Warfare Movie

North_Sylva

North_Sylva

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Business Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
1734313080872.png
 
Jahnj0584 said:
Have you seen BHD lately? It's greenscreen muck
Click to expand...
Yea. And all the other war movies have been too since then. My point was this genre of movie hasn’t had a shred of originality since at least 2001. If BHD offends your sensibilities you may substitute it with any other similar title made then or earlier.
 
Last edited:
Personally I’ll always have a soft spot for Black Hawk Down and A Bridge Too Far. Even as the effects age, the performances are tight, and the scripts show at least a passing interest in exploring the operational context of their combat sequences.

I’m still waiting for somebody to top Generation Kill, so maybe I’ll give this a shot.

My personal pet peeve now is WW1/WW2 movies with zero rifle recoil. All Quiet on the Western Front was well done, but seeing guys work bolt actions without any kind of movement or recoil just feels silly.
 
Zortron said:
BORING

Zogslop middle eastern army movies became redundant after Black Hawk Down. Copycat lowest-common-denominator ####.
Click to expand...

BHD wasn't a "middle eastern" movie; it's set in Africa. But I get your sentiment. There's a lot of modern war movies set in desert environments that are boring AF.

The worst movie I've seen in my life, bar none, was Hyena Road. I actually went to the premiere at a soft seat venue and sat next to some of the soldiers "involved" in making that movie. It was absolute nonsensical low budget trash but they loved it, I guess cause they worked on it.

Anyway, Jarhead was a good movie. The Green Zone was pretty good too. The Kingdom was less a war movie and more a political movie with gunfights but it was cool. American Sniper would have been alright but the fact that Chris Kyle lied about a lot of the events portrayed sours it for me. I also enjoyed Three Kings, reminded me of a modern take on Kelly's Heroes.

I will probably check this movie out. Supposedly it's very authentic. We'll see.
 
TV-PressPass said:
Personally I’ll always have a soft spot for Black Hawk Down and A Bridge Too Far. Even as the effects age, the performances are tight, and the scripts show at least a passing interest in exploring the operational context of their combat sequences.

I’m still waiting for somebody to top Generation Kill, so maybe I’ll give this a shot.

My personal pet peeve now is WW1/WW2 movies with zero rifle recoil. All Quiet on the Western Front was well done, but seeing guys work bolt actions without any kind of movement or recoil just feels silly.
Click to expand...
Agreed, Generation Kill is a pure gem.
 
deadsea said:
BHD wasn't a "middle eastern" movie; it's set in Africa. But I get your sentiment. There's a lot of modern war movies set in desert environments that are boring AF.

The worst movie I've seen in my life, bar none, was Hyena Road. I actually went to the premiere at a soft seat venue and sat next to some of the soldiers "involved" in making that movie. It was absolute nonsensical low budget trash but they loved it, I guess cause they worked on it.

Anyway, Jarhead was a good movie. The Green Zone was pretty good too. The Kingdom was less a war movie and more a political movie with gunfights but it was cool. American Sniper would have been alright but the fact that Chris Kyle lied about a lot of the events portrayed sours it for me. I also enjoyed Three Kings, reminded me of a modern take on Kelly's Heroes.

I will probably check this movie out. Supposedly it's very authentic. We'll see.
Click to expand...

So as regards Hollywood "authenticity", how does a flat-faced movie reviewer determine the degree of authenticity of a film when the vast majority lack any real-world context whatsoever for what it is that they are judging? The same would apply to the viewing public - extremely few as a percentage of the general population would have experienced actual close combat. Even among veteran cohorts, those who actually send and rerceive small arms fire are a rarity percentage-wise. Perhaps 5% of a deployed force actually engage the enemy in close combat. This does not include the Gunners who fire at the enemy from afar, the Reaper drone pilots who actually do most of the killing, and other miscellaneous combat enablers. When you get right down to it, actual trigger-pullers are few and far between.

To judge a new war movie as "authentic" demands more than a comparison to other movies of the war/human conflict genre that are judged to be "realistic". That is potentially building upon a false foundation. In my humble opinion, valid judgement of a film's "authenticity" requires a reviewer with first-hand understanding of the sorts of situations and dilemmas that the movie is attempting to depict. In the case of "Warfare", that requires a reviewer who has experienced the sights, sounds and smells that constitute modern close combat. Not easy to come by, but if you want a valid assessment of a war movie's authenticity you ask a warrior. Simple, yes? Unfortunately, most reviewers lack the necessary context to accurately judge a combat film's veracity.

As a disabled infantry combat veteran, I'm just musing about the concept of "authenticity" in war movies on a Friday morning. By all means, feel free to ignore my comments and move on. At the end of the day I reckon the key is in who is doing the movie reviewing, and whether or not they have the personal experience to judge a film on its realism merits. So select your movie reviewers carefully, eh?
 
Last edited:
Bartok5 said:
So as regards Hollywood "authenticity", how does a flat-faced movie reviewer determine the degree of authenticity of a film when the vast majority lack any real-world context whatsoever for what it is that they are judging? The same would apply to the viewing public - extremely few as a percentage of the general population would have experienced actual close combat. Even among veteran cohorts, those who actually send and rerceive small arms fire are a rarity percentage-wise. Perhaps 5% of a deployed force actually engage the enemy in close combat. This does not include the Gunners who fire at the enemy from afar, the Reaper drone pilots who actually do most of the killing, and other miscellaneous combat enablers. When you get right down to it, actual trigger-pullers are few and far between.

To judge a new war movie as "authentic" demands more than a comparison to other movies of the war/human conflict genre that are judged to be "realistic". That is building upon a false foundation. In my humble opinion, valid judgement of a film's "authenticity" requires a reviewer with first-hand understanding of the sorts of situations and dilemmas that the movie is attempting to depict. In the case of "Warfare", that requires a reviewer who has experienced the sights, sounds and smells that constitute modern close combat. Not easy to come by, but if you want a valid assessment of a war movie's authenticity you ask a warrior. Simple, yes? Unfortunately, most reviewers lack the necessary context to accurately judge a combat film's veracity.

I'm just musing about the concept of "authenticity" in movies on a Friday morning. By all means, feel free to ignore my comments and move on. At the end of the day I reckon the key is in who is doing the movie reviewing, and whether or not they have the personal experience to judge a film on its realism merits. So select your movie reviewers carefully, eh?
Click to expand...
“Authenticity” is over-rated anyways. These movies have no plot.

I’ve found though that “trigger pullers” tend to love the slop. Usually some mild autism for proper reload drills or whatever other boring details.

Allegedly veterans found Saving Private Ryan to be really accurate. That movie’s a cartoon.
 
Bartok5 said:
So as regards Hollywood "authenticity", how does a flat-faced movie reviewer determine the degree of authenticity of a film when the vast majority lack any real-world context whatsoever for what it is that they are judging? The same would apply to the viewing public - extremely few as a percentage of the general population would have experienced actual close combat. Even among veteran cohorts, those who actually send and rerceive small arms fire are a rarity percentage-wise. Perhaps 5% of a deployed force actually engage the enemy in close combat. This does not include the Gunners who fire at the enemy from afar, the Reaper drone pilots who actually do most of the killing, and other miscellaneous combat enablers. When you get right down to it, actual trigger-pullers are few and far between.

To judge a new war movie as "authentic" demands more than a comparison to other movies of the war/human conflict genre that are judged to be "realistic". That is potentially building upon a false foundation. In my humble opinion, valid judgement of a film's "authenticity" requires a reviewer with first-hand understanding of the sorts of situations and dilemmas that the movie is attempting to depict. In the case of "Warfare", that requires a reviewer who has experienced the sights, sounds and smells that constitute modern close combat. Not easy to come by, but if you want a valid assessment of a war movie's authenticity you ask a warrior. Simple, yes? Unfortunately, most reviewers lack the necessary context to accurately judge a combat film's veracity.

As a disabled infantry combat veteran, I'm just musing about the concept of "authenticity" in war movies on a Friday morning. By all means, feel free to ignore my comments and move on. At the end of the day I reckon the key is in who is doing the movie reviewing, and whether or not they have the personal experience to judge a film on its realism merits. So select your movie reviewers carefully, eh?
Click to expand...

1 - You're getting too hung up on the word "authentic". Authentic doesn't mean it's completely 100% flawlessly accurate. It just means it's realistic enough to be believable. For instance a movie like Saving Private Ryan feels to most viewers (including D-day veterans) to be an authentic portrayal of the beach landings at Normandy. It's not 100% correct because they make mistakes like having the wrong guys driving the landing craft, or having some of the personnel wearing incorrect insignia, etc. But it feels authentic to a viewer that has not experienced it and those who have. And that's good film making. But there's also a balance between entertainment and streamlining a story for mainstream audiences that has to be considered in any sort of big budget production. Movies are expensive to film. They need to make money. And the actors in movies are just that, actors. They are usually selected based on their looks, likeability, ability to memorize lines, present emotions on command on camera. Most of them are not professional soldiers. Even if they do receive some kind of training from real soldiers, they cannot be real soldiers without experiencing combat.

You just have to suspend your disbelief a little.

2 - Usually, good "war" movies have consultants that have experienced actual combat and can help steer the movie to a more authentic feel. In the case of this movie, one of the writers/directors (Ray Mendoza) is the subject of the film. He is one of the spec ops guys portrayed in the movie. So it's safe to assume it'll be fairly authentic.

3 - movie reviewers vary like colors of a rainbow. I personally based my statement off some YouTuber who posted a short video today who is a historical war movie reviewer and he talked about watching it and the background of Mendoza. I felt that was good enough to give the movie a chance without immediately disregarding it as slop.

4 - thank you for your service
 
Just watched it.

It is not a movie, it's more like a cinematic experience.

Highly not recommended to take your spouse to watch this.

A+++.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom