WWFE (Worst War Film Ever)

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
Looks like Midway could be heading for the WWFE awards. It gets a no holds panning from the Military Times.

I watched it last night on Amazon Prime and thought it was a lot better than the review, apparently it cost $100million dollars to make but grossed $125million at the box office, so that’s better than most films and further more other critics have said that it was one of the more historically accurate films of this genre.
Yes some of the dialogue made me wonder “really”, but at the end of the day it was entertaining, isn’t that what films are supposed to do?
 
I watched it last night on Amazon Prime and thought it was a lot better than the review, apparently it cost $100million dollars to make but grossed $125million at the box office, so that’s better than most films and further more other critics have said that it was one of the more historically accurate films of this genre.
Yes some of the dialogue made me wonder “really”, but at the end of the day it was entertaining, and accurate and informative. isn’t that what films are supposed to do?
My bold and inclusion.
In the context of war films, depicting real events from the past, accuracy must be paramount, The film U571, was atrocious. It had the septic's recovering the Enigma machine from a boxhead sub, when it was HMS bulldog that lost 2 men in that encounter. Another, Objective Burma, had Errol Flynn's yanks taking on the japs single handed, no mention of the Chindits, or the RAF involvement. The TV documentary's on PBS America channel 81 Freeview, of the pacific war island hopping, no mention of the royal navy's pacific fleet, or the RAF involvement. If you make or concoct a film or documentary from real events, FFS get the facts correct. I'm half expecting to see Jim Carrey and Kim Kardassian, in the remake of "Churchill, the comedy years" filmed in trump tower.
 

jg505

Old-Salt
I too recently saw Midway and, whilst it was full of Americanism shite, it was historically pretty accurate.

Half a thumbs up from me.
 
My bold and inclusion.
In the context of war films, depicting real events from the past, accuracy must be paramount, The film U571, was atrocious. It had the septic's recovering the Enigma machine from a boxhead sub, when it was HMS bulldog that lost 2 men in that encounter. Another, Objective Burma, had Errol Flynn's yanks taking on the japs single handed, no mention of the Chindits, or the RAF involvement. The TV documentary's on PBS America channel 81 Freeview, of the pacific war island hopping, no mention of the royal navy's pacific fleet, or the RAF involvement. If you make or concoct a film or documentary from real events, FFS get the facts correct. I'm half expecting to see Jim Carrey and Kim Kardassian, in the remake of "Churchill, the comedy years" filmed in trump tower.
Matthew Mahogany was questioned about the inaccuracy of U571, he gave the usual" it's a movie" etc. Objective Burma had to be withdrawn after just a few days, British audiences went ballistic when they saw it.
 
I watched it last night on Amazon Prime and thought it was a lot better than the review, apparently it cost $100million dollars to make but grossed $125million at the box office, so that’s better than most films and further more other critics have said that it was one of the more historically accurate films of this genre.
Yes some of the dialogue made me wonder “really”, but at the end of the day it was entertaining, isn’t that what films are supposed to do?
TBH, I haven't actually seen the film yet and I was only highlighting the review of it. But if the film is how you say it is then that's a boon.
 
My bold and inclusion.
In the context of war films, depicting real events from the past, accuracy must be paramount, The film U571, was atrocious. It had the septic's recovering the Enigma machine from a boxhead sub, when it was HMS bulldog that lost 2 men in that encounter. Another, Objective Burma, had Errol Flynn's yanks taking on the japs single handed, no mention of the Chindits, or the RAF involvement. The TV documentary's on PBS America channel 81 Freeview, of the pacific war island hopping, no mention of the royal navy's pacific fleet, or the RAF involvement. If you make or concoct a film or documentary from real events, FFS get the facts correct. I'm half expecting to see Jim Carrey and Kim Kardassian, in the remake of "Churchill, the comedy years" filmed in trump tower.
Which film do you think is historically accurate?

Midway actually gets a lot of stuff right and it is a film not a documentary.

 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
I watched it last night on Amazon Prime and thought it was a lot better than the review, apparently it cost $100million dollars to make but grossed $125million at the box office, so that’s better than most films and further more other critics have said that it was one of the more historically accurate films of this genre.
Yes some of the dialogue made me wonder “really”, but at the end of the day it was entertaining, isn’t that what films are supposed to do?
Absolutely spot on. The action sequences were excellent, the story was factual, the dialogue was (with a few exceptions) believable, and on the whole it was an enjoyable and rousing movie.
 

syrup

LE
I watched it last night on Amazon Prime and thought it was a lot better than the review, apparently it cost $100million dollars to make but grossed $125million at the box office, so that’s better than most films and further more other critics have said that it was one of the more historically accurate films of this genre.
Yes some of the dialogue made me wonder “really”, but at the end of the day it was entertaining, isn’t that what films are supposed to do?

I enjoyed it and as you say it was far better than the reviews.
No complaints from me.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
Objective Burma had to be withdrawn after just a few days, British audiences went ballistic when they saw it.
ISTR it was withdrawn from British cinemas but was still on show in India when a young George Macdonald Fraser was on leave from er, Burma, and he quite enjoyed it as Errol had bags of swank.
 

syrup

LE
ISTR it was withdrawn from British cinemas but was still on show in India when a young George Macdonald Fraser was on leave from er, Burma, and he quite enjoyed it as Errol had bags of swank.

Could it have been an early showing off people who weren't there or didn't know much about it getting offended on behalf of those who were there and didn't really care?
 
Could it have been an early showing off people who weren't there or didn't know much about it getting offended on behalf of those who were there and didn't really care?
It always amuses me to see the reaction of people to an American film studio making films featuring American troops.
 
In the 2017 Dunkirk when the plane lands on the beach at the end the pilot sets about butning it, modern container gantry cranes can be seen in the background, 2:37 in the youtube clip. Not really a deal breaker but the John Mills version was a better movie in my opinion

Also he has goggles on ,which everybody knows weren't invented until 1988. Well they must have been 'cos we weren't issued the bästards and had to buy our own.
 
Which film do you think is historically accurate?

Midway actually gets a lot of stuff right and it is a film not a documentary.


My bold. I Haven't seen the latest midway film yet, so I cannot say. The longest day 1962. Knowing what I know now, I would say that 95% of that film is accurate, discounting some overacting by some of the main stars. Small cameos, the beach masters dog, the Nazi officer with his boots on the wrong feet, the Para hung up on the church tower, and Pipe major Millin, coming ashore playing the pipes, all included, and I believe all true.
 
My bold. I Haven't seen the latest midway film yet, so I cannot say. The longest day 1962. Knowing what I know now, I would say that 95% of that film is accurate, discounting some overacting by some of the main stars. Small cameos, the beach masters dog, the Nazi officer with his boots on the wrong feet, the Para hung up on the church tower, and Pipe major Millin, coming ashore playing the pipes, all included, and I believe all true.
Ok, The Longest Day.

The "Ruperts" looked nothing like as shown in the film.


The ranger assault on Pointe du Hoc. The guns they went to destroy were just a kilometre inland, the rangers found them and disabled them the same day. The film suggests their involvement was pointless.

Engineers are seen removing explosives from the Orne bridge. They hadn't been placed there but it was added for "drama."

The beach masters dog was a German Shepherd in reality, it was changed to a British Bulldog in the film, Obvious as to why.

Also something that does rankle with me. The playing up of the French attack at D-Day.

156,000 landed at D-Day. 73,000 American, 61,700 British, and French 177, Not 177 Divisions or Brigades but 177. 0.1% of the invading army. Yet those "177" get a prominent role in the film.
 
Also the messages "John has a long moustache" etc were messages to specific resistance groups. Not all of them at once.
 
The Longest Day was based on a book by Cornelius Ryan (aided by several researchers) who conducted extensive interviews with participants on all sides and cross referenced the lot. Apparently, they had a celebration in the office when they found that two interviewees had been fighting on opposite sides at a particular crossroads (ISTR).
 
Yeah the idea is treat Nolan's Dunkirk as a kind of moody clifhanger type of adventure

I'm surprised at the amount of praise for the 1950s Dunkirk. I really can't simply down to the fact that every time someone opens their mouth a massive string of facts, figures and statistics come out

A war correspondant is told the BEF is only conducting excersises. "This can't be true because BLAH BLAH BLAH"

He goes to see a French politician and is asked "How many British soldiers are in France 200,000? 300,000? BLAH BLAH BLAH "

Cut to Cpl Johnny Mills and the boys "XYZ are protecting our flanks on the East while ABC are protecting our West so we're going up to relive X corps at BLAH BLAH BLAH" "

RAF bloke sits on beach "Oi mate you'd better get out of that uniform. The footsloggers are going to take it on you fly-boys"

RAF bloke replies" RAF Fighter command have ordered the planes back to blightey because they can't afford any more losses in France"

No matter what happens someone has spell out what's happening , why it's happening and who's involved . It really does contain some of the most unnatural dialogue I've ever heard ina film, almost the screenwriter has written the scene but a academic historian has written the dialogue
Exposition!
 
My bold and inclusion.
In the context of war films, depicting real events from the past, accuracy must be paramount, The film U571, was atrocious. It had the septic's recovering the Enigma machine from a boxhead sub, when it was HMS bulldog that lost 2 men in that encounter.
See I thought it horrendous because of that and


Because of the Thompsons the boarding party had with folding stocks, the modifying the conning tower to resemble a U-Boat in mere hours, the black steward suddenly is a fully qualified submariner, the guy crawling into the bilge and drowning to open a valve

And the Poles had turned over Enigma secrets in 39....

Another, Objective Burma, had Errol Flynn's yanks taking on the japs single handed, no mention of the Chindits, or the RAF involvement.
Meh "the long the short and the tall", "Yesterdays Enemy" in fact any british film about Burma etc. Make no mention of Merrill's marauders, the 1st Air Commandos USAAF the 10th Air Force USAAF, 14th Air Force USAAF, or the 10 US Engineer battalions building the Ledo Road, or the Nationalist Chinese army in Burma either

The TV documentary's on PBS America channel 81 Freeview, of the pacific war island hopping, no mention of the royal navy's pacific fleet, or the RAF involvement. If you make or concoct a film or documentary from real events, FFS get the facts correct. I'm half expecting to see Jim Carrey and Kim Kardassian, in the remake of "Churchill, the comedy years" filmed in trump tower.
''Sink the Bismarck'' never mentions it was a US pilot Ens Leonard B Smith flying a PBY from 209 Sqn who found Bismarck.

Or the Ludicrous "Mystery Submarine" where the RN uses a captured U Boat to sink other U boats and is sunk by a escort and the crew get recused and the British are astonished to learn they sunk a HM sub

Or "Night of the Generals" where O'Toole is a Wehrmacht general and suddenly is Waffen-SS
 

Latest Threads

Top