Comment Re:and how were the japanese portrayed? (Score 2) 400
My oh my. As with all (most) Hollywood recreations of historical events it was one big "US is the greatest" moive. It was very one sided to make the Japs the bad guys. They did not pull anything from the Japanese side except that which would bring suspence. There were heros on that side too.
Just once I would like to see a movie on the Battle of Britian --- without the US being center, but based on the RAF who defended the british coast with their lives. Or a movie on Vimmy Ridge (of WWI) where it was the Canadians who took the hill, after repeated failures by all other nations. The only good one I have seen is the "Enemy at the gates" which is a Russian protrail of the battle of Stalingrad.
You say that these movied are based on fact. Well the only fact is that it is the US population that pays for these movies, hence they are written for that population. What movie would be a blockbuster if the US was just a sidelined existance. A movie where the US troops screw up, are untrained and out fought by opposing forces or even Allied forces. Man, what a movie the Battle of the Bulge would make. A battle where the Allied (mostly US) troops were getting their butts waxed, only winning after the Germans ran out of gas. There the US troops were green and they were NOT the better force. Actually the US troops in Europe were mostly green, they were just their. The US brought money, supplies, weapons, and troops into the European arena ... but it was not their fight and it seems like they are always taking the credit.
As for Pearl Harbor, and the Pacific arena. The US did fight mostly solo, with minor help from the Allies who had interest elsewhere at the time. Just would have been nice to see more of the Japanese point of view (maybe a love story on both sides) where it becomes just two nations clashing, not a good guy, bad guy theme. Sometimes I feel the US has gotten too cocky, it is this that got them hit once ... and if they are not careful ... they will get hit again.
Well, enough of my rant. The movie is not bad, "Tora! Tora! Tora!" is a better portrail of history ... though "Pearl Harbour" will be liked by more of the masses.
Just once I would like to see a movie on the Battle of Britian --- without the US being center, but based on the RAF who defended the british coast with their lives. Or a movie on Vimmy Ridge (of WWI) where it was the Canadians who took the hill, after repeated failures by all other nations. The only good one I have seen is the "Enemy at the gates" which is a Russian protrail of the battle of Stalingrad.
You say that these movied are based on fact. Well the only fact is that it is the US population that pays for these movies, hence they are written for that population. What movie would be a blockbuster if the US was just a sidelined existance. A movie where the US troops screw up, are untrained and out fought by opposing forces or even Allied forces. Man, what a movie the Battle of the Bulge would make. A battle where the Allied (mostly US) troops were getting their butts waxed, only winning after the Germans ran out of gas. There the US troops were green and they were NOT the better force. Actually the US troops in Europe were mostly green, they were just their. The US brought money, supplies, weapons, and troops into the European arena
As for Pearl Harbor, and the Pacific arena. The US did fight mostly solo, with minor help from the Allies who had interest elsewhere at the time. Just would have been nice to see more of the Japanese point of view (maybe a love story on both sides) where it becomes just two nations clashing, not a good guy, bad guy theme. Sometimes I feel the US has gotten too cocky, it is this that got them hit once
Well, enough of my rant. The movie is not bad, "Tora! Tora! Tora!" is a better portrail of history
