How good were 'classic' movies?

Tony EH

^
One of the very few musicals that I can watch.

Brian?

Tony EH wrote: »

You gotta roll with that. 50's acting could be a little...theatrical.

Yeah, but it was supposed to be.

There’s a particular American accent you hear in a lot of films, particularly the women in Hitchcock films, that doesn’t actually exist outside those films anymore. I think it was based on rich white Americans from around New York/Connecticut. It sounds horrible to the ear now because it’s so at odds with the generic modern American accent we hear in films.

Tony EH

It was called a Mid Atlantic accent. Completely made up and fancied by women mainly, to indicate a poshness. Think Katherine Hepurn.

Full_Circle_81

Tony EH wrote: »

It was called a Mid Atlantic accent. Completely made up and fancied by women mainly, to indicate a poshness. Think Katherine Hepurn.

Also Cary Grant!

silverharp

The mid Atlantic accent is more modern though , there is an older one I'd call a Haaavaard accent, kind of a preppy college accent from the 40's. Later movies like Trading Places might have used it a bit for effect.

beauf

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The issue for me with SPR is that if you take those admittedly compelling battle scenes out, there's not much left to the film. Very contrived, over wrought plot imo. A triumph of form over content which is also how I would regard Dunkirk.

Personally I think Spielbergs war opus is Band of Brothers which I revisit every couple of years and never find it less than gripping.

Dunkirk is visually amazing. But over done is exactly how I describe it. I much prefer the original Dunkirk captures the events better. Theres lots of scope for better movies on those events. The book was great though. Agree with Band of Brothers. SPR is a watershed moment for war movies. But it's a classic guys on a mission plot in many ways.

beauf

Homelander wrote: »

The Longest Day is one of the timeless classics for me. Few others too from the slightly later, and somewhat more realistic era pre-modern movies relatively speaking - A Bridge Too Far for example.

Always found it strange that SPR is now over 20 years old and yet there hasn't been a war movie since that even comes close to capturing the raw, visceral anti-war carnage that it brought to the table.

"Come and See" is another example of a haunting, powerful film that hasn't really been bettered since. The Painted Bird was good but not that good.

Fury does much the same for tank warfare. Though it loses its way a bit at the end, and is generally over done.

I'm a big fan of classic films and especially war movies.

Under hill 60 is decent film.

silverharp

beauf wrote: »

Fury does much the same for tank warfare. Though it loses its way a bit at the end, and is generally over done.

I'm a big fan of classic films and especially war movies.

Under hill 60 is decent film.

I hadnt heard of the hill 60 one, its up on Youtube

https://youtu.be/omRmnZv9UeQ

Homelander

beauf wrote: »

Fury does much the same for tank warfare. Though it loses its way a bit at the end, and is generally over done.

I'm a big fan of classic films and especially war movies.

Under hill 60 is decent film.

Fury was exceptionally good until the last 15 minutes where it just lost me completely, I'm shocked they went to such great lengths to make it realistic elsewhere, and just devolved into brainless nonsense at the end.

Tony EH

silverharp wrote: »

The mid Atlantic accent is more modern though , there is an older one I'd call a Haaavaard accent, kind of a preppy college accent from the 40's. Later movies like Trading Places might have used it a bit for effect.

The theatrical "mid Atlantic accent" started to be used in the 30's and ended some time in the 50's, when it was viewed as a bit silly.

The "Haaaarvard accent" is a New England one, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc. The same desired outcome was sought by using it. To indicate wealth and breeding by cultivating a certain speech pattern. That still occurs in some people today. I met a girl from Rhode Island who had that accent.

It all stems back to the 19th Century on the East cost of the US, where the rich were desirous of a more British accent to disassociate themselves from other "Americans".

RandomViewer

Bad day at Black Rock
Kiss me deadly
Cat on a hot tin roof
Long hot summer
The thing from another world
3.10 to Yuma

Joe_ Public

Homelander wrote: »

Fury was exceptionally good until the last 15 minutes where it just lost me completely, I'm shocked they went to such great lengths to make it realistic elsewhere, and just devolved into brainless nonsense at the end.

Just a hollywood ending, i'd say anyway. It's as ridiculous as the ending of We Were Soldiers or Hacksaw Ridge etc. I think Brad Pitt is pretty good in Fury, though I'm not fully convinced his character is all that realistic, or some of the crew too. Not something i ever expect very often from war films anyway, when it comes to character, whatever about technical detail.

Tony EH

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The issue for me with SPR is that if you take those admittedly compelling battle scenes out, there's not much left to the film. Very contrived, over wrought plot imo. A triumph of form over content which is also how I would regard Dunkirk.

beauf wrote: »

Fury does much the same for tank warfare. Though it loses its way a bit at the end, and is generally over done.

'Saving Private Ryan', 'Fury' and 'Dunkirk' all lose points because they stray into silly territory and unnecessarily as well. But out of the three of them 'Dunkirk' is probably the most realistic attempt.

But why Nolan had to turn Tom Hardy into a GOAT pilot, I don't know. His antics takes me out of the picture completely. Plus, how the German pilots behave in the movie is ridiculous and they are all flying way too low. it's 1500 feet at one stage IIRC.

That's suicide.

Apart from that, it was very well done.

The worst offender, though, is 'Fury'. That was just stupid. The Hollywood heroics during the fight with the Tiger and especially at the end were laughable.

Tony EH

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think Brad Pitt is pretty good in Fury, though I'm not fully convinced his character is all that realistic

Brad Pitt was 50 in 'Fury'. He's at least 20 years too old to be anywhere near a tank in WWII.

Tom Hanks was in his 40's when he played a Captain in 'Saving Private Ryan'. Too old as well.

But, this has always been an issue with war films. Especially American ones.

RandomViewer

Tony EH wrote: »

'Saving Private Ryan', 'Fury' and 'Dunkirk' all lose points because they stray into silly territory and unnecessarily as well. But out of the three of them 'Dunkirk' is probably the most realistic attempt.

But why Nolan had to turn Tom Hardy into a GOAT pilot, I don't know. His antics takes me out of the picture completely. Plus, how the German pilots behave in the movie is ridiculous and they are all flying way too low. it's 1500 feet at one stage IIRC.

That's suicide.

Apart from that, it was very well done.

The worst offender, though, is 'Fury'. That was just stupid. The Hollywood heroics during the fight with the Tiger and especially at the end were laughable.

If theyd abandoned the tank and hid in the bushes till the Germans passed would have been much more believable

pixelburp

Ah, the armchair historians. Wonder why that is that WW2 seems to attract more criticism over historical "inaccuracies" than other wars or genres.

I used to be like you, grinding my teeth at the 1960s tanks used in Patton or Bridge Too Far. Then I realised it didn't really matter, that it was getting in the way of what the film was really about.

Tony EH

RandomViewer wrote: »

If theyd abandoned the tank and hid in the bushes till the Germans passed would have been much more believable

Perhaps.

But all of them advancing on a hidden Tiger in a nice neat formation, with all the commanders standing in their cuppolas was absurd. How any history consultant would stand over that, I don't know.

Shermans usually wouldn't take on a frontal assault on a Tiger, even the 76mm armed ones or the British Fireflies. They would have used their speed and scattered, trying to flank and get behind him. They do eventually try this in the film, but not after most of them have been picked off.

It's a case of the director looking for action rather than realism.

But, if he'd stuck to what would have, more than likely, happened historically, the scene would have been no less exciting. As it is, it just comes off as silly.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

Ah, the armchair historians. Wonder why that is that WW2 seems to attract more criticism over historical "inaccuracies" than other wars or genres.

I used to be like you, grinding my teeth at the 1960s tanks used in Patton or Bridge Too Far. Then I realised it didn't really matter, that it was getting in the way of what the film was really about.

History is my first love. Can't help but grind my teeth when simple things are rendered stupid. It's usually completely unnecessary too.

But, yeh, I am the worst person to watch a war film with.

'A bridge too Far' at least tries with the M4's. But since there were no Tiger II's knocking around, they had to opt for a modern tank instead.

'Patton' was just yeah, whatever was lying around...:pac:

beauf

Tony EH wrote: »

...
The worst offender, though, is 'Fury'. That was just stupid. The Hollywood heroics during the fight with the Tiger and especially at the end were laughable.

What good about fury is the sound effects, and the visceral nature of living and fighting in a tank. The storyline and tactics is mostly garbage. For some reason the Hurt Locker annoyed me more for this. Perhaps because of the attention it got. Then again they are intended to be entertainment, not a documentary.

beauf

Tony EH wrote: »

Perhaps.

But all of them advancing on a hidden Tiger in a nice neat formation, with all the commanders standing in their cuppolas was absurd. How any history consultant would stand over that, I don't know.

Shermans usually wouldn't take on a frontal assault on a Tiger, even the 76mm armed ones or the British Fireflies. They would have used their speed and scattered, trying to flank and get behind him. They do eventually try this in the film, but not after most of them have been picked off.

It's a case of the director looking for action rather than realism.

But, if he'd stuck to what would have, more than likely, happened historically, the scene would have been no less exciting. As it is, it just comes off as silly.

Tanks didn't fire on the move either, not if they expected to hit anything. Like wise, the Tiger, made no sense that it would move.

Tony EH

beauf wrote: »

What good about fury is the sound effects, and the visceral nature of living and fighting in a tank. The storyline and tactics is mostly garbage. For some reason the Hurt Locker annoyed me more for this. Perhaps because of the attention it got. Then again they are intended to be entertainment, not a documentary.

Getting basic tactics correct shouldn't be difficult, though, and in the end it's no less exciting.

Can't remember 'The Hurt Locker'. Saw it once, wasn't pushed.

Tony EH

beauf wrote: »

Tanks didn't fire on the move either, not if they expected to hit anything.

Very true. No gyroscopic stabilisers in WWII. :pac:

pixelburp

It's not even a question of "Entertainment"; the entirity of cinema is artifice. Unless something is directed by Mike Leigh or of his ilk, then everything onscreen is intentionally drawn from a heightened sense of reality. The simple fundamental of light(ing) isn't even the same within cinema, while something as superficial as where or how a character stands can be significant. It's not without reason they're called "Moving pictures", so in that sense waxing critical about historical accuracy can miss the point. Unless it's something truly idiotic like - I dunno - muskets in Roman times.

Tony EH wrote: »

History is my first love. Can't help but grind my teeth when simple things are rendered stupid. It's usually completely unnecessary too.

But, yeh, I am the worst person to watch a war film with.

'A bridge too Far' at least tries with the M4's. But since there were no Tiger II's knocking around, they had to opt for a modern tank instead.

'Patton' was just yeah, whatever was lying around...:pac:

Indeed Patton was that, but cribbing about its tanks would be to miss what is, in fact, a great movie about a borderline unhinged Warrior Poet; someone almost born out of his time.

Joe_ Public

Tony EH wrote: »

Brad Pitt was 50 in 'Fury'. He's at least 20 years too old to be anywhere near a tank in WWII.

Tom Hanks was in his 40's when he played a Captain in 'Saving Private Ryan'. Too old as well.

But, this has always been an issue with war films. Especially American ones.

That's not even my biggest issue tbh. Pitts character is obviously built up as this larger than life character who manages to keep almost his entire crew alive through the most savage of battles. I mean, i could be wrong but did such an individual ever really exist? His crew, we are led to believe, fought through Africa, Italy, Normandy, Holland and into Germany and, from memory, just the one casualty i think. Tank crews from what ive read, suffered a very high casualty rate so i just struggle to get my head around all that.

mikhail

I expect there were a few. Probably more lucky than good, but still.

beauf

pixelburp wrote: »

It's not even a question of "Entertainment"; the entirity of cinema is artifice. Unless something is directed by Mike Leigh or of his ilk, then everything onscreen is intentionally drawn from a heightened sense of reality. The simple fundamental of light(ing) isn't even the same within cinema, while something as superficial as where or how a character stands can be significant. It's not without reason they're called "Moving pictures", so in that sense waxing critical about historical accuracy can miss the point. Unless it's something truly idiotic like - I dunno - muskets in Roman times.

Indeed Patton was that, but cribbing about its tanks would be to miss what is, in fact, a great movie about a borderline unhinged Warrior Poet; someone almost born out of his time.

I take your point but in Fury its like David vs Goliath but both being the same size and both armed with swords.

Joe_ Public

Best tank film ive seen was on the bbc for the 1916 centenary and its Our World War series. Nothing too elaborate about it, but a good story well told.

beauf

Joe_ Public wrote: »

That's not even my biggest issue tbh. Pitts character is obviously built up as this larger than life character who manages to keep almost his entire crew alive through the most savage of battles. I mean, i could be wrong but did such an individual ever really exist? His crew, we are led to believe, fought through Africa, Italy, Normandy, Holland and into Germany and, from memory, just the one casualty i think. Tank crews from what ive read, suffered a very high casualty rate so i just struggle to get my head around all that.

I read this one recently.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tank-Commander-France-Germany-Memoirs-ebook/dp/B00GS8A3UA

Theres also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Luck.

I think though with movies. They are often flawed. You have read between the lines and get the best out of it.

beauf

Someone mentioned Barry Lyndon always though that was great. But I could see why it wouldn't appeal to everyone.

What Zulu and Zulu dawn the other day.

Third man, and Cruel Sea are some other ones I like.

Hannibal_Smith

Conall Cernach wrote: »

The Searchers is my own favourite western it's beautifully shot with strong performances from everyone and explores themes of racism, obsession, family, loneliness etc.

The Searchers is a superb movie. I could watch it a million times over and always get choked at the ending.

I love John Wayne movies. I found the Big Trail on YouTube only a couple of weeks ago, black and white from 1930. Its well worth a watch, such a great story and so well done. There's a snow scene that would chill your bones in July