pretty disappointing (although it's probably historically accurate) - I was expecting massive urban combat scenes - instead they sat in the trenches whining while being intermittenly shelled by the Germans.<span id='postcolor'>

That's how the Bastogne fighting was. Imagine sitting in trenches for days in the coldest weather you've ever experienced in your life while having to deal with all kinds of shelling. I just finished the book (haven't seen the movie yet) and it says that some of the guys had the temptation to shoot themselves in the foot to get off the front lines.

My favorite war movies are Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down. I really didn't like Apocalypse Now, it was just too unrealistic. Everything was over-exaggerated, like the bridge scene. I felt like the writer of Full Metal Jacket didn't know what he was trying to say with the movie. The boot camp portion was a deep psychological look at Pvt. Pile's insanity, and then you've got the other half which is just a bunch of crap slopped together.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 01 2002,17:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ Aug. 01 2002,17:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Bastogne episode of BoB was pretty disappointing (although it's probably historically accurate) - I was expecting massive urban combat scenes - instead they sat in the trenches whining while being intermittenly shelled by the Germans.<span id='postcolor'>

That's how the Bastogne fighting was.  Imagine sitting in trenches for days in the coldest weather you've ever experienced in your life while having to deal with all kinds of shelling.  I just finished the book (haven't seen the movie yet) and it says that some of the guys had the temptation to shoot themselves in the foot to get off the front lines.

My favorite war movies are Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down.  I really didn't like Apocalypse Now, it was just too unrealistic.  Everything was over-exaggerated, like the bridge scene.  I felt like the writer of Full Metal Jacket didn't know what he was trying to say with the movie.  The boot camp portion was a deep psychological look at Pvt. Pile's insanity, and then you've got the other half which is just a bunch of crap slopped together.<span id='postcolor'>

Apocalypse Now was more about the human side of things. It was an adaptation of Conrad's Heart of Darkness (for those who didn't know ). I like them both.

I thought BoB wandered for quite a while, but it was pretty good in the main I thought.

[Sam Samson 0]

some of this really makes me chuckle.

yanks don't realize it much, much less hollywood, but in normandy they really were't up against germans (them were fighting in the east), but against mostly polish and french as well as HJ youth (german hitler youth between 15 and 18) as well as other help-troops who were about as whole hearted in this thing as the kamikaze who flew 50 missions.

fact ist that the germans wanted to be conquered by the yanks. most had relatives in the us.

patton, when he cut so decisively through the shadow that was the western wehrmacht, thought the same way many germans did: now that we're here, lets just go on and blast ivan.

my german grandma had to house gis in her native bavaria after the conquest. they liked that much better than the rapine, pillage and plunder other germans reportedly experienced at the time by the red hands of russia.

get it, guys. america needs emotional support in these post 911-days. that's why they clothe their past victories in the shows they do now. so: our distinguished european colleagues: get a grip and stop the gripe.

everybody knows this is prose.

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Aug. 02 2002,00:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">some of this really makes me chuckle.

yanks don't realize it much, much less hollywood, but in normandy they really were't up against germans (them were fighting in the east), but against mostly polish and french as well as HJ youth (german hitler youth  between 15 and 18) as well as other help-troops who were about as whole hearted in this thing as the kamikaze who flew 50 missions.

fact ist that the germans wanted to be conquered by the yanks. most had relatives in the us.

patton, when he cut so decisively through the shadow that was the western wehrmacht, thought the same way many germans did: now that we're here, lets just go on and blast ivan.

my german grandma had to house gis in her native bavaria after the conquest. they liked that much better than the rapine, pillage and plunder other germans reportedly experienced at the time by the red hands of russia.

get it, guys. america needs emotional support in these post 911-days. that's why they clothe their past victories in the shows they do now. so: our distinguished european colleagues: get a grip and stop the gripe.

everybody knows this is prose.<span id='postcolor'>

Band of Brothers, Black Hawk Down, We Were Soldiers, and all of the other war movies that have come out recently were all started before 9-11. After the huge success of Saving Private Ryan a whole bunch of studios jumped on the bandwagon because war movies are popular again.

And while the US was up against French, Polish, and other non-Germans, we faced a whole lot of pretty strong German units. The men of E Company (the company portrayed in BoB) fought SS and paratrooper regiments in Normandy. The Atlantic Wall was manned by some tough German troops. E Company also fought some of Germany's best at the Battle of the Bulge and in Operation Market-Garden.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 02 2002,01:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Band of Brothers, Black Hawk Down, We Were Soldiers, and all of the other war movies that have come out recently were all started before 9-11.  After the huge success of Saving Private Ryan a whole bunch of studios jumped on the bandwagon because war movies are popular again.

And while the US was up against French, Polish, and other non-Germans, we faced a whole lot of pretty strong German units.  The men of E Company (the company portrayed in BoB) fought SS and paratrooper regiments in Normandy.  The Atlantic Wall was manned by some tough German troops.  E Company also fought some of Germany's best at the Battle of the Bulge and in Operation Market-Garden.<span id='postcolor'>

You are bang on with this post in a lot of ways. Most films we are seeing in the theaters now were already scripted and in production before September 11th.

And in WW II, the US did do a lot of heavy fighting against capable opponents both in the Pacific and Europe. To try to say they had it easy is really unfair.

The problem is that Hollywood has what I call 'Whitehat/Blackhat Syndrome' The good guys (The US of A) wear white hats and generally always win. The bad guys (Germans, Vietnamese, Russians, etc) wear black hats and generally act as cannon fodder. This has been happening since the dawn of Hollywwod. Why? People dont want to be depressed when they go to a movie. They want to feel good. And that means a lot of grandiose happenings, and bending history a little(lot:D)

If you dont like it, there is an easy way to fix it. Dont go to Hollywood war movies, and whenever one of your more naive friends starts spouting some jingoistic nonsense from one of said films, take the time to educate them to the facts. Or, go to them, appreciate them for what they are (usually a hell of a lot of fun) but have the foresight to learn the reality of the event.

[MDRZulu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Since we are talking about war movies.... is Windtalkers any good? Cause I was thinking going to see it tomorrow.<span id='postcolor'>

Noooooooooooooooooo don't waste your money. You guys dont even know biased until you have seen this movie it sucks huge huang. Whenever a main character throws a nade its like a huge super fireball inferno but normal grenades are just dirt. There are so many stupid heroism things in that movie that I should have left after the first 50 of them. The Japanese in that movie arent even human. They are more like native primates that scream alot and cant hit anything. Whatever the main characters name is I forgot he must have had about 9 million bullets in his handgun and he always friggen used it. I dont know how he got 9 million bullets in a normal looking 1911 but he did.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MDRZulu @ Aug. 02 2002,02:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Whatever the main characters name is I forgot he must have had about 9 million bullets in his handgun and he always friggen used it. I dont know how he got 9 million bullets in a normal looking 1911 but he did.<span id='postcolor'>

more like a cheat from CS area.

[Rhubarbman 0]

First of all im British this will come in handy when i post this,

The US did not get raped by the NVA,VC why u ask,

NVA/VC casualties 3,000,000 roughly

And yes most modern war films r to Soft on the subject due to recent events, i find most movies around the 70's,80's where the best FMJ, Hamburger Hill, Platoon etc etc..

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 01 2002,17:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's how the Bastogne fighting was.  Imagine sitting in trenches for days in the coldest weather you've ever experienced in your life while having to deal with all kinds of shelling.  I just finished the book (haven't seen the movie yet) and it says that some of the guys had the temptation to shoot themselves in the foot to get off the front lines.<span id='postcolor'>

It just cannot get very cold in France. They had what, minus 5 degrees celcius? When I was serving we had to squat two weeks in minus 42 degrees celcius. There was about 1.5 meters of snow. That sucked. Soft yanks...

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Rhubarbman @ Aug. 02 2002,04:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US did not get raped by the NVA,VC why u ask,

NVA/VC casualties 3,000,000 roughly

And yes most modern war films r to Soft on the subject due to recent events, i find most movies around the 70's,80's where the best FMJ, Hamburger Hill, Platoon etc etc..<span id='postcolor'>

Victory does not depend on casualties, not at all. U.S. did not accomplish their objectives in Nam, whereas NVA/VC did, so U.S. "got raped". Way more russians were killed in WWII than germans, yet russians won, because they achieved their objectives. Way more russians than finns were killed in our little clash in WWII and still it was a stalemate, because neither side achieved all of their objectives (after the war it was pretty much back to status quo).

[Guest]

Lol Oligo. Saying that the war with the Soviets was a draw is as true as when the Americans say that Vietnam was a draw. I would say that your objectivity is clouded. The Soviets kicked your balls on several occasions during WW2. Sure you put up a good fight, but the sum of it was that you had to agree on their demands at the end of the war.

[Oligo 1]

Well, consider Winter War. Stalin annexed the Baltic states and had the same intention for Finland. His initial plans called for a thrust into Helsinki in a week or so. After fierce fighting, he settled for some pieces of land.

Stalin's objective: Take Finland. Failed.

Finnish objective: Protect whole of our land. Failed.

Makes it a stalemate, no?

And then the Continuation War. Lots of fierce fighting around a wide area of land. In the end, we again give some land.

Finnish objective: Unite the finnish tribes living in russia and their land to Finland. Failed.

Stalin's objective: Finland's fate is to be the same as Germany's fate, convert to communism. Failed.

Makes it a stalemate, no?

Maybe you can enlighten how my objectivity has failed with your unbiased swedish military analysis skills, Denoir. I'd just love to hear advice from the land which has always hidden behind our backs from the russians and sacrificed us for their own safety a couple of times.

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd just love to hear advice from the land which has always hidden behind our backs from the russians and sacrificed us for their own safety a couple of times.<span id='postcolor'>

And sold us wrong-sized mortar rounds!

[Guest]

Lol. I knew this would happen

Saying to a Finn that you lost against the Soviets in WW2 is as bad as saying to an American that they lost in Vietnam

Both will stand up and start yelling "We didn't loose! It was a DRAW!"

Winning a war is not equal to achieving the goals that you set up before the war.

In permanent stratego-politic terms:

Winter War (39-40):

Finland:

Lost: Karelen.

Gained: Nothing

Soviet

Gained: Karelen

Lost: Stalin's favourite pen soemtimes early spring '40. Found later under his favourite sofa.

Continuation War (41-44):

Finland: Lost: 10% of its land. A shitload of money it had to pay + making industrial 'frendhip' deals with the soviets. Gained: nothing

Soviet: Gained: 10% of Finlands land. A shitload of money. Deal to sell their military hardware to Finland for 50 years.

.. so, I would say that the Soviets gained more from the war then the Finns.

As for Sweden goes, it shows just what noble creatures we are. We have sacrificed Finland for the sake of peace on several occasions in history

Not to mention the numerous times we have saved your ass from the Russians.

[R. Gerschwarzenge 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Aug. 01 2002,15:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another nice one was about a platoon of russian guarding a road in some generic land (very much like Chechnya) being ocassionally harrashed by a sniper in the nearby woods. One nice scene in the movie shows one of the soldiers seeing movement in the woods and shooting there with his Dragunov. Instantly, a sergeant yells: "Cease fucking fire! It's the lieutenant! He's in the woods scouting!" In a short while, the lieutenant comes back and asks with an angry voice: "Who the fuck fired?" After a while, the soldier who did it steps forward. The lieutenant looks at the soldier for a while and says: "You'll use the Dragunov from here on..."  <span id='postcolor'>

I've seen this movie and I liked it alot.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ Aug. 01 2002,18:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Anyway the original names are:

Afganskij Izlom - "Afghan Break", directed by V.Bortko, tells about a Soviet unit in Afghanistan at the end of the Soviet involvement there.

Chistilische - "Purgatory", 1998, directed by A.Nevzorov, tells about fighting in Grozny in 1993.

Blokpost - "Checkpoint", tells about a squad manning a road checkpoint in a Chechnya look-alike country.

Oni Srazhalis' Za Rodinu - "They Fought for Motherland", Soviet-era WW2 movies which is not too heavy on the propaganda.<span id='postcolor'>

Thank you!

[Guest]

*swallow* Is it just me or are there many Finns in this thread right now? :o :o

[Oligo 1]

Denoir:

I don't agree with you about Winter War. Soviets lost so much men and materiel (although Stalin didn't care, the russian people surely did) for a small piece of land that it cannot be classified as nothing else but a stalemate like I said, not a draw or defeat for us. A stalemate is a situation where neither party cannot or is not willing to act decisively anymore.

Continuation war was, I grant it, a partial defeat (definitely not a total defeat or we'd been commies). Luckily all the shit we had to pay for the russians made us build up our industry and the resulting long term economic growth made us one of the many prosperous countries in the world today. Just look at the russian now.

Oh and when did you save us? Please, provide an example.

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">.. so, I would say that the Soviets gained more from the war then the Finns.<span id='postcolor'>

Still, Stalin planned to destroy Finnish people by moving them to Siberia,

and that didn't happen, which is nice.

Although Finland has been a little under Soviet Union's shadow until its

collapsion, I still feel that keeping our independence was more than a half

victory.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not to mention the numerous times we have saved your ass from the Russians.<span id='postcolor'>

Sweden sent some volunteers to fight in the wars, which we are grateful for.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Aug. 02 2002,09:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh and when did you save us? Please, provide an example.  <span id='postcolor'>

Gladly:

1554-1557 "Great Russian War". Russians took Finland, Sweden took it back.

1561 - We got Estland and parts of southern Finland from the Russians

1570-1595 "25-year Russian war" - Finland was occupied/liberated several times. Sweden ended up getting Narva and loosing nothing.

1609-1610 "The La Gardian War" - We take Moscow (yey! and in the peace deal we get Karelen and Viborg.

1610-1617 "The Ingermanland war", Sweden wins the Kexholm and Ingermanland areas

1656-1661 "Karl X's Russian Campaign", Sweden attacks Russia, Russia takes Finland, Sweden takes back Finland.

From here things went to hell...