Greatest Modern Battle Scenes

[Kam]

I know we've had a few threads along this vein, but here's one interesting take on it by a guy making it from 1960 onwards:

http://www.doubleviking.com/great-modern-battle-scenes-4361-p.html

in no particular order:
The Alamo (1960) - the whole damn thing
Zulu (1964) - the battle of rorke's drift
Empire strikes back (1980) - battle of hoth
gallipoli (1981) - the running of the mel
glory (1989) - the charge on fort wagner
spr (1998) - the storming of omaha beach
the thin red line (1998) - the battle for the line
gladiator (2000) - the first arena battle
the two towers (2002) - the battle for helm's deep
braveheart (1995) - the battle of stirling

He has some good choices in there. What say the group? what's missing/ what should be cut out of his list?

-k2

[eisforelectronic]

Revenge of the Sith - Opening battle
300 - whole damn thing
Gladiator - opening battle
Return of the King - battle for Minas Tirith

[topspeed]

First thing that came to mind off your title:

Saving Private Ryan - opening sequence

[eisforelectronic]

First thing that came to mind off your title:

Saving Private Ryan - opening sequence

but, that's already on the list...

[Groundbeef]

I would have added Black Hawk Down. It was realistic, and didn't polish the edges to make mistakes that were made on the US side appear minor.

It did however, show off the dedication and tenacity of our troops under relentless attack by superior (but hardly trained) numbers.

It left me drained at the end.

Bravehart is an awesome flick. However, if you REALLY watch the background after the huge battle it is pretty funny. Some of the extras kinda goof off, and stop fighting. This is while in the foreground they are mouring the loss of their breathren, and in the background two "enemies" are clowning around. Makes me laugh everytime.

[PeruvianSkies]

WE WERE SOLDIERS (any portion)
WINDTALKERS (any portion)
X-MEN THE LAST STAND (The Stand)
MASTER AND COMMANDER (final ship battle)
THE LAST SAMURAI (early battle or finale)
SPARTACUS
STARSHIP TROOPERS
OPEN RANGE (ending)
TOMBSTONE (Ok Corral)
YOUNG GUNS (standoff)
PEARL HARBOR
TORA TORA TORA
A BRIDGE TOO FAR
ALIENS
KILL BILL VOL 1
LAST OF THE MOHICANS
THE FIRTH ELEMENT
LEON THE PROFESSIONAL
INDEPENDANCE DAY
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA

and so on and so forth...so many great battles.

[Gerald Cooperberg]

I'm no fan of "cool" war movies (Black Hawk Down, guys? Come on!), but even I found the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan queasily effective, or the "Crazy 88" fight scene in Kill Bill exhilarating. Here are a few more that leap to mind:

Apocalypse Now - Kilgore's "calvary" attack to the tune of "Ride of the Valkyries" has got to be one of the iconic sequences of contemporary film, from the initial flyover to ground troops charging past a camera crew on the beach.

Princess Mononoke - The savage power of the wild boar is already established in the intense opening chase scene, but the real eye-popper comes later in the film as hundreds of the beasts charge into battle in crazed fury (even if Miyazaki is quoting his own depiction of advancing Ohmus in Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind).

City of God - The opening sequence of this gangland thriller sets the tone for the entire film, as the protagonist, Rocket, is caught in the eye of a perfect storm between thugs and cops, pausing to consider his predicament and listen to a few of his own desperate heartbeats before chaos erupts around him in the form of an extended gun battle.

I'd be remiss, too, if I didn't tip my hat to some of the sequences in two of my favorite films of the last two years, Children of Men and A Very Long Engagement...

-Coop

[Gerald Cooperberg]

Ohh! And how about Full Metal Jacket? Man, that sniper scene still gives me nightmares.

-Coop

[kexodusc]

I gotta go with Gladiator - say what you want about the movie, that genre's been re-hashed a million times - but those battle scenes were intense, the DVD's in DTS put you right in the middle of the action. The picture is great. The music is a perfect fit. Damn, it's just bone-chilling. You can taste the blood spraying on your face.

Can't wait for 300 - I bet that's gonna be damn good on DVD.

Honorable mention to Saving Private Ryan - total chaos - might have been just a bit too much though.

[Worf101]

I'll give you my fave battle scenes. All the good "modern" ones are taken so here's my list un-modified.

1. "Charge of the Light Brigade" (1936) (1968) - Take Flynn's for the spectacle. Take the latter if you want some real idea as to what the hell went wrong.

2. "Zulu Dawn" (1979) - Told the story of the Battle of Liswanda (sp). The battle that took place BEFORE Rourkes Drift. In this battle the British play "Custer" and the Zulu's do their best impression of the Souix.

3. "War and Peace" (1968) - This 8 hour Russian epic features one of the most amazing battle scenes I've ever witnessed! The Battle of Borordino was breathtaking..

4. "Heaven and Earth" (1990) - Huge Samurai Battle between rival warlords. NOT Kurasawa, but not bad either...

5. "Gettysburg" (1993) - Say what you will about Ted Turner but this film was amazing. Grand doesn't even begin to chracterize it. Puts "Gone With the Wind" to shame.

6. "Waterloo" (1970) - With Rod Steiger tearing up the scenery as Napolean Bonaparte... As a military historian I loved this flick.

7. "Aliens" (1986) - Vasquez's rear guard action is one of the most stiriing I've ever scene.

8. "Battle of the Bulge" (1965) - Yeah the history's ALL WRONG but who cares. You've got Fonda, Robert Shaw, Telly Savalas and Charles Bronson kicking ass all over Europe and taking names. I still sing "Der Panzer" to myself from time to time...

9. "Enemy at the Gates" (2001) - Long overdue for recognition, "The Eastern Front" (remeber from Hogan's Heros) finally gets some long overdue recognition. Stalingrad was/is the most horrific battle to ever take place in the memory of man... it should be remembered.

10. "Dune" (1984) - "Long Live The Fighters!!!!!"


Da Worfster

[Groundbeef]

I'm no fan of "cool" war movies (Black Hawk Down, guys? Come on!), but even I found the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan queasily effective, or the "Crazy 88" fight scene in Kill Bill exhilarating. Here are a few more that leap to mind:


I'd be remiss, too, if I didn't tip my hat to some of the sequences in two of my favorite films of the last two years, Children of Men and A Very Long Engagement...

-Coop

Please define "cool" as it pertains to Black Hawk Down? I am not sure what you mean. That was a fine movie, based on real events, without the usual "Hollywood" treatment of the US army. We got to see it all, mis-steps, and bad decisions..

And then to throw in "Children of Men", talk about ugh... That was a TERRIBLE movie. It was so bad, I can't belive that I even made it through the mess.

Clive Barker I like, but not in that piece o'crap.

I think one of the dumbest moments of the film is when he cant get the car to start by rolling down a 700' incline, and popping the clutch, so he gets out of the car at the bottom, and PUSHING IT UPHILL, gets it to start in 20'. Incredible writing there.

That was a highlight. The rest of the film was utter crap.

[Troy]

The final battle sequence in the British Seaside town turned internment camp at the end of "Children of Men" is a stunner. Hand held, 7 minute shot running in and out and up and down a beseiged apartment building. It really is spectacular. The "ambush on the car" sequence where the camera spins inside the car as it travels backwards at high speed while being chased by psychos on motorcycles is amazingly harrowing. Great film, just came out on DVD. Don't listen to groundbeef. Rent it. Now.

There were some amazing battle sequences in most episodes of "Band of Brothers" which uses the same exact production team as "Saving Private Ryan" BoB is a better film overall, less schmaltzy, less Hollywood with the same level of realism.

I find the battle for the bridge at the end of "Saving Private Ryan" to be even more exceptional than the opening beach sequence. That may just be me, I guess.

Yep, as already mentioned, the Calvary Attack in "Apocalypse Now" and the largely forgotten "Enemy at the Gates" deserve recognition.

[daviethek]

[QUOTE=Troy]The final battle sequence in the British Seaside town turned internment camp at the end of "Children of Men" is a stunner.

Man, I'm with you on that one.

Prior to that, the beach landing scene from Saving Pvt. Ryan did it for me. Also, there was a movie about the Boer War. It might have starred Mel Gibson in an early role. It was old time charge the machine gun type of movie. The battle scenes were realistically portrayed and very brutal. Can't remember the film though. I hate getting old. .

By good I guess we mean realistic, which means senseless and cruel when it comes to warfare. Making it realistic gives credit to those who fought. My dad always hated those really bad WW II movies. dk

[Groundbeef]

The final battle sequence in the British Seaside town turned internment camp at the end of "Children of Men" is a stunner. Hand held, 7 minute shot running in and out and up and down a beseiged apartment building. It really is spectacular. The "ambush on the car" sequence where the camera spins inside the car as it travels backwards at high speed while being chased by psychos on motorcycles is amazingly harrowing. Great film, just came out on DVD. Don't listen to groundbeef. Rent it. Now.

Yep, as already mentioned, the Calvary Attack in "Apocalypse Now" and the largely forgotten "Enemy at the Gates" deserve recognition.

Hold on there partner. If you want to talk about cinematography, and the directors intentions, then yes, the battle scene in Children of Men is VERY well executed.

However, camera tricks, directors eye for detail, and uninterruped battle sequences DONT make a good film. The fact is, the plot line, dialouge, writing, and general theme of Children of Men SUCKS. The film was crap.

I'm no Bush lover (president), but the crux of the film seemed to be some sort of anti-US thrust.

Keep in mind that the 'film' takes place in 2027. Nothing is explained as how the world went to crap. Has the world been post-apocolyptic since 2008? You are left to 'assume' that somehow the US was behind it. And thats it. How did Brition remain untouched? What about Austrailia, New Zealand, Greenland, and any other developed island nation?

And where are all the 'immigrants' coming from?

Not to mention that Brition has no natural source of oil, so where are they getting the fuel to run the country?

And why for 20 years have their been no children? And why has there been no research, or at least an explanation as to the cause?

So consider yourself warned. Here's the crux of the film. Great Camera Work. Piss-Poor Story!

[Gerald Cooperberg]

Please define "cool" as it pertains to Black Hawk Down? I am not sure what you mean. That was a fine movie, based on real events, without the usual "Hollywood" treatment of the US army. We got to see it all, mis-steps, and bad decisions...

I apologize; that was overly dismissive. Let me compose my thoughts for a moment and see if I can articulate the way I feel about this...

[Gerald Cooperberg]

All right, here's my deal:

My first instinct was not to respond to this thread at all, because I don't get off on violence. That's not limited to the cinema, it's just part of who I am and how I look at the world. Since that pertains to my personal belief, you don't have to agree or disagree with it (although sometimes I feel like life would be simpler if we weren't so violence-obsessed). Consequently, my reservation with the war-pic genre in general, even when battle is depicted in a realistically horrific manner, is that it tends to be glorified or at least afforded a nobility that I'm not necessarily in camp with... [before I continue, let me say that I know a few of the regulars here are actual veterans, and I'm definitely not trying to slander them in any way or diminish what they went through... to me, the courage they showed and the respect due to them are separate from questions about whether war is necessary or just; veterans' rights are a passion of mine and advocacy for U.S. military vets is actually something that I do on both a professional and volunteer basis in my "real world" life... but I'm really digressing, and I really do not want this thread to turn into a discussion of those issues; let's stick to the movies]... taking it a step further, a lot of these Bruckheimer-Bay endeavors and the imitators they've spawned seem to turn war into a bloodsport for us to ooh and ahh at. Glory may have had its merits, but you will not count me among those who freeze-frame through the shot of a soldier being decapitated by a cannonball. I've sat through a lot of those type of films, trying to latch onto what others seem to see, but I just get no enjoyment out of Braveheart, or Windtalkers, or Gladiator, or I'm guessing, 300 (although I haven't seen the last one, so I'm loathe to pass judgement). Still, I decided to try to think a few examples that I did genuinely enjoy within this genre constraint-- titles like Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Three Kings... I do count a lot of war films among my favorites, but it seems that the ones I enjoy usually have an anti-war slant or at least use the absurdity of war to examine the human condition. Problem is, it's almost as if singling out the battle scenes as "cool" reduces the films around them. I'm not sure how to reconcile that. So that's where I stand, and I'm sorry if it seemed like I was talking down to you.

As far as Children of Men goes, I'm sorry that you didn't like it. I found it totally exhilarating in almost every sense and I wish that everybody was getting that same feeling when they went to the movies. I think you're projecting a little with the anti-U.S. sentiment that you saw in it-- I don't think that those themes are as explicit as you seem to, although I won't deny that they are sometimes implied. I liked the fact that a lot of the explanation of the premise was in the details, that they didn't spell it out and hit you over the head with it. Why do you need to know why women are infertile to enjoy the picture? I enjoyed the open-endedness of it; much better than "master, sir, I've been wondering, what are Midichlorians?"...

-Coop

[Groundbeef]

All right, here's my deal:

I'm not sure how to reconcile that. So that's where I stand, and I'm sorry if it seemed like I was talking down to you.

No, you weren't talking down to me. Nor did you answer the question either. If you didn't like Black Hawk Down, ok, thats fine. I must admit it was a difficult watch. But it wasn't a "War" film in the typical sense.

It was basically about 1 pitched battle in Somilia that frankly shouldn't have worked out the way it did. Our boys made plenty of mistakes, but performed very well under difficult circumstances.

The problem as I saw it, was that you felt that Children of Men was a better film either cimatecially, or plotwise. I disagree, and it happens, don't worry about it.

But please explain what it was about BHD that you didn't like. I'm curious. Was it the premise, the film, or the way it was filmed.






As far as Children of Men goes, I'm sorry that you didn't like it.
Me too. I don't normally buy films before watching it on rental. This one I took a chance and got the $34.00 HD-DVD version. It'll be on Ebay before the week is out.



I found it totally exhilarating in almost every sense and I wish that everybody was getting that same feeling when they went to the movies. I think you're projecting a little with the anti-U.S. sentiment that you saw in it-- I don't think that those themes are as explicit as you seem to, although I won't deny that they are sometimes implied.

Watch again. How many times do you see "Bush...." "Blair....." newspaper clippings on the hippies desk? About 20? The only assumption you are left to make is that somehow the US/Blair governements were responsible for the mess that was not explained.



I liked the fact that a lot of the explanation of the premise was in the details, that they didn't spell it out and hit you over the head with it. Why do you need to know why women are infertile to enjoy the picture? I enjoyed the open-endedness of it; much better than "master, sir, I've been wondering, what are Midichlorians?"...-Coop


Well, for 1, infertility was the central theme of the movie was it not? After all, wasn't it a bit Christian for the 1 and only pregnant female to revel here status in a STABLE. I mean comon for Pete's sake. Couldn't have hit you over the head with a hammer there eh? So what makes her so special? And why wasn't she seized by the troops after the baby was spotted if she was so valuable? They had the presence of mind to stand down until she was out of the apartment, why not cram her into an APC and get her out?

Not likely. It was like...Ohhhhh everyone look at the first baby in the world in 18 years. Getta move on, we got's more fightin' to do. Improbable at best.

The problem is that its too open ended. I don't like to be spoon fed, but I do like a movie to make sense. And this one just didn't do it for me.

Again, some of the filming techniques were great, but the plot, and movie sucked.

[Troy]

I'm no Bush lover (president), but the crux of the film seemed to be some sort of anti-US thrust.

Anti-US? Where on EARTH do you get that? The US was mentioned breifly only a couple of times, and only in the context that anarchy reigns there, like everywhere else in the world. On the news: "The seige of Seattle is in it's 1000th day." etc.


Keep in mind that the 'film' takes place in 2027. Nothing is explained as how the world went to crap.

The movie made it clear that within 60 years, mankind would no longer exist. Civilization had gone to seed with this knowledge. What's the point in moving civilization forward when it won't exist in 60 years, right?


Has the world been post-apocolyptic since 2008? You are left to 'assume' that somehow the US was behind it. And thats it.

You know what they say about assuming something . . .


How did Brition remain untouched? What about Austrailia, New Zealand, Greenland, and any other developed island nation?

Again, it was made quite clear that the UK was the world's last bastion of some semblance of civilization, including all those places you mentioned. Why doesn't matter in the context of the film. It's simply a plot device for the story.


And where are all the 'immigrants' coming from?

Many of the immigrants were already in the UK. The country wanted everyone out that wasn't UK born.


Not to mention that Brition has no natural source of oil, so where are they getting the fuel to run the country?

Were those few cars in the film gasoline powered? That was never explained, and it simply doesn't matter in the context of the movie. The movie wasn't about that.


And why for 20 years have their been no children? And why has there been no research, or at least an explanation as to the cause?

Actually, the film made it pretty clear that much of the small, overworked technocracy was trying to figure it out, to no avail.

The movie also made it pretty clear that pollution was somehow the crux of the problem. That women had probably become sterile because of some toxic reason, tho it is never really explained.

And so what?

It doesn't matter why women can't get pregnant in the film. The movie was not about that, specifically. That was really only a launching point for the film. It's a MOVIE, not a documentary. Some supension of disbelief is required, just like ANY other movie.


So consider yourself warned. Here's the crux of the film. Great Camera Work. Piss-Poor Story!

Well, no. That's only one person's opinion. Fact is, this movie was chosen as the film of the year at The Onion and is one of the highest rated films of 2006 according to the review compilation metacritic site: http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/childrenofmen For me personally, it's the best, most thought provoking film I've seen in 10 years.

I've noticed that this movie tends to piss of people who choose to ignore that humanity is bumbling down the path to self destruction similar to the one depicted metaphorically in this movie. They still think this is a left / right issue, so they think that this movie has a political bias. They can't get their heads around the basic concept of the story because they so polly-anna-ishly choose to think that everything is fine.

Clearly, you came into this film with a political agenda and your mind already made up for you. Too bad.

[Gerald Cooperberg]

But please explain what it was about BHD that you didn't like. I'm curious. Was it the premise, the film, or the way it was filmed.

Well, it's admittedly been a while since I saw it, so I might have to concede that I can't defend my argument with anything better than hazy memories. Maybe if I happen to see it again (unlikely but possible), I'll post some detailed thoughts.


Watch again. How many times do you see "Bush...." "Blair....." newspaper clippings on the hippies desk? About 20? The only assumption you are left to make is that somehow the US/Blair governements were responsible for the mess that was not explained.

Ah, see, but I took that more as characterization than narrative. It immediately gives us (the audience in 2006) some context for Michael Caine's character-- a sort of shorthand to depict him as an aging activist.


After all, wasn't it a bit Christian for the 1 and only pregnant female to revel here status in a STABLE. I mean comon for Pete's sake. Couldn't have hit you over the head with a hammer there eh? So what makes her so special?

Are you familiar with any of the backstory of the book? The Christian themes are much more overt in the novel and some of that is residually present in the film, although I think that the scene you mention (along with the later "I'm a virgin" exhange) are sort of a tongue-in-cheek nod to that. I personally got a chuckle both times.


And why wasn't she seized by the troops after the baby was spotted if she was so valuable? They had the presence of mind to stand down until she was out of the apartment, why not cram her into an APC and get her out? Not likely. It was like...Ohhhhh everyone look at the first baby in the world in 18 years. Getta move on, we got's more fightin' to do. Improbable at best.

See, perhaps this is why we'll never agree on this... you're bothered by stuff like that and the car starting, and I'm simply not. The fact that everybody pauses to let them pass with the baby is admittedly implausable, but it's a hell of poetic image! I don't think that any amount of explaining will make you like that kind of thing and me not.

-Coop

[nightflier]

Not to mention that Brition has no natural source of oil, so where are they getting the fuel to run the country?

Actually they do, in the North Sea. I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't comment on the battle scenes, but here's a few that haven't been mentioned:

- V for Vendetta: Final Battle, although V has some very Leon-type moments throughout the film. By the way, if you're looking for something anti-Bush from across the pond, that's a pretty safe bet. Ironically, the supreme leader (Bush-Hitler-Stalin-type fellow) is played by John Hurt, who behaves surprisingly like he did in 1984 although in the opposite role. There's a lot of good material in this film.

- LOTR - FOTR: Battle in Moria, I know it's old news now, but that was some great CGI with the cave troll. The battle at Helms Deep in TTT was pretty good too.

- Chronicles of Riddick: The invasion of Helion Prime by the Necromongers is pretty cool.

- The Bourne Supremacy: Final car chase. I didn't know that Mercedes was that tough.

- Matrix II: although it had some really lame scenes like the oversexed techno dance sequence, it also had a great car-chase battle sequence, in my opinion better than the final battle in Matrix III.

- Equilibrium: Awesome swordfight-gunfight in the final action sequence - wouldn't want to be Brandt (Taye Diggs) in that one...

And if I can also give my opinion of the worst battle scenes I have witnessed in a movie: every single one of the battles from Alexander. And in particular, I have never seen a more confusing, more murky, more anti-climactic battle depiction as the battle of Gaugamela. This is perhaps the most studied example of battlefield strategy ever, presenting an incredible opportunity to demonstrate a synergy between military and film-making genius and Oliver Stoned craps all over it. I hope that dill-weed is remembered for this movie above all others.

[Groundbeef]

The movie also made it pretty clear that pollution was somehow the crux of the problem. That women had probably become sterile because of some toxic reason, tho it is never really explained.

And so what?

It doesn't matter why women can't get pregnant in the film. The movie was not about that, specifically. That was really only a launching point for the film. It's a MOVIE, not a documentary. Some supension of disbelief is required, just like ANY other movie.
Ok, so if it doesn't matter that mankind is sterile, then what is the point of the movie? To see how we struggle to survive in 19 years from now? What exactly is it about. The movie is written around getting this girl out of England. For what purpose exactly? The Human Project? What the hell good are they?

And thanks for the tip on suspension of disbelief. I fully realize that to enjoy a movie you need to overlook some creative license. But when the license is squandered on stupid things, it makes it harder to get back into the film.

Case in point the car scene. I was pretty into the whole rolling start, and the guy chasing the car down the hill, and him having trouble getting it started popping the clutch. But then to have it dead at the bottom of the hill, with the crowd gaining on them, and Clive Owens then PUSH IT UP HILL IN THE MUD< and then the car "starts". Unneeded and it takes away from the film. Why add it in? It only served as a distraction.

And thank GOD Julianne Moore was killed early. After her piss-poor showing in Freedomland, I about puked when she showed up on screen. I was waiting for her to die from the first moment.






Well, no. That's only one person's opinion. Fact is, this movie was chosen as the film of the year at The Onion and is one of the highest rated films of 2006 according to the review compilation metacritic site: http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/childrenofmen For me personally, it's the best, most thought provoking film I've seen in 10 years. Great, and not every review was positve. Plenty thought the cinematography was great (As I did, BTW, but the story was lacking....just like I said)

As far as thought provoking? How exactly? The only thoughts I had were, why were there so many holes in the plot. When are they going to explain what this baby is going to do? And on and on.





I've noticed that this movie tends to piss of people who choose to ignore that humanity is bumbling down the path to self destruction similar to the one depicted metaphorically in this movie. They still think this is a left / right issue, so they think that this movie has a political bias. They can't get their heads around the basic concept of the story because they so polly-anna-ishly choose to think that everything is fine.

Clearly, you came into this film with a political agenda and your mind already made up for you. Too bad.

Actually, I went into the movie based on positive reviews. I think that you have an impression I am on the right, but I'm not. I couldn't wrap my head around the story because it was so poorly written.

And I guess your political agenda is that you hope the world dissolves into anarchy so you can point and say "I told you so?".

[kexodusc]

Just saw Children of Men yesterday...I liked it a fair bit...plot holes and everything. I've seen films and read books with similar plots/concepts before so I didn't find it terribly groundbreaking. It was a pretty good film, though it didn't evoke any political or emotional response from me like it seems to have done with many fans. I actually didn't find the camera work all that appealing until the battle scene at the end. Good pick for this thread though. The dialogue was kinda good though - Bazooka! Priceless!


For me personally, it's the best, most thought provoking film I've seen in 10 years.
Wholly crap! Best and most thought provoking film you've seen in 10 years? Wow. It really struck a chord with you, huh? I felt Blood Diamond hit closer to home for me than this.

My only gripe was that the concept was really interesting, if somewhat unoriginal, but instead of pursuing it further, it turned into a suspense/action film - which I enjoyed. I won't call them plot holes, since there was never any intention to reveal all the circumstances leading up to the plot, nor any intention to wrap the story up with a "happily ever after ending" or anything. So the questions that remain may drive some people nuts, but shouldn't take away from the film.

But what made the movie so good was the level of background details in every scene which explained this vision of the future to the audience. Interesting to see how civilization could deteriorate to such lows. Reminded me of the whole Hurricane Katrina fallout.

So, I put it somewhere in between greatest movie of the last decade, and sucks donkey balls.

[Smokey]

One battle scene I remeber from childhood was army of Skeletons battle from the movie Jason and the Argonauts. They had an eerie grin on their faces even as they were chopped up to pieces.

http://img.consumating.com/photos/7427/large/123785.jpg

[kelsci]

I liked the battle scenes in two Japanese Science Fiction "Oaters". The first was THE MYSTERIANS. I love the two giant marc-o-light rayguns taking on the helicons. The second film was BATTLE IN OUTER SPACE. There is a scene where the earth forces try to make it back to their own space ships in some kind of land rovers while being pursued by flying saucers of the planet Matal firing back at their saucers with a heat ray canon. IMHO rally well done and produced 17 years before STAR WARS.

[Kam]

One battle scene I remeber from childhood was army of Skeletons battle from the movie Jason and the Argonauts. They had an eerie grin on their faces even as they were chopped up to pieces.

http://img.consumating.com/photos/7427/large/123785.jpg

and harryhausen's work on clash of the titans, the battle with the Kraken was really sweet.

[recoveryone]

I think most of the movies have been covered and we all may not agree on which one is better or invoke a feeling in each of us. For me Black Hawk Down was the most physical draining movie I had seen when it came out. My arms and legs were spent from all the involuntary reaction of my body. Being a former Marine, who was suppose to be there, but God had other plans for me. I felt a real emotional bond with the soldiers. The only other movie I seen that gripped me as BHD did was United 93. My head was pounding just thinking about how would I react in similar situation or if one of my family members was to be in such horror.

Band of Brothers was good over all showing that combat is days/hours of BS and moments of terror. I have been watching Dan Rather reports on INHD channel talking to Soldiers and Marines about the things they did during the battle for Iraq. One part these Marines are talking about the medal of honor run (a Marine has to run out under fire and detonate a line charge by hand to clear a mine field) and each Marine interview talk about how they just did what they were trained to do and did not feel the feelings of fear until they got back, knowing that ten things could have gone wrong that would have killed them.

[SlumpBuster]

I don't know. Children of Men was a damn fine movie. Complaining about the "Why?" of it as to infertility and world situation is like complaining that the farmer never notices the animals are talking in "Animal Farm" or complaining that "1984" isn't realistic because there are no computers (which is actually an interesting point. 1984 was about control and destruction of information. Computers have helped create a world with too much information. But the control issues are still there.) To a certain degree, it is also like wondering what in the case in Pulp Fiction. Although I don't think there are any actual McGuffins in Children of Men.

Children of Men is an allegory and deserves to be viewed as such. Also, what if it is anti-American? So what? It is a British movie. Americans deserve to be exposed to a little world perspective. Not everyone loves us. I think the Republic can withstand a little scrutiny and critisism without baldly labling the sentiment as "Anti-American."

I was pleased to see Peru suggested Open Range. Not a military battle as such, but one of the best gunfights ever.

I would also elect the hostage scenes in Munich. Dreadfully good stuff.

Finally, I will elect the trailer for Alexander. But only the trailer. The elephant vs horse was cool. :D

[Groundbeef]

I don't know. Children of Men was a damn fine movie. Complaining about the "Why?" of it as to infertility and world situation is like complaining that the farmer never notices the animals are talking in "Animal Farm" or complaining that "1984" isn't realistic because there are no computers (which is actually an interesting point. 1984 was about control and destruction of information. Computers have helped create a world with too much information. But the control issues are still there.) To a certain degree, it is also like wondering what in the case in Pulp Fiction. Although I don't think there are any actual McGuffins in Children of Men.

I think that we are getting out of the realm of the OP, but I will continue on for 1 last post.

Your comparison between both 'Animal Farm' and '1984' are non-sequiters. Both films clearly laid out the premise of 1) Talking animals running the farm. No problem suspending dis-belief because that was the thrust of the movie. Now if the animals never talked, and then only in the last 2 minutes started chatting up, that may have changed the equation.

2) 1984. It was set in the future (not unlike Children of Men), and the premise was laid out the the computers were running the show. No problem there, because it was laid out, and the story was built around that premise.

Children of Men is just sloppy. The story is weak, as was the writing. It is easy to quibble about the small points because the larger story is a mess. If you want to make a picture about the fall of Humanity, fine. But stick to the story. Why introduce the baby into the mix if it is met with relative indifference. Sure you have some people hunting for it, but overall, its a VERY weak vehicle to advance to plot. Nothing is explained about how the introduction of this child will change the world.

Please, I beg of you, tell me what the point of getting her out of the country was for? What exactly was the goal? And if so worried about Govt intervention, why allow them to simply walk out of the battle zone with narry a worry about capture.

And what about the other clan that did actually seem to take interest in the child. What did they hope to gain by keeping the child for themselves? Were they going to worship it? Cook it? What.

So the world has gone to hell. So what, thats not a film. Hundreds of them have been made. Mad Max, Waterworld, 1984, The Postman, A Boy and his Dog, and the list is endless. This one offered NOTHING fresh, or innovating (other than camera work) that hasn't been done before. And to top it off, the plot was weak and ill-defined.

Now perhaps as someone else wrote, the book may have been better. As a voracious reader when I had time, I can appreciate how much a book can get butchered getting put on the screen. So, if you have read it, you may have been more able to appreciate it, as many more details would have been filled in for you before watching.




Children of Men is an allegory and deserves to be viewed as such. Also, what if it is anti-American? So what? It is a British movie. Americans deserve to be exposed to a little world perspective. Not everyone loves us. I think the Republic can withstand a little scrutiny and critisism without baldly labling the sentiment as "Anti-American."


It's not so much Anti-American, and I guess I didn't explain that very clearly. Belive me, I am a patriot, but there is PLENTY that we have messed up as of late. What I meant to say, was in the context of the FILM, how did 2007-8 relate to the issues of of the film in 2027? By flashing newspaper clips of Bush/Blair headlines, that would only conclude they are referencing current day (2007) issues. So, HOW exactly did that fit into 2027?
That was the point I was making, relative to the movie. Not relative to today in real life.

[SlumpBuster]

Fair enough. I take alot of flack for thinking the Beatles are rubbish and that Lennon/McCartney were/are blowhards. :D i.e. Just because alot of other people are fawning over something doesn't mean you have to too.

[Groundbeef]

Fair enough. I take alot of flack for thinking the Beatles are rubbish and that Lennon/McCartney were/are blowhards. :D i.e. Just because alot of other people are fawning over something doesn't mean you have to too.

That makes 2 of us. I can't argue that they didn't affect music, and they way it was made, and stuff, but I just don't like them very much.

I am more of a Pink Floyd person.

BTW I did have a laugh in Children of Men when Clive Owens was at his cousins, and the Giant Pink Pig was floating by the 2 exhaust towers. Straight outta Pink Floyd! I loved it, and it totally went over my wifes head.

[Kam]

i guess i should pop in that Children of Men dvd that's been lying around....

[Groundbeef]

i guess i should pop in that Children of Men dvd that's been lying around....

By all means. Then post your feelings about it.

[eisforelectronic]

And if I can also give my opinion of the worst battle scenes I have witnessed in a movie: every single one of the battles from Alexander. And in particular, I have never seen a more confusing, more murky, more anti-climactic battle depiction as the battle of Gaugamela. This is perhaps the most studied example of battlefield strategy ever, presenting an incredible opportunity to demonstrate a synergy between military and film-making genius and Oliver Stoned craps all over it. I hope that dill-weed is remembered for this movie above all others.

Funny you should mention that. I had to watch a show on Discovery about the battle before I could understand what was going on in the movie. Even then, knowing what was supposed to be happening, it wasn't that clear.

I would also like to state that I really liked both "Black Hawk Down" and "Children of Men"

[Troy]

I don't have the time (or inclination) to answer all the coments. Sorry for the spoilers if you haven't seen it yet.


Ok, so if it doesn't matter that mankind is sterile, then what is the point of the movie?

You're missing the point. In Blade Runner the story didn't have to explain WHY all the healthy humans had moved off Earth. Only that they had. In 2001 the Monolith was never really explained, or what that light field was that Bowman flew though. Was the mechanics of the Yoyodyne Propulsion Drive in Buckaroo Banzai or what Dilithium Crystals are in Star Trek ever explained? No. We just take for granted that it works. That it's part of that world.

It's a common characteristic of the sci-fi / fantasy genre to throw constructs at the viewer that don't have to be explained. It's just a point of fact in that universe, this is the way things are, and the story starts from THERE.


The movie is written around getting this girl out of England. For what purpose exactly? The Human Project? What the hell good are they?

It's explained in the movie that the Human Project is an organization outside the government that is trying deserately to restart the human race and that they would use the mother / baby as a way to understand why the sterility happened.

Maybe if you had caught all these things I've explained in my several posts you'd have liked it more . . .

BTW, I loved the fact that it WAS kept nebulous as to what exactly the human project was up to. I liked the open-ended nature of the movie in general. It's really up to the viewer to decide how to respond to a lot of what's happening in this movie. Keep in mind that I saw this movie in 12/26 without reading any reviews before seeing it. I was able to make up my own mind about it before reading OTHER people's interpretations into the meaning of it all.


And thank GOD Julianne Moore was killed early.

And what a spectacularly surprising death that was. And graphic. It's shock value was stunning, having a big name star show up that looks like she's going to be there for the duration be killed so shockingly so early in the film. Whetehr or not you like her as an actress it was EXTREMELY effective.


Great, and not every review was positve

Actually almost every single one was. 10 of the 37 major critics listed gave it the maximum score possible (5 stars, 10 out of 10 etc.) There is only one score at 50%none less than 50% rating. 75% of the reviews are 3-5 stars. it was one of the top 5 best reviewed films of 2006.

Look again: http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/childrenofmen


As far as thought provoking? How exactly?

In about 100 ways, but first and formost is the whole concept of the slow extinction of the species. In virtually every end of the world story the extinction is virtually instant thru war or disease. This slow entropic spiralling of civilization was utterly fascinating. And the religious, environmental and political implications. Humanity, saved by a whore! And the fact that I'll never say "Pull my finger" in quite the same way ever again. The list is just too long to name them all.


And I guess your political agenda is that you hope the world dissolves into anarchy so you can point and say "I told you so?".

No. Maybe it will make people talk about the path to destruction we are on so we can change it. Do I really have to explain that?


I won't call them plot holes, since there was never any intention to reveal all the circumstances leading up to the plot, nor any intention to wrap the story up with a "happily ever after ending" or anything. So the questions that remain may drive some people nuts, but shouldn't take away from the film.

Precisely. And while they may drive some people nuts, they make other people thrilled to be able to use their imagination. To think.


Why introduce the baby into the mix if it is met with relative indifference.

You watching the same movie as me? Everybody in the movie was frantic about this pregnant kid! And no one else on the planet knew she existed.


Nothing is explained about how the introduction of this child will change the world.

Gee, how about giving hope for humanity? If there could be children born and continuation of the species, then suddenly taking care of the environment and society matters. It would signal the end of humanities downward spiral.

Maybe you're just not a fan of allegory?


And what about the other clan that did actually seem to take interest in the child. What did they hope to gain by keeping the child for themselves? Were they going to worship it? Cook it?

See, I loved that while on the surface that rebel faction was trying to get her out of the UK to the "Human Project", they did seem to act like they wanted to eat her too, didn't they? It all plays into the "who do you trust, who do you believe?" aspect to the entire story that gives the whole movie that twitchy edge of the seat feeling.


Now perhaps as someone else wrote, the book may have been better. As a voracious reader when I had time, I can appreciate how much a book can get butchered getting put on the screen. So, if you have read it, you may have been more able to appreciate it, as many more details would have been filled in for you before watching

It's interesting to note the the few bad, or middling reviews mention that it took too many liberties with the book. From what I've read, Cuaron only used the book as a conceptual jumping off place. It's another example of people coming in with a predetermined expectation of what the movie is "supposed to be" and not what it actually is.


BTW I did have a laugh in Children of Men when Clive Owens was at his cousins, and the Giant Pink Pig was floating by the 2 exhaust towers. Straight outta Pink Floyd! I loved it, and it totally went over my wifes head

Yeah, that made me laugh too. I was the only person in the theater that caught that. I interpreted that as being part of that character's art collection right outside his window. Again, a fascinating side character in that it showed that there was this one rich guy left that saved these world famous art pieces from war torn parts of the world (Picasso's Guernica in his dining room, but singed and torn, or Michelangelo's David missing a leg in his foyer) simply because he could. And that no one else left on earth seemed to care. Proocative on so many levels.

Clearly, Curon is a progrock/artrock fan with that lofty placement of The Floyd pig with theose other art classics. His use of "Court of the Crimson King" in this and Zappa's "Watermelon in Easterhay" on the also excellent and similarly humanistic "Y Tu Mama, Tambien" were excellent as well.

[Groundbeef]

It's explained in the movie that the Human Project is an organization outside the government that is trying deserately to restart the human race and that they would use the mother / baby as a way to understand why the sterility happened.

This point was very convoluted. It was indicated that she needed to get to the coast, but the definition was very vauge. There was no real urgency other than to get the papers.



And what a spectacularly surprising death that was. And graphic. It's shock value was stunning, having a big name star show up that looks like she's going to be there for the duration be killed so shockingly so early in the film. Whetehr or not you like her as an actress it was EXTREMELY effective.

It was only effective because she was dead. Couldn't have come sooner. I half hoped she was going to choke to death on the ping-pong ball in the car. Unfortuantly she lasted a few minutes longer.




In about 100 ways, but first and formost is the whole concept of the slow extinction of the species. In virtually every end of the world story the extinction is virtually instant thru war or disease. This slow entropic spiralling of civilization was utterly fascinating. And the religious, environmental and political implications. Humanity, saved by a whore! And the fact that I'll never say "Pull my finger" in quite the same way ever again. The list is just too long to name them all.

2 points here. Have you seen Mad Max? The Postman? Waterworld? In all of these movies and any post apocolyptic movie, there is ALWAYS hope for the continuation of civilization. In fact, in the Postman, sterility was a key factor in the survival of Kevin Costners character BECAUSE he wasn't sterile.

And there sure wasn't much religion in COM, except for the symbolism (ie virgin refernce, and the stable scene). BTW is "saved by a whore" your words? Just because she isn't married don't make her a whore.



No. Maybe it will make people talk about the path to destruction we are on so we can change it. Do I really have to explain that?

Not after watching this movie. Perhaps after Schindlers List, but not this drivil.



Precisely. And while they may drive some people nuts, they make other people thrilled to be able to use their imagination. To think.

The only imagination needed during this film is wondering how good a film it COULD have been had it not squandered it all on poor implementation, and crappy plot tricks.



You watching the same movie as me? Everybody in the movie was frantic about this pregnant kid! And no one else on the planet knew she existed.

Yeah, they certainly were. So frantic that the loonies tried to shoot the mother and baby as they fled the upper floors of the apartment complex. And the army who just couldn't get enough of them, so much that they stood down when they left the complex, just let them WALK on out. Didn't even offer up a Medic to look at the baby. Talk your way out of that one. It didn't make sense, and it makes even less as we discuss it now.



Gee, how about giving hope for humanity? If there could be children born and continuation of the species, then suddenly taking care of the environment and society matters. It would signal the end of humanities downward spiral.

Maybe you're just not a fan of allegory?

The plotline of the baby was not done well. At all. While I agree that the prospect of babies would be monumental, in the course of the film, both mother and baby were treated almost as afterthoughts.





See, I loved that while on the surface that rebel faction was trying to get her out of the UK to the "Human Project", they did seem to act like they wanted to eat her too, didn't they? It all plays into the "who do you trust, who do you believe?" aspect to the entire story that gives the whole movie that twitchy edge of the seat feeling.

The film didn't need it. They needed to explain why the Govt couldn't be trusted to handle the baby. It was only alluded to that it would somehow be hard for them to explain why an immigrant could have a baby.

And there was really no clear reason, or even a not so clear reason why the clan killed Julliane to try an steal the baby. (Not that killing Julianne was so bad).

I've had enough of the whole "who do you trust, who do you belive" crap. Not everything in this world is a conspiricy. If you wan't to wear a tin hat all day, have at it. But sometimes things are just what they appear. Nothing more, nothing less.


Well, I would have to say that I don't think that either of us are going to chage each others minds. To me, it was just a bad movie that I didn't enjoy.

[Gerald Cooperberg]

Well, I would have to say that I don't think that either of us are going to chage each others minds. To me, it was just a bad movie that I didn't enjoy.

Beef, I think that what's really getting at me is that every time you pretend to chalk yr dislike of this film up to personal taste, you throw a backhanded phrase in it that implies that anyone with half a brain wouldn't have liked it. I mean, look at yr last sentence here. You take two subjective phrases in "To me," and "I didn't enjoy" and sandwich in an objective judgment with "bad movie." If you really want to let this rest, let's just agree that we liked it and you didn't and leave the good and bad out of it!

-Coop

[Groundbeef]

Beef, I think that what's really getting at me is that every time you pretend to chalk yr dislike of this film up to personal taste, you throw a backhanded phrase in it that implies that anyone with half a brain wouldn't have liked it. I mean, look at yr last sentence here. You take two subjective phrases in "To me," and "I didn't enjoy" and sandwich in an objective judgment with "bad movie." If you really want to let this rest, let's just agree that we liked it and you didn't and leave the good and bad out of it!

-Coop

Well, look at you Mr. English Major...big words like subjective/phrases..how fancy.

Read it again Professor. To Me (meaning MYSELF, as in NOT YOU OR ANYONE ELSE), it was a "bad movie". As in ( I thought it was a bad movie. Perhaps you didn't, and thats ok. But I didn't like it.). I might have agreed with you had I said "Boy was that a stupid movie. Anyone who likes it is a total moron." Then maybe you could drag me into grammer court. Until then, if you are down to quibbling about english usage, I think this particular film (Children of Men) discussion is over.

As for half brain if you like it? Your reading way to far into it. Not everything is a conspiricy here. I never suggested that anyone that liked the movie was a half wit. No, movies are subjective. I didn't like it, but don't fault anyone else for it.

Believe me, if I think your a tool, I'll let you know. I won't hide it in backhanded phrases.

[Gerald Cooperberg]

All right. This isn't worth it.

[Troy]

Actually, it was mentioned in the movie that she WAS a whore. She even admitted it.

Glad to see you're a big Julianne Moore fan! She did such a great job as the washed up porn-star in "Boogie Nights."

Are you going to tell me now that "The Postman" and "Waterworld" are better movies that told apocalyptic stories in a smarter way than "Children of Men" did? Yeesh.



While I agree that the prospect of babies would be monumental, in the course of the film, both mother and baby were treated almost as afterthoughts.


Well, with this along with the whore statement and a whole host of other things that I corrected you on yesterday, it seems clear that you missed a lot of the subtlety in this movie. I can't imagine how anyone would listen to your opinion about this movie. It's like you really didn't watch it, because you certainly missed many of the film's salient points.

And it's spelled grammer. And drivel.

[Groundbeef]

Actually, it was mentioned in the movie that she WAS a whore. She even admitted it.

I see. Well, I stand corrected on that. From what I remeber, there was the virgin comment, then she said she wasn't sure who the father was. Don't remeber "whore" being thrown in the mix.




Glad to see you're a big Julianne Moore fan! She did such a great job as the washed up porn-star in "Boogie Nights."

Didn't see "Boogie Nights", so I can't comment on her performance in that one. Pray tell did you happen to see "FreedomLand"? Your opinion of her would drop about 80% after that performance.



Are you going to tell me now that "The Postman" and "Waterworld" are better movies that told apocalyptic stories in a smarter way than "Children of Men" did? Yeesh.

No. Just countering the argument that you appeared to be making that ONLY Children of Men has show a post-apoclyptic world where everyone hasn't been killed off. It did appear that there was some nuclear activity in Children Of Men, specifically when they mention Iran on the TV.

Also, sterility plays a part in the Postman, similar to that of Children of Men.

Both gave thought to what the future may hold if events lead us to destroy ourselves.

BTW the Postman was a MUCH better novel (than the film). It did tackle redemption, and hope, and how civilization would have to rebuild. At the end, things did get better. Unlike Children of Men, where you are left to assume. I'm betting she was eaten by a giant shark, and society failed completly thereafter.





Well, with this along with the whore statement and a whole host of other things that I corrected you on yesterday, it seems clear that you missed a lot of the subtlety in this movie. I can't imagine how anyone would listen to your opinion about this movie. It's like you really didn't watch it, because you certainly missed many of the film's salient points.

And it's spelled grammer. And drivel.

And you seem to be content to blow off anything that doesn't advance your opinion of the film. Plot holes are put off as "intentional- to make you think" ( I say sloppy, or lazy writing), Non-Sequiters are blown off, or not explained (Why again did the army allow the only mother in 20 years with a live baby wander off again?)

If you don't like my opinion, don't rely on it. And I did watch it. It's just that I was so distracted by the crappy writing, that I couldn't suspend enough belief to really enjoy it.

As 4 the speling, get bent. I think that when you feel compelled to comment on part of the conversation, you have run outta gas. So unless thats all U got, I'll be here.

[recoveryone]

I hope both of you mark this time on your calendars, so when your next 28 day cycle comes around you will refrain from posting...................................lol

[Worf101]

I hope both of you mark this time on your calendars, so when your next 28 day cycle comes around you will refrain from posting...................................lol

Mwha ha ha ha ha... oooh that was a goodie... Well it is a "classic" flame war. Doesn't happen here often but when it does... it does... Just gotta let em burn themselves out. Wanna see stupidity??? Go to any online gaming forum. The board Battlfield and Counter Strike are worse than Blood vs. Crips. It's terrible...

Da Worfster

[kexodusc]

I hope both of you mark this time on your calendars, so when your next 28 day cycle comes around you will refrain from posting...................................lol
Bwa ha ha ha...
I'm sooo going to steal that....LOL

[Groundbeef]

Bwa ha ha ha...
I'm sooo going to steal that....LOL

Actually, I am just waiting for the inevitable "Your a Nazi", or the crowd pleaser "your a *aggot". That marks the official end to any flame war.

At this point, as stated before, unless something new comes up, I think this one has run its course. Because, truthfully, if you liked the film you are a moron.:ciappa:

As a footnoote, any and all speling errers are intentional and accidental. I hope it drives' you to distracction.

[eisforelectronic]

So how about Star Trek II - the Battle in Mutara Nebula

[Troy]

Because, truthfully, if you liked the film you are a moron.:ciappa:


Riiiiight.

[Worf101]

So how about Star Trek II - the Battle in Mutara Nebula
Only two better than that...

"Sink the Bismark"
"In Harm's Way"

Da Worfster