Comments by "Itinerant Patriot" (@itinerantpatriot1196) on "History Buffs"
channel.
-
I was stationed at Hickam in the 1980s and the bullet holes from Dec 7th were still visible in many buildings. I spoke with two Pearl Harbor veterans who were acting as tour guides at the Arizona Memorial, one of them served on the Arizona and was on duty the morning of the attack. I asked them about this movie, specifically if it was an accurate depiction. They both agreed the movie was very accurate. It was an honor speaking with those gentlemen, both of whom I assume have long since joined their comrades in the place where soldiers, sailors, and airmen never age. I have always loved this film. I first saw it as a kid in the theater and was blown away.
Unfortunately, I must admit I also wasted my money and saw Pearl Harbor at the theater. A buddy talked me into going to see it with him. We both came out shaking our heads, wondering how anyone could make a chick-flick based on the attack on Pearl Harbor. Between that and all the inaccuracies we both agreed the time would have been better spent shooting pool at the sports bar. Anyway, cool review.
If anyone finds this comment, which I doubt will happen, I highly recommend a visit to the Arizona Memorial. There is no more solemn monument in the world. RIP guys, I'll be along directly and maybe we can share war stories, though I expect mine will shrink beyond sight compared to yours. Sleep well.
280
-
Gettysburg is one of my favorite war movies. I saw it in the theater and looked over at the three-hour mark to find my wife asleep. That is why it couldn't be made today. Hollywood doesn't make epics anymore. Instead, you get biopics like Elvis that try and put cram a lifetime and an era into a two-hour package. Is that an acknowledgment of today's shortened attention span? Maybe. But the days of Ben-Hur, Gone with the Wind, the 10 Commandments, Gettysburg, and even the Lord of the Rings is over, and that is too bad because those are the truly great films, not some overrated film like Citizen Kane (but that is a discussion for another day).
Anyway, Gettysburg gives a balanced account. Siskel gave it a thumbs down because in his world any film that didn't depict slave-holders as beasts rather than human beings was verboten. I especially like the Sgt. Kilrain character, played beautifully by Kevin Conway. Being Irish myself, I am aware of the number of Irish immigrants who fought on both sides, not for a specific cause as much as proving they were true citizens in the new world. To that point they were treated only slightly better than the blacks. That conversation between Kilrain and Chamberlain, where Conway explains his motives in simple terms is one of my favorite parts. I have heard from historians that the movie inflates Chamberlain's exploits but I don't know enough of the specifics to debate that.
I do think it let's Lee off the hook a bit. Lee took a tremendous gamble, one he didn't have to take, and it was to a large degree ego-driven. Lee had begun to believe his own press clippings at that point in the war and thought his Army of NV had some divine power. Pickett never forgave Lee for ordering that charge and when the old man died a few years later, Pickett was noticeably absent, the only high-ranking officer who didn't visit Lee on his deathbed or attend his funeral. Meade comes off as a secondary character in all of it and I guess that's better than what historians have done to him over the years. Lincoln was furious that Meade didn't chase Lee down and finish his army off once and for all and for a lot of historians that puts Meade into the same timid basket as McClelland, just another general Lincoln had to fire. But the northern troops were beat all to hell after Gettysburg. Even if they had the energy to chase Lee, whose to say what would have happened if they had caught up with them? Lee might have been able to pick ground more suitable to him and finished off the job he started. Lincoln had a keen sense for what needed to be done to win the war but in that case Meade did the right thing. To say otherwise is a counterfactual.
Anyway, Gettysburg is a very accurate telling. There are a few out there like Tora-Tora-Tora, the recent version of Midway, and The Lost Battalion that get things mostly right. No movie is ever 100% true to the facts. Where history-based movies are concerned, there is the book the movie is based on, the movie itself, and the truth. They don't generally line up but if it's a good story that is mostly honest, it's worth the watch. Gettysburg is in that camp. Nice review. Thanks for posting.
2
-
I guess if you just like the way this guy makes movies you will like this one. I saw it in the theater and thought it sucked. I saw it again when it showed up on cable, thinking maybe I was too harsh on the first go round and the verdict was the same. Why? Because the director seemed more interested in staying true to his style of movie making than actually telling a compelling story. It is crap storytelling. It's disjointed and if someone with no prior knowledge of the event was to watch it they wouldn't be able to give you any insight into what happened, why it happened, and who was making the decisions, aspects of war movies that are kind of important. I mean, they are in every war movie I have ever seen, even the off-color ones like Catch 22 and MASH.
Sure, this guy uses real planes and such but who cares. Where is Churchill? Where is Halifax? Where are the pitched battles to give these guys time to escape? Basically, where's the beef? The director lays no foundation for the story and assumes that everyone coming to see this already knows the history so he's going to focus on actors who give terrible, uninspired performances of people...🤔...um...doing stuff I guess. Like I say, the guy was so concerned about making an artsy style movie that he neglected to tell a story, and that is what history is, storytelling. Honestly, if you were to read a book on Dunkirk put together like this movie was, tell me you wouldn't put it down less than halfway through.
Sorry History Buff. I have agreed with most of your reviews but you missed the bigger picture here. This director should stick to faux film-noir Batman flicks and stay the hell away from history. But that's me. Dunkirk is a terrible film.
2
-
1
-
The Vietminh didn't defeat the Japanese in WWII. The Japanese left when they decided they needed the troops to defend Japan against an impending American invasion more than they needed to hang onto Vietnam. They basically told them, "You're all free now," and split. One of the myths that grew up around Ho-Chi-Minh was that he fought valiantly against the Japanese. Bullshit. He spent most of the war in the Soviet Union. He had run to the USSR in the 30s after the French put a bounty on his him. He claimed to be in charge when American OSS agents arrived but there were other Vietnamese guerilla fighters who were a whole lot more involved in the resistance against Japan than the Vietminh. And if you're looking to nitpick accuracy, there are other scenes such as the one where the men piss on the overheated mortars that would be a better choice than the one where the lady goes off about racism. There were plenty of folks living in the north who had never seen segregated facilities.
Also, you said that most of the men who went into this battle in 65 were conscripts who just wanted to come home. That's not true. A lot of the soldiers who went in around this time were patriots, true believers who believed in the cause and wanted to win. I get it, you are British and you sound young so I assume you were taught that stuff in school. The war wasn't unpopular at that time. The protests didn't pick up steam until two years later and even then, most Americans still wanted to stay at the war and wanted to win. LBJ was an insecure pussy who let the media bully him and when things got tough he didn't know what to do and just gave up. I'm not saying America could win the war. Truth be told, they wouldn't have been there if Truman and then Ike hadn't tied the French war in Indochina with the larger war against communism. Korea was going at that time and that had a lot to do with the development of the Domino Theory.
Anyway, by 1969 people were more fed up with LBJ than the war. The polls at that time reflect that. And the war protestors were not seen as valiant young people standing up for a noble cause like the history books and documentaries like to portray them. Most Americans thought they were commie agitators and cowards. You said you wouldn't put this film ahead of the other Vietnam movies but I will. Oliver Stone has a hard-on for the U.S. and its government so anything he does, from Platoon to JFK is just this side of Soviet state propaganda. Kubrick made a Kubrick movie and I'm one of the few who finds the Deer Hunter pretentious and Apocalypse Now tedious.
1