PDA

View Full Version : Flags of our fathers review



stugumby
10-22-2006, 10:14 PM
i give it an 8, very well rendered special effects, the corsair cockpit views are stunning to say the elast. weapons and equipment were also well represented. Uniforms and small arms give it a 9. continuity and ease of absorbption a 7. overall a good one, not one to take the kiddies to due to guts etc, ala saving private ryan but as real as it can be.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

supreme commander 139th independent airborne amphibious underwater mess kit repair squadron (digital)

Scrapper_511
10-23-2006, 01:53 PM
Awesome. It better be as good as you say it is, or else...

j/k

xTHRUDx
10-23-2006, 09:46 PM
the corsair cockpit views are stunning to say the least

except for the missing gunsight part<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/screen/ThrudSIG.jpg

"Hate me now, thank me later"

stansdds
10-24-2006, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by xTHRUDx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the corsair cockpit views are stunning to say the least

except for the missing gunsight part </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I noticed that in the trailers. Looks like it was shot through the windscreen of a restored Corsair, no gunsight, no bullet proof glass plate, and I don't recall seeing any arming switches. Oh, well, it's Hollywood, you can't expect them to get historical details right.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

When you know as much as I do, you become a danger only to yourself. -Stans, 2006

Waldo.Pepper
10-24-2006, 08:35 AM
Does the Corsair with the missing gunsight drop ordnance or shoot?

If it does not perhaps it is on a recon pass.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/sig/p61rev.jpg

ddsflyer
10-25-2006, 02:39 PM
Gave it a 7. The in-cockpit shots are short, the battle sequences are well done but short, and the domestic home front side is overdone and drags way too much.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://photobucket.com/albums/c68/ddsflyer/Baronsmall2.jpg

Owner and operator:
Beech Baron 58 N8574R

GreyFox5
10-25-2006, 08:58 PM
Did anyone of ya read the book!

Look these guys left there dead friends on the battlefield and the government dragged them away to beg the public for more money.

One guy out of all the flag raisers had what most would call a normal life after the war the rest didn't do so well.

If ya read the book then the movie if it did anything right told the story of how the true heros were left on the battlefield.

The rest was just to show how unreal war is. Or how cool it would be to buzz the troop ships on the way to Iwo!

Another excellent movie from Clint Eastwood!

Man those fighter jocks had it good http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/GreyFox5/corsair.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/GreyFox5/Il2-009_327X125.jpg
Check your "6" M8 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

accpps
10-25-2006, 11:43 PM
The movie sucks. Its a anti-war lets all cry about racism movie that was disguised as a war film.

Bearcat99
10-26-2006, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by accpps:
The movie sucks. Its a anti-war lets all cry about racism movie that was disguised as a war film.

I'm curious... so are you saying that war movies should be pro war? Or pro racism? I mean....... from my perspective moist war movies that are worth anything should wind up being anti war. I havent seen the film yet so I think I will reserve judgement... but based on your succinct discription .. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE> 332nd V.F.G. (http://www.geocities.com/bearcat99th/) [/list]
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">It is easier to train a boy than to repair a man.</span>
Sturmovik Essentials (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | Magnum PC.Com (http://www.magnum-pc.com/) | Joint Operations (http://www.joint-ops.com/joil2fb/default.asp)

accpps
10-26-2006, 11:07 AM
Go watch the movie. It will kill your need to embarrass yourself by trying to act cool.

You will quickly find out what I am talking about.

uboatbeast
10-26-2006, 02:11 PM
: http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifIn the actual battle of Iwo Jima, the F4U Corsair was not the only aircraft deployed in action, also flown were: F6F Hellcat, SB2C Helldiver, and TBF/TBM Avenger as well. The movie only shows the F4U only.

GreyFox5
10-26-2006, 03:07 PM
Aircraft choice could have been due to the $$$ factor. They may have used one real plane and the rest were CG in. Or they used the Corsair to focus on the Marines only.

Just speculating.

And accpps is intitled to his opinion but see the movie yourself to make up your mind BC. I do agree with your thought of any war movie worth anything should wind up being anti-war.

To name a few:
All Quiet on the Western Front both 1930 and 1979 TV movie
Catch 22
Platoon
Full Metal Jacket (more fog of war then anti-war)
and the more recient WWII movies that have come out in the last 10 years.

But I'm sure we could run a whole thread about war movies and I think there has been a few here in the UBI forums...

Sorry I ramble http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/GreyFox5/Il2-009_327X125.jpg
Check your "6" M8 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

shinden1974
10-26-2006, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
... from my perspective moist war movies that are worth anything should wind up being anti war.

Really? God forbid that our excellent movies teach us to be anti-war therefore no one would stand up to a future Hitler or Tojo.

maybe anti-war starter? Hitler didn't really want a war...they were hoping a large number of sentimental fools would lay down their weapons and surrender immediately...as our good war films have been teaching us to do.

In a way it is unfortunate we live in this age, where we can wildly speculate about the futility of war without wondering what would happen had we not fought them. Where we can't see our families dragged away to be shot by the enemy, or watch as our ideals and civilization that so many fought 'war' to protect are burned to the ground.

6 million jews were not fighting a war when they were hauled off to slaughter, millions more who starved and died in cambodia, russia, and china were not at war when they were killed. I'll be pro-war to prevent anything like that...I hope there are enough of our children left who think the same way for all our sakes.

DoorGunner1788
10-26-2006, 07:28 PM
I just saw the movie this afternoon with my old man. It was very well done, and yes, I did read the book before I saw the movie. I suggest any of you planning to go see it, to wisely read the book first. It has very intense and graphic combat scenes, and it shows how the horror of war can effect a human being. Just because the movie is not purley fighting scenes with young boys getting blown apart and shot, does not necessarily make it a boring movie and "drag-on" movie.

Zeus-cat
10-26-2006, 07:54 PM
Shinden1974,

In my opinion people should always be reluctant to go to war. Sometimes it is neccesary, as in the cases you mentioned - to stop Hitler and Tojo. War is one of the most useless things people can do, but in certain cases there are no alternatives.

Movies that are "pro-war" tend to make it look like you go to war, win and them everyone is safe and happy. A lot of bad guys get killed, a few good guys die, but in the end, almost everyone is happy. Obviously, that is a gross simplification, but reality is nothing like that even when the war is short.

Take WW II for example. The good guys won, but things got real ugly real fast. Millions of people fell under the control of the communists. Millions of soldiers and civilians came out of the war wounded or maimed. Many people had pyschological problems for years afterward.

A movie that portrays the reality of war almost has to be perceived as anti-war.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Zeus-cat

My Campaigns:
Straight Shot (9 missions in the Japanese Seaplane - A6M2-N "Rufe")
Straight Into an Icy Hell (14 missions for the Rufe in the Aleutians)
Straight Down (26 dive-bombing missions in a carrier-based SBD-3)
Straight Down Some More (19 more missions in a carrier-based SBD-3)
Straight and True (30 torpedo bomber missions in an IL-2T)

My campaign page at Miision4Today
http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&c=22

shinden1974
10-26-2006, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Shinden1974,

In my opinion people should always be reluctant to go to war. Sometimes it is neccesary, as in the cases you mentioned - to stop Hitler and Tojo. War is one of the most useless things people can do, but in certain cases there are no alternatives.

Movies that are "pro-war" tend to make it look like you go to war, win and them everyone is safe and happy. A lot of bad guys get killed, a few good guys die, but in the end, almost everyone is happy. Obviously, that is a gross simplification, but reality is nothing like that even when the war is short.

Take WW II for example. The good guys won, but things got real ugly real fast. Millions of people fell under the control of the communists. Millions of soldiers and civilians came out of the war wounded or maimed. Many people had pyschological problems for years afterward.

A movie that portrays the reality of war almost has to be perceived as anti-war.

agree somewhat and disagree somewhat...war is useless to people like you and me.

War is extremely use-FULL provided you can win...to ambitious 'leaders' for a variety of things to the winner. Gaining of trade advantages, security, removal of significant threats and securing additional territory to name a few. The british empire found war quite useful and so has the US. The Idea that war is useless is more what we wish it was than it actually is.

I think our thinking is close however as a reluctance to go to war would prevent war in most cases. War is an extreme risk else it would happen more often. I would say a good war film provides a very healthy hatred of war...but should not be anti-. Most of the men who fought WW2 (allies anyway) were proud of their accomplishments and felt the war necessary which is really common sense.

Lastly, about alternatives, there are always alternatives, and that's really my point. At some point people have to decide, especially peace loving people, whether to fight or to continue to take an alternative, especially when dealing with an aggressor who does not share those peace loving ideals. If we chose the alternative, such as surrender, we don't necessarily lose our lives, but something much more precious, with the nazi's this is a state of hatred and racism shoved down our throats... the ideals so many have died for, gone.

by the way, I plan on seeing the film, and I believe I will enjoy it...semper fi
\

Bearcat99
10-27-2006, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by GreyFox5:
And accpps is intitled to his opinion but see the movie yourself to make up your mind BC. I do agree with your thought of any war movie worth anything should wind up being anti-war.


Of course he is.... I never said he wasnt... and I dont let reviews stop me from seeing a move.. I was just being partly facetious... and partly asking a legitimate question based on his initial post. I could give a rats nuts about how he feels about the movie.... as far as his or anyone elses' opinion determining whether or not I go see it. I go to movies that intrest me.... reviews are nice.. but they are just opinions and you know what they say about those....


Originally posted by accpps:
Go watch the movie. It will kill your need to embarrass yourself by trying to act cool.
You will quickly find out what I am talking about.

?
Need to embarass myself by trying to act cool.. now where is that coming from. Get a grip.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE> 332nd V.F.G. (http://www.geocities.com/bearcat99th/) [/list]
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">It is easier to train a boy than to repair a man.</span>
Sturmovik Essentials (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | Magnum PC.Com (http://www.magnum-pc.com/) | Joint Operations (http://www.joint-ops.com/joil2fb/default.asp)

Honeypot.se
10-27-2006, 06:11 AM
6 million jews were not fighting a war when they were hauled off to slaughter, millions more who starved and died in cambodia, russia, and china were not at war when they were killed. I'll be pro-war to prevent anything like that...I hope there are enough of our children left who think the same way for all our sakes.
I somehow find this snippet extremely offensive. Try to figure out why.

Admittedly, I am eternally grateful for the all the Westeners and all their colonial puppets who sacrificed their lives (voluntarily or by being forced to) during WWII, so that I don't have to live in Gross Deutschland or in the USSR today. But our problem today is not exactly that there is a lack of wars. Is there ever? Ideally, those who caused today's wars, in a broad sense, should have watched the anti-war movies and become persuaded by them. Then these wars wouldn't exist and no one would have to fight them.

Implying that the Jews, Gulag interns, Cambodians and whatnot were too pacifist and had themselves to blame for getting enslaved and slaughtered is IMO a proof of poor understanding of the mechanisms that lead to such atrocities.

Obviously, that is not to say that you shouldn't use force to stop the atrocities once they are a fact. Certain current yet neglected African conflicts spring to mind, but even there you can't just barge in and restore peace. And the reason for that is not that the Western powers are viewed as too pacifist by the involved parties - it's rather the opposite sadly.

shinden1974
10-27-2006, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Honeypot.se:
I somehow find this snippet extremely offensive. Try to figure out why.

Admittedly, I am eternally grateful for the all the Westeners and all their colonial puppets who sacrificed their lives (voluntarily or by being forced to) during WWII, so that I don't have to live in Gross Deutschland or in the USSR today. But our problem today is not exactly that there is a lack of wars. Is there ever? Ideally, those who caused today's wars, in a broad sense, should have watched the anti-war movies and become persuaded by them. Then these wars wouldn't exist and no one would have to fight them.

Implying that the Jews, Gulag interns, Cambodians and whatnot were too pacifist and had themselves to blame for getting enslaved and slaughtered is IMO a proof of poor understanding of the mechanisms that lead to such atrocities.

Obviously, that is not to say that you shouldn't use force to stop the atrocities once they are a fact. Certain current yet neglected African conflicts spring to mind, but even there you can't just barge in and restore peace. And the reason for that is not that the Western powers are viewed as too pacifist by the involved parties - it's rather the opposite sadly.

To find the snippet offensive you are forced to create and add all kinds of context not in there...and somehow you managed to do just that. Not only do I NOT imply a 'too pacifist' stance, you try to create the idea that these groups were pacifist, which is not true. These examples were groups that HAD fought, in different ways and on smaller scales and lost. There is no blame or attempt to blame in my words at all and to attempt to add that idea to my statement is disgusting to say the least.

The failure and blame, which should have been obvious to any intelligent person who read my post, is on our part, as we watched and read about these atrocities and did nothing. We took the alternative, and always did until pearl harbor made the point for us.

IMO this reflects either a poor understanding of what you read, or more likely an attempt to shovel some dirt on me because I stated an opinion you don't like. In either case the 'colonial puppets' phrase shows a little bias on your part and perhaps I should withdraw from this thread before you degenerate this whole conversation into a who-won-the-war bash-fest.

Bearcat99
10-27-2006, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Honeypot.se:
Ideally, those who caused today's wars, in a broad sense, should have watched the anti-war movies and become persuaded by them. Then these wars wouldn't exist and no one would have to fight them.
Implying that the Jews, Gulag interns, Cambodians and whatnot were too pacifist and had themselves to blame for getting enslaved and slaughtered is IMO a proof of poor understanding of the mechanisms that lead to such atrocities.


Do you really think that men who are willing to send others to die for gain.. which is what all wars are fought over.... someone wants what someone else has....so they go to take it.. forcing the other person to defend themselves, would be influenced by culture? No.... I dont think so. As long as we have inequalities in power, resources and morals we will have war.



Originally posted by shinden1974:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
... from my perspective moist war movies that are worth anything should wind up being anti war.

Really? God forbid that our excellent movies teach us to be anti-war therefore no one would stand up to a future Hitler or Tojo.....
6 million jews were not fighting a war when they were hauled off to slaughter, millions more who starved and died in cambodia, russia, and china were not at war when they were killed. I'll be pro-war to prevent anything like that...I hope there are enough of our children left who think the same way for all our sakes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see you like to shoot from the lip. Yes I do think that most war movies should be anti war. What makes you think that being anti war and being a pacifist are the same things? They arent. Neville Chamberlain was a pacifist... peace at any cost.... NOT the way to go when you have someone bent on fighting. You are assuming that when I say "anti war" I am coming from a passive weak stance. I am not. IMO one of the best ways to be anti war is to know the cost, and be prepared to wage war successfully. ALL film however that shows war should always show the fullness of the horrors, stupidity, oftentimes neccessity, contradictions and in justices of war. War is something that should never be glorified just for it's own sake, but studied, remembered, and IMO ALWAYS a last resort, but one that once taken, waged to it's fullest.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE> 332nd V.F.G. (http://www.geocities.com/bearcat99th/) [/list]
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">It is easier to train a boy than to repair a man.</span>
Sturmovik Essentials (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | Magnum PC.Com (http://www.magnum-pc.com/) | Joint Operations (http://www.joint-ops.com/joil2fb/default.asp)