Old War Movies and New War Movies.

@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
December 1, 2008 5:15pm CST
I've notice that newer (within the last 30 years) war movies are a lot different from the older ones. While there are some newer ones I like, I think the older ones were much, much better. I think the makers of the newer movies forgot something that helped make the older ones great... the people and their stories. Today's war movies are about the action, the blood and the gore. They seem to be more interested in body counts and political statements than telling the stories that come from the recent wars. In fact, I doubt they care about the stories at all. Sound effects, visual effects and butts in the seats are all they seem to care about. Of course, political statements in war movies are nothing new. Too many of the older war movies were more about pro US propaganda than the stories or people, but the ultra propagandised ones didn't seem to pass the test of time. John Wayne made some great war films, but does anyone really consider "The Green Berets" one of his best? Actually, it could have been, it had great people doing heroic things, but the "my country love it or leave it" sentiment overshadows the characters and their stories. I mean, let's look at one of the greats of our time... Saving Private Ryan. We sit through 20 minutes of blood bath before we actually get to the any storyline or people at all. After you have seen the movie for the first time, there is really no reason to bother watching that first 20 minutes ever again. The rest of the movie stands up well without it. There are people who say that first scene was the entire point of the movie, and that might be true, but then if it is, why bother with the rest of it? Spielberg said that it was his intention to "bring the horror of D-Day" home, but wihtout knowing the people getting killed, hearing their cries straight from their mouths or smelling the stenches that complete the horror, all you have is the same shock and schlock of any hack n' slash flick. Don't get me wrong, there are some good war movies that have come out in the last 30 years... but they are so bland as to be almost interchangeable. The loud and grouchy drill sergeant just doesn't understand... the recruits in basic all come together.. except the one or two outcasts that just don't get it. The heroes don't understand and never quite get the point of the war. The career soldiers don't mind killing, even women and children. When the dead are left behind, the ones who survived the battle forget them almost immediately... unless it fuels hatred from the heroes towards the oldtimers. Rape is acceptable by everyone but the hero... and everyone who does make it home is either lost in a PTSD jungle or becomes an anti US activist... Did I miss anything?
1 person likes this
1 response
• United States
8 Jan 09
Modern war movies are one of 3 types. Anti-war war movies get great reviews, lots of awards, plenty of hype and no fan base(kinda like brokedown mountain). Heroic action flicks get great fan bases and if they slip a lib message in it's generally missed because the hero and the action are the focus and everyone is to busy cheering to hear the unwelcome message. Far to many of these are sci-fi as the real war hero is no longer heard of in Hollywood. Young Indiana Jones may be the exception but those films were made for TV and video. Heroic action anti-war movies are quite confusing and mostly appeal to young anarchists who run off and join the military expecting they can frag anyone they don't like and that the rules disappear on the battle field so that they can get away with everything that would land them in prison in the real world. These folks wind up running places like Abu Graib where their disgraceful activities land them in a military prison breaking rocks or chopping wood for a couple of decades. Or we simply execute them for murdering fellow soldiers.