Just to extend the net to catch the Golden Turkey wider, Flight Of The Intruder was pretty bad... well, awful really! :-)
All the best
Rowan
Spare Parts
For non-modeling topics and those without a home elsewhere.
For non-modeling topics and those without a home elsewhere.
Hosted by Jim Starkweather
Worst war movie ever
Merlin
Senior Editor
#017
Member Since: June 11, 2003
entire network: 17,582 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,250 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 11, 2005 - 09:15 AM UTC
Hi there
Just to extend the net to catch the Golden Turkey wider, Flight Of The Intruder was pretty bad... well, awful really! :-)
All the best
Rowan
Just to extend the net to catch the Golden Turkey wider, Flight Of The Intruder was pretty bad... well, awful really! :-)
All the best
Rowan
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 11, 2005 - 09:44 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I think some are confusing "rivet counting" with entertainment value. ALL movies are imperfect, its the nature of the beast. I read the "goofs" on Blackhawk Down and found many of them to be of the nit-picking type. The Oakley sunglasses were the wrong year...
I know SPR has errors - the bricks at Ramelle are the wrong size, the Tiger is actually a T-34 with a wooden Tiger Shell - the Mustang was not know as a "tank buster" it was the P-47, the tabs of the German uniforms should have been a different shade - yada, yada, yada -
If you watch movies to see the entertainment value and not obsess over the "nits" you will live longer .
By the way - I think the new Pearl Harbor is a stinker, but the attack (with all the flaws) really gives a sense of what happened. The CGI Arizona explosion is impressive.
I can understand where you're coming from, but I don't consider myself a "rivet counter' and it's not the reason I don't like BOTB. I can forgive not using "real" tanks. I do think the special affects are really cheesy for the time it was made though. I just don't think it's a very good movie as a movie. I think Henry Fonda is a bit old for the part, witness his badly dyed hair. Robert Shaw's blond hair looks pretty hokey also. I don't like that it seems they are really glorifying the panzer troops with the song in the early part of the movie. I think if somebody who didn't know anything about the battle might get the idea that the German's captured Bastogne, since they kind of go back and forth between Amblef and Bastogne. (Was there even a town called Amblef in the battle?) Plus the entire thing about the gas dump at the end makes it look like that is what stopped the Germans, not the 101st Airborne, Patton's 3rd Army, the 2nd Armored Division, or any of the other units that helped turn back the Germans.
I used to really like the movie, because of memories I had watching it when it first came out, but not any longer.
Merlin
Senior Editor#017
Member Since: June 11, 2003
entire network: 17,582 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,250 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 11, 2005 - 10:03 AM UTC
Hi all
I have to say, as an aircraft enthusiast, it doesn't pay to be a rivet counter when watching most movies - it's just a shortcut to an ulcer.
The real disappointment is just how bad the picture research is in most TV documentaries. In my work as a video editor it makes me despair!
I once edited a corporate piece for Hawker-Siddeley which included a history of the company, including its roots in Sopwith. As the voice over waxed lyrical about the Sopwith Camel, I had to say to the company directors "You do realise these pics are of Sopwith Pups... not Camels!?"
When I company like that doesn't even know its own products, what chance have Hollywood film-makers got!
All the best
Rowan
I have to say, as an aircraft enthusiast, it doesn't pay to be a rivet counter when watching most movies - it's just a shortcut to an ulcer.
The real disappointment is just how bad the picture research is in most TV documentaries. In my work as a video editor it makes me despair!
I once edited a corporate piece for Hawker-Siddeley which included a history of the company, including its roots in Sopwith. As the voice over waxed lyrical about the Sopwith Camel, I had to say to the company directors "You do realise these pics are of Sopwith Pups... not Camels!?"
When I company like that doesn't even know its own products, what chance have Hollywood film-makers got!
All the best
Rowan
Henk
Member Since: August 07, 2004
entire network: 6,391 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,600 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 11, 2005 - 10:23 AM UTC
What bothered me most about BotB is the fact that the movie makes it look like the battle lasted about three days and involved only a few units.....
Cheers
Henk
Cheers
Henk
mauserman
Member Since: September 27, 2004
entire network: 1,183 Posts
KitMaker Network: 496 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 11, 2005 - 11:15 AM UTC
I agree that movies are meant as entertainment and should be viewed as such. But when there are such glaring mistakes, inconsistencies or just just plain stupid scenes, it just takes so much away from the movie that it turns me off.
For instance, when I watched Independence Day, I thought it was pretty good. Until the scene where Will Smith took off in a chopper to find his wife. Well sure enough, when he made his first stop, there she was, and with the President's wife no less! Although I still liked the movie (mostly for the effects and the humor), this one scene really took it down several notches. As least for me anyway.
And by the way, I actually liked Navy Seals.
Sure, it was stupid, but it was entertaining.
For instance, when I watched Independence Day, I thought it was pretty good. Until the scene where Will Smith took off in a chopper to find his wife. Well sure enough, when he made his first stop, there she was, and with the President's wife no less! Although I still liked the movie (mostly for the effects and the humor), this one scene really took it down several notches. As least for me anyway.
And by the way, I actually liked Navy Seals.
Sure, it was stupid, but it was entertaining. 
Grumpyoldman
ConsigliereMember Since: October 17, 2003
entire network: 15,338 Posts
KitMaker Network: 5,072 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 11, 2005 - 11:30 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Just to extend the net to catch the Golden Turkey wider, Flight Of The Intruder was pretty bad... well, awful really!
:-) :-) :-) my favorite film...... :-) :-) :-) as I roll on the floor pulling Merlins feathers....... :-) :-) :-) Best part of that film was the "Phantom Crapper".... every carrier I was on had one..... seems he never got discharged or transfered...... :-) :-) :-)
Navy Seals..... :-) :-) Charlie Sheen and Demi Moore..... :-) :-) yeah right, and I'm 17 with no life....... :-) :-) :-)
Now let me go paint my invisible man, in the nude...... :-) :-) :-)
War_Machine
Member Since: February 11, 2003
entire network: 702 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 11, 2005 - 01:57 PM UTC
Actually, Demi Moore was in G.I. Jane, which was a much, much, MUCH worse movie than Navy Seals. At least Navy Seals was enjoyable in a brainless sort of way. My vote for worst war movie of all time is split 3-ways between BOTB, Pearl Harbor, and Midway. All three feature horrible acting, rotten history, and more cheese than Wisconsin. Heck, Pearl Harbor even got the date of the attack wrong. The calendar on the Japanese carrier showing the date as December 7, when a Japanese calendar would have shown December 8. Plus, don't even get me started about showing a film clip of an M26 Pershing in Cologne and saying it was a German tank.
When it comes to Hollywood productions, I go in with a mindset just hoping to be entertained, not educated. If I want to learn something, I'll read a book. I generally won't slag a movie for small (or even in some cases large) detail errors so long as the movie is enjoyable. Take for example Braveheart. It's one of the most historically flawed movies ever made but I love it because it's well made and acted. I don't expect perfection or anything really close to it at the theater, just entertainment.
TV documentaries are a different matter. If it's supposed to enlighten the viewing public, I expect accuracy and am all too often disappointed. The Discovery Channel has been especially bad about this. They did a program about Pearl Harbor, and mentioned one Japanese justification for the attack was the "fact that the Flying Tigers" were already in combat. The fact of the matter is the AVG wasn't in combat until December 21, two weeks later. Another program dealing with the BOTB would lead one to believe that the 101st and ONLY the 101st was in Bastogne and single-handedly defeated the entire German counterattack in the Ardennes. It even went so far to say that the battle for Bastogne was over by the time Patton's Third Army arrived. I darn near put my head through the TV screen at that one, I was so upset.
Sorry for the long-winded diatribe. Just had to vent and give my 3.75 cents worth.
When it comes to Hollywood productions, I go in with a mindset just hoping to be entertained, not educated. If I want to learn something, I'll read a book. I generally won't slag a movie for small (or even in some cases large) detail errors so long as the movie is enjoyable. Take for example Braveheart. It's one of the most historically flawed movies ever made but I love it because it's well made and acted. I don't expect perfection or anything really close to it at the theater, just entertainment.
TV documentaries are a different matter. If it's supposed to enlighten the viewing public, I expect accuracy and am all too often disappointed. The Discovery Channel has been especially bad about this. They did a program about Pearl Harbor, and mentioned one Japanese justification for the attack was the "fact that the Flying Tigers" were already in combat. The fact of the matter is the AVG wasn't in combat until December 21, two weeks later. Another program dealing with the BOTB would lead one to believe that the 101st and ONLY the 101st was in Bastogne and single-handedly defeated the entire German counterattack in the Ardennes. It even went so far to say that the battle for Bastogne was over by the time Patton's Third Army arrived. I darn near put my head through the TV screen at that one, I was so upset.
Sorry for the long-winded diatribe. Just had to vent and give my 3.75 cents worth.
staff_Jim
PublisherMember Since: December 15, 2001
entire network: 12,571 Posts
KitMaker Network: 4,397 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 11, 2005 - 05:50 PM UTC
Quoted Text
For instance, when I watched Independence Day, I thought it was pretty good. Until the scene where Will Smith took off in a chopper to find his wife. Well sure enough, when he made his first stop, there she was, and with the President's wife no less! Although I still liked the movie (mostly for the effects and the humor), this one scene really took it down several notches. As least for me anyway.
Cary,
I had the same problem the first few times I watched it. Then I realized that he simply flew the helo to El Toro air base where he hoped his wife would go looking for him. So not quite so unbelievable.
Cheers,
Jim
Tarok
Member Since: July 28, 2004
entire network: 10,889 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,373 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 11, 2005 - 06:11 PM UTC
Re. Independence Day and the whole helo scene... what I found wierd was that a fighter pilot was actually able to fly a chopper... My understanding of military aviation is that each is a seperate discipline... sure the principles and premises are similar, but I didn't think a F-16/F-18 pilot (sorry, can't remember what he flew) could just climb into a chopper and fly off into the night sky...
BTW... I have decided that my wife, Tracey, is right (yup, stop the presses! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) ). I rewatched Braveheart on DVD last night simply for entertainment value... WAY BETTER THAT WAY! damn.... now I have to rewatch all my favourite military movies... :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
BTW... I have decided that my wife, Tracey, is right (yup, stop the presses! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) ). I rewatched Braveheart on DVD last night simply for entertainment value... WAY BETTER THAT WAY! damn.... now I have to rewatch all my favourite military movies... :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Merlin
Senior Editor#017
Member Since: June 11, 2003
entire network: 17,582 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,250 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 11, 2005 - 06:32 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextJust to extend the net to catch the Golden Turkey wider, Flight Of The Intruder was pretty bad... well, awful really!
:-) :-) :-) my favorite film...... :-) :-) :-) as I roll on the floor pulling Merlins feathers....... :-) :-) :-) Best part of that film was the "Phantom Crapper"....
Hi Dave
Surely the best thing about the film was Rosanna Arquette?! :-) :-) :-) But, even with her in the cast, it still made me cringe.
All the best
Rowan
TedMamere
Member Since: May 15, 2005
entire network: 5,653 Posts
KitMaker Network: 760 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 11, 2005 - 06:39 PM UTC
Hi all!
As I was a kid, I used to look at the serie "Baa Baa Black Sheep" ("Têtes brulées" in French) with Robert Conrad as Boyington. It as flaws in EVERY combat scene! The Corsair becoming an Hellcat, Helldiver and even Spitfire (some scenes have been taken from BoB). In one sequence, a Corsair crashes on a Aircraft Carrier: the plane is a jet! The Corsairs used by the pilots of VMF 214 are also various types including post-war ones! The Japanese Zero's are modified T-6 used for the Midway movie and they used film material from that one too (and others!).
But... I like the serie! I liked it as I was kid and I still like to see one from time to time (I recorded the whole serie on CD!) I just try not to look too close to the details (well, sometimes not details :-) )
But what worries me most are the flaws in some WW2 reportages I used to see. When a plane must be shown, it seems that EVERY one of that country will do, regardless if it was used in that part of the world or not, or even if it was in service at that time! It's something about the Pacific Theater? Well, some B-17 flying over Germany will do!
It's even worse when the subject is one aircraft! You would think the pictures used would be accurate! No! Everything found about that plane is smashed together and you can sometimes hear the reporter talk about that special version of a plane and see a completely different one on screen! Aaargh! Aren't supposed historical reportages to be historicaly accurate?
I think you can be negligent when it's entertainment but not when it's history!
Jean-Luc
P.S. Is modelling History or entertainment? :-)
As I was a kid, I used to look at the serie "Baa Baa Black Sheep" ("Têtes brulées" in French) with Robert Conrad as Boyington. It as flaws in EVERY combat scene! The Corsair becoming an Hellcat, Helldiver and even Spitfire (some scenes have been taken from BoB). In one sequence, a Corsair crashes on a Aircraft Carrier: the plane is a jet! The Corsairs used by the pilots of VMF 214 are also various types including post-war ones! The Japanese Zero's are modified T-6 used for the Midway movie and they used film material from that one too (and others!).
But... I like the serie! I liked it as I was kid and I still like to see one from time to time (I recorded the whole serie on CD!) I just try not to look too close to the details (well, sometimes not details :-) )
But what worries me most are the flaws in some WW2 reportages I used to see. When a plane must be shown, it seems that EVERY one of that country will do, regardless if it was used in that part of the world or not, or even if it was in service at that time! It's something about the Pacific Theater? Well, some B-17 flying over Germany will do!
It's even worse when the subject is one aircraft! You would think the pictures used would be accurate! No! Everything found about that plane is smashed together and you can sometimes hear the reporter talk about that special version of a plane and see a completely different one on screen! Aaargh! Aren't supposed historical reportages to be historicaly accurate?
I think you can be negligent when it's entertainment but not when it's history!
Jean-Luc
P.S. Is modelling History or entertainment? :-)
dogload
Member Since: November 03, 2004
entire network: 585 Posts
KitMaker Network: 201 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 11, 2005 - 07:07 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextMaybe the day will come when there is a modern film made about the British in ww2 that doesn't write us off as overrated or dumb
Well, I saw "Dad's Army; The Movie"... :-) :-) :-)
Now you're talking!!!
Actually, I think one of the worst war films I have seen is I think an Italian one about the desert campaign- I can't remember the title- possibly El Alamein. Very poor, although to be fair, I haven't seen it to the end although I tried watching it several times!
007
Member Since: February 18, 2005
entire network: 4,303 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
entire network: 4,303 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 11, 2005 - 08:58 PM UTC
Quoted Text
BHD was a masterful war movie and I have a hard time understanding how anyone could see it as "worst ever".
Didn't want to give anybody a hard time, so for that, sorry. I know the movie mean someting more for some folks because of the subject, but I was only talking about the techniques.
It's just IMHO that I found a MODERN DAY movie in wich you can see the crew driving along with the actors and visible bloodpacks and gear just as bad as seeing modern airliners skying in WW1 or even Middle Age movies or too low holded microphones in soap series...
Knowing that some indeed see the director of this movie as a god while making this mistakes is why its the worst ever for me.
But as I said, it's opinions that was asked and that's all it is. I'm not out to insult or offend.
Paul
Grumpyoldman
ConsigliereMember Since: October 17, 2003
entire network: 15,338 Posts
KitMaker Network: 5,072 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 03:38 AM UTC
Quoted Text
My vote for worst war movie of all time is split 3-ways between BOTB, Pearl Harbor, and Midway.
OH NOoooooooo another one of my favorite mentioned......
MIDWAY They shot most of the interior shots on one of my old ships, and a hell of a lot of the exterior shots. Pretty good too, considering she had an angled deck, and you don't see it. (She was also the last remaining WW2 Essex class in commission when they made the film, and they didn't have to build sets, the Navy was happy to let the film company use the ship, and 99% of the swab jockies running aorund in the background were the crew) But you do see the Hurricane Bow, and the radar dome on the aft end of the island, GEE Weez, maybe the Navy should have let them tear the angle off, removed the radar, and cut off and open up the bow again. Hell they should have let them sink her....... would have look more accurate then another boring old worn out clip of the Yorkie sinking.
:-) :-) :-)
The boiler room scene when the Yorkie was hit, and they call down to find out how long before they can have steam up, I stood many of watches there...... OH such sweet memories being smashed....... OH yous guys are so cruel, tearing out the poor oldman's heart........
OH I do know that Demi Moore was in GI Jane..... But she was a Seal....... and would be perfect with Charlie...... two dipsticks together being Seals......
007
Member Since: February 18, 2005
entire network: 4,303 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
entire network: 4,303 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 05:22 AM UTC
Quoted Text
But what worries me most are the flaws in some WW2 reportages I used to see.
Now that you mentioned it...
I was looking at a history documentary, partly about Operation Market Garden, on Discovery Channel a while back.
At one point the bridge at Son was refered to and the screen shows a long, steel, 2 track railroad bridge over a river. The particular bridge at Son was (and still is) a small, narrow roaded, draw up bridge over a small canal...
Name_1s_MUD
Member Since: January 07, 2005
entire network: 226 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 06:13 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Hmm....well Saving Private Ryan has twice as many errors. Does that make it bad too?
Sorry but Ridley Scott is a god (director wise). BHD was a masterful war movie and I have a hard time understanding how anyone could see it as "worst ever".
Cheers,
Jim
I'm going with Jim on this one. BHD's errors were barely noticeable. Frankly I didn't even notice the mistakes until you pointed them out. I thought Ridley did a great job in conveying the real confusion of war. I did notice the Oakleys mistake, though! P.S. I've been a huge Ridley fan since Alien.
As for Enemy at the Gates, I actually enjoyed that one too. Perhaps that is because I saw the director in a "Behind the Scenes" type of special. He said that he didn't want the actors to worry about the accents and to focus on the acting. Once you get over the accents, I think the movie was quite well acted. I thought the Vasili character was pretty cool. And the propaganda machine of the Soviet era was pretty well conveyed.
Ok... enough defending these movies. On to my crapper. I didn't like Hart's War either. One that I really liked was Stalag 17. Anyone else?
toadman1
Vendor
Member Since: July 20, 2004
entire network: 1,141 Posts
KitMaker Network: 173 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 06:29 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Well, I totally agree with BoTB. I saw it as a kit and I found it great. Saw it as a modeller with historical interests later... I was just as dissapointed as Mauserman.
Check also: Battle of the Bulge mistakes, goofs and bloopers
and have a good :-)
What do you think of this Priest 'mock-up'? (Well, at least they did'ny use a Sexton or someting)
It's not a Priest mock-up. It's a M37 105mm Howitzer Motor Carriage based on the M24 Chaffee. IIRC, BOTB like Patton and other movies made during this time period was filmed using vehicles from the Spanish Army.
Oh yeah, one of the movies on my list of #%$@ is something called "Misfit Panzer Brigade". Talk about idiotic. The best part about it was seeing the Yugoslavian T34/85's and SU-100's.
Chris "toadman" Hughes
Toadman's Tank Pictures
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 10:36 AM UTC
I'm not a big fan of Hart's War either. Mostly because with a few exceptions I'm not a big fan of Bruce Willis. I also loved Stalag 17, along with The Great Escape.
Art
Member Since: March 20, 2004
entire network: 604 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 11:35 AM UTC
My vote goes to "Tobruk". Just kinda hokey all the way through. 
Art
Art
War_Machine
Member Since: February 11, 2003
entire network: 702 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 12:56 PM UTC
Hey Dave, I wasn't knocking Midway because of where it was filmed or the small details like the radar being incorrect. As a matter of fact, I didn't notice the radar until you mentioned it just now. I slagged it because of a few major problems:
1. The acting was horrible
2. They completely screwed up the story (Hiryu getting crippled and Yorktown hit by torpedo bombers on June 6th? All of that radio chatter when they were under orders for strict radio silence? Yeesh!)
3. They made this movie on the cheap. About 40% of the footage was recycled from Tora, Tora, Tora, 40% was any stock footage that showed blue planes over water, and maybe 20% was new. The additional footage of the Battle of Coral Sea for the original TV version was even worse. They just reused footage from later in the movie and had a C-130 masquerading as an Japanese Emily flying boat.
As I said before, I try to not knock a movie because of small errors if possible. It's the glaring mistakes combined with poor moviemaking that set me off.
1. The acting was horrible
2. They completely screwed up the story (Hiryu getting crippled and Yorktown hit by torpedo bombers on June 6th? All of that radio chatter when they were under orders for strict radio silence? Yeesh!)
3. They made this movie on the cheap. About 40% of the footage was recycled from Tora, Tora, Tora, 40% was any stock footage that showed blue planes over water, and maybe 20% was new. The additional footage of the Battle of Coral Sea for the original TV version was even worse. They just reused footage from later in the movie and had a C-130 masquerading as an Japanese Emily flying boat.
As I said before, I try to not knock a movie because of small errors if possible. It's the glaring mistakes combined with poor moviemaking that set me off.
007
Member Since: February 18, 2005
entire network: 4,303 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
entire network: 4,303 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 07:40 PM UTC
Quoted Text
It's not a Priest mock-up. It's a M37 105mm Howitzer Motor Carriage based on the M24 Chaffee. IIRC, BOTB like Patton and other movies made during this time period was filmed using vehicles from the Spanish Army.
Shoot! You are absolutely right... I didn't see those vehicles untill you mentioned it and I looked it up at Google! Learned 2 things today:
1. how a M37 105mm Howitzer Motor Carriage looks like;
2. I have to
about 
untill I surely 
it.Paul :-)
Snowhand
Member Since: January 08, 2005
entire network: 1,066 Posts
KitMaker Network: 324 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 08:48 PM UTC
Also very bad war movies: anything with Sylvester Stallone or Chuck Norris in it :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Grumpyoldman
ConsigliereMember Since: October 17, 2003
entire network: 15,338 Posts
KitMaker Network: 5,072 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 10:52 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Also very bad war movies: anything with Sylvester Stallone or Chuck Norris in it :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) Ain't that the truth....... :-) :-) :-)
lestweforget
Member Since: November 08, 2002
entire network: 2,832 Posts
KitMaker Network: 680 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 11:12 PM UTC
Black Hawk Down is one of the best war films ever made.
It doesnt try to Glorify the event, it shows the gritty reality of how it was, and makes you respect what those men went through on those two days.
I have a freind who was there, and he vouches for the fact that it is an accurate film.
Taken from that site...
"Factual error: In the first 15 minutes of the movie, a Delta Force operative is seen wearing a pair of Oakley X-Metal Juliets. The events portrayed in the movie took place in 1993. Oakley didn't make the Juliets until 1999"
oh deary bloody me :-) what a critical flaw.
I read all the flaws on those pages, not one did i notice while watching the film, so unless youve read the list of errors and are looking out for them, i doubt very much if you would notice them, and they are all very minor things anyway, and only a few are to do with accuracy, and when they are, they are stupid things like the sunglasses.
I never noticed the crew members when ive watched it.
Worst war film ever made, well you can think that, but i think your alone on that one mate.
Cheers
It doesnt try to Glorify the event, it shows the gritty reality of how it was, and makes you respect what those men went through on those two days.
I have a freind who was there, and he vouches for the fact that it is an accurate film.
Taken from that site...
"Factual error: In the first 15 minutes of the movie, a Delta Force operative is seen wearing a pair of Oakley X-Metal Juliets. The events portrayed in the movie took place in 1993. Oakley didn't make the Juliets until 1999"
oh deary bloody me :-) what a critical flaw.
I read all the flaws on those pages, not one did i notice while watching the film, so unless youve read the list of errors and are looking out for them, i doubt very much if you would notice them, and they are all very minor things anyway, and only a few are to do with accuracy, and when they are, they are stupid things like the sunglasses.
I never noticed the crew members when ive watched it.
Worst war film ever made, well you can think that, but i think your alone on that one mate.
Cheers
UK-Rob
Member Since: June 28, 2005
entire network: 21 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 01:04 AM UTC
The movie bloopers really bug me ..
It's not just old films like M47s in Battle of the Bulge, some newer ones use rediculous equipment too,
- Top Gun has Northrop F5s painted black with red stars, pretending to be Migs,
- Independence Day, the USAF have F15s (fine), the US Marines have F18s (fine), the RAF have F18s (eh?) and the Isrealis have F18 (what?), it seems like their model/prop maker ran out of patience or something and gave every other air force F18s.
- Worst of all and most disappointing, 'Pearl Harbour'. After spending millions of $ on superb graphics with the fleet on battleship row and the hits on old 'Oklahoma', they go and throw a few scenes with Spruance and Knox class modern warships (built in the 1970s-80s) in the attack scenes ... totalled ruined the entire film (which was otherwise excellant), they may as well have used the starship Enterprise for all the sense it made.
It's not just old films like M47s in Battle of the Bulge, some newer ones use rediculous equipment too,
- Top Gun has Northrop F5s painted black with red stars, pretending to be Migs,
- Independence Day, the USAF have F15s (fine), the US Marines have F18s (fine), the RAF have F18s (eh?) and the Isrealis have F18 (what?), it seems like their model/prop maker ran out of patience or something and gave every other air force F18s.
- Worst of all and most disappointing, 'Pearl Harbour'. After spending millions of $ on superb graphics with the fleet on battleship row and the hits on old 'Oklahoma', they go and throw a few scenes with Spruance and Knox class modern warships (built in the 1970s-80s) in the attack scenes ... totalled ruined the entire film (which was otherwise excellant), they may as well have used the starship Enterprise for all the sense it made.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.