PDA

View Full Version : The Great Raid....



Bearcat99
12-26-2005, 03:05 PM
I picked it up in the $15 bin at Wall Mart. Not much air action but man o man WHAT A GREAT MOVIE!!!!! An outstanding film about the 6th Ranger Battallion's liberation of a Japanese P.O.W. camp in the Philipines based on a true story......

At the end they showed what I believe is actual footage of the exacuation and the return to Stateside of the P.O.W.s.



Anybody see it? If so.... what did you think?

Bearcat99
12-26-2005, 03:05 PM
I picked it up in the $15 bin at Wall Mart. Not much air action but man o man WHAT A GREAT MOVIE!!!!! An outstanding film about the 6th Ranger Battallion's liberation of a Japanese P.O.W. camp in the Philipines based on a true story......

At the end they showed what I believe is actual footage of the exacuation and the return to Stateside of the P.O.W.s.



Anybody see it? If so.... what did you think?

MiamiEagle
12-26-2005, 06:19 PM
Bear I saw it as well.I thoutght the Acting could have been a bit better. Overall I thought it was a fine movie. What I like most of it was that it showed the Japanese as the brutal occuppier they where and not as benevolent soldiers. Well I thought it was a pretty good movie.

Miamieagle


Miamieagle

CPS_Vigilante33
12-26-2005, 06:59 PM
saw the movie, it was o.k., based on the book 'ghost soldiers', great read.

Chuck_Older
12-26-2005, 08:01 PM
Bear-

Since most of the action was scheduled for very low-light conditions, even the official photographers that went with the rangers got very few photos of anything until it was light, and they were escaping. needless to say, flashbulbs were out of the question!

I don't recall any mention of a camera crew being present, although I'm sure once they reached friendly lines, miles of footage was shot

If the movie is 1/10th as good as the book, it's worth getting. I really recommend the book, it's quite a thing, as good as Flags of our Fathers

Chuck_Older
12-26-2005, 08:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MiamiEagle:
Bear I saw it as well.I thoutght the Acting could have been a bit better. Overall I thought it was a fine movie. What I like most of it was that it showed the Japanese as the brutal occuppier they where and not as benevolent soldiers. Well I thought it was a pretty good movie.

Miamieagle


Miamieagle </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Imperial Japanese Army was a funny thing. Discipline was harsh, and physical punishment the norm, as well as little food in general. A common soldier was used to beatings of one sort or another, and it was accepted as correct by them

Prison guards are typically not the best and brightest troops in an Army. Although they can be, in the case of the IJA, they seem to univerally have been seriously lacking in self-control andmore than a little confused about right and wrong. Imagine a soldier like that, suddenly in a God-Like position over a defenseless enemy, captured and according to them, sub-human

It doesn't excuse any mis-treatment but it does give some insight into the conditions and the mindset of the typical IJA soldier. They also interepeted the Geneva Convention (which the Japanese Diet hadn't ratified in any case) very conviently as well

In addition, many more troops than were imagined surrendered to the Japanese

Inhuman treatment was inevitable in this combination of attitudes and events. For the most part, they were brutal captors. In fact, I recall a story about a particular guard the inmates called the Bird because the prisoners didn't dare give derogatory names to guards. Not at Cabanatuan, but in Japan if I recall. He tortured one inmate, an American who would not break, a world-class athlete whose name I forget unfortunately, by having him hold water buckets at arms length. If the buckets drooped, he was beaten. The American simply would not lower his arms for hours on end, no matter the weight, and eventually Bird got frustrated and cracked him over the skull anyway

After the surrender, the Bird hid in the hills, knowing that he would be wanted for war crimes for his treatment of this inmate and many others, I'm sure

Years later, he resurfaced, and the American former captive I mentioned wanted to meet him and forgive him

Bird would not accept the invitation, apparently he had feared the man who would not break and assumed it was a trick.

Bearcat99
12-26-2005, 09:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Bear-

Since most of the action was scheduled for very low-light conditions, even the official photographers that went with the rangers got very few photos of anything until it was light, and they were escaping. needless to say, flashbulbs were out of the question!

I don't recall any mention of a camera crew being present, although I'm sure once they reached friendly lines, miles of footage was shot

If the movie is 1/10th as good as the book, it's worth getting. I really recommend the book, it's quite a thing, as good as Flags of our Fathers </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not actual footage of the raid..... after the fact. I dont know at what stage in the process it was.... but there was no footage of the actual raid...

p1ngu666
12-26-2005, 09:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MiamiEagle:
Bear I saw it as well.I thoutght the Acting could have been a bit better. Overall I thought it was a fine movie. What I like most of it was that it showed the Japanese as the brutal occuppier they where and not as benevolent soldiers. Well I thought it was a pretty good movie.

Miamieagle


Miamieagle </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Imperial Japanese Army was a funny thing. Discipline was harsh, and physical punishment the norm, as well as little food in general. A common soldier was used to beatings of one sort or another, and it was accepted as correct by them

Prison guards are typically not the best and brightest troops in an Army. Although they can be, in the case of the IJA, they seem to univerally have been seriously lacking in self-control andmore than a little confused about right and wrong. Imagine a soldier like that, suddenly in a God-Like position over a defenseless enemy, captured and according to them, sub-human

It doesn't excuse any mis-treatment but it does give some insight into the conditions and the mindset of the typical IJA soldier. They also interepeted the Geneva Convention (which the Japanese Diet hadn't ratified in any case) very conviently as well

In addition, many more troops than were imagined surrendered to the Japanese

Inhuman treatment was inevitable in this combination of attitudes and events. For the most part, they were brutal captors. In fact, I recall a story about a particular guard the inmates called the Bird because the prisoners didn't dare give derogatory names to guards. Not at Cabanatuan, but in Japan if I recall. He tortured one inmate, an American who would not break, a world-class athlete whose name I forget unfortunately, by having him hold water buckets at arms length. If the buckets drooped, he was beaten. The American simply would not lower his arms for hours on end, no matter the weight, and eventually Bird got frustrated and cracked him over the skull anyway

After the surrender, the Bird hid in the hills, knowing that he would be wanted for war crimes for his treatment of this inmate and many others, I'm sure

Years later, he resurfaced, and the American former captive I mentioned wanted to meet him and forgive him

Bird would not accept the invitation, apparently he had feared the man who would not break and assumed it was a trick. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

indeed, i never knew the IJA army was in such a state until i read a book about burma. they where starving http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Doolittle81
12-27-2005, 11:20 AM
Excellent book, excellent movie.

But, they should have found a real WWII fighter of some sort (a P38 would have worked as representqative of a P-61 which would be the correct acft, historically, as I recall), but a P51 would be a suitable substitute.

The acft they actually used is unidentifiable(by me)...I saw the movie last year so I can't recall specific details, but I think it flew like a C47 transport, had two engines and a dual Vertical Stabilizer tail...but not dual fuselages like the P38...odd looking. It was black, as I recall, and that was obviously an attempt to make it look like a P61 nightfighter.. I got so intent on watching/identifying this odd bird, distracted and disappointed in fact, that I started to lose track of the ongoing plot/story. It was a very weak link in the film's otherwise authentic look.

In anotherforum, someone said it was a P2V(?) but someone else later said that the Director himself had said that he did use a C47 (!!!!)...with some make-believe dual Stab tail.

Odd choice....Anyone have any ideas about this bird?....if you have the dvd maybe you can look closely, at your leisure.

Bearcat99
12-27-2005, 06:33 PM
I thought it was a B-25..... or 24.

Waldo.Pepper
12-29-2005, 02:20 AM
The plane was a Beechraft 18 also known as C-45.

http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/c45.html

I saw the movie for the first time today on DVD, and was expecting little.

I was very pleasantly surprised. Considering the rubbish that has been produced lately (Windtalkers, Pearl - etc) I was expecting the worst. It was very good.

Doolittle81
12-29-2005, 11:03 AM
Yep! The C45 sure does look like the bird in the movie. Now, my question is, Why did teh Director choose this weird acft??

Tater-SW-
12-29-2005, 02:01 PM
Probably because it was available near the location.

tater

Waldo.Pepper
12-29-2005, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Doolittle81:
Yep! The C45 sure does look like the bird in the movie. Now, my question is, Why did the Director choose this weird acft?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering what the plane had to do (fly over and act as a distraction), and then if you consider what his options likely were, (Dakota, B-25, various single engined planes). And that to be historicaly right I believe that he needed my baby (P-61 Black Widow - like my sig pic) I thought it was a good choice.

I also liked the way that they made the fake little Japanese tanks. But more importantly than that I liked the way that the tanks were filmed. If they could be placed in sillouette, they were. If you think like an artist, you don't need to see the tank to know it is a tank. The outline will do better. It will suggest a tank, and be more convincing in the end if you don't see any obvious flaws that way. I found it very clever and artistic even.

This was also done occassionaly in Band of Brothers, where you would only see a glimpse of the German armor, or what you saw was in some cases hull down so the wrong bogies could not be seen. When they did this I found it more effective.

Some of the movie was extremely contrived, and hackneyed even but it fit the story. There was only one thing I didn't like in movie, but it is personal and a taste issue, but even that I figure it was historical and correct so I will not mention it further.

So to sum up, it was far better than I expected it to be.