Looks pretty good. Has a little saving private Ryan feel to it. It has a good director and a very good supporting cast, including Benedict Cumberbatch.
Why should tomorrow be different than any other attack against fortified positions from 1914-1918?Quote:
If you fail, it will be a massacre.
A quick list of Great War movies worth watching ...Irish_Man said:
Glad to see a WWI movie come out, how long has it been since a major movie came out on that.
That was just an insane battle. The whole mess was just insane and is to us incomprehensible now.JABQ04 said:
Passchendale was a pretty good flick. I used to love the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles as a kid.
I'm wondering how many people (on either side) were fully aware at the time of the extent of the casualties. I seem to recall reading the that press in England, France, and Germany were very much constrained by their respective governments with regard to the reporting on the war (focus on the successful battles, the exploits of flying aces like von Richthofen, Guynemer, Mannock; the sinking of enemy vessels by our heroic U-boat fleet, etc. etc.) ...Stive said:
The volume of casualties in most of the WW1 battles would twist peoples minds into noodles if they happened today.
Speaking of which, and maybe I've mentioned this before but my hands down favorite war novel is August, 1914 by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The key is to realize that the slow, boring chapters at the beginning (I think its 4 or 5) that do nothing but show how decadent capitalists were, were only put in there for the Soviet censors. You can start the book after them and not miss a beat.Quote:
Unless they were the Russians, who spoke in the clear at the Battle of Tannenberg and got their butts kicked as a result by a much smaller force.
BrazosBendHorn said:A quick list of Great War movies worth watching ...Irish_Man said:
Glad to see a WWI movie come out, how long has it been since a major movie came out on that.
https://explorethearchive.com/best-world-war-one-movies
I couldn't make it past those chapters. Book has been collecting dust for 5 years now.aalan94 said:Speaking of which, and maybe I've mentioned this before but my hands down favorite war novel is August, 1914 by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The key is to realize that the slow, boring chapters at the beginning (I think its 4 or 5) that do nothing but show how decadent capitalists were, were only put in there for the Soviet censors. You can start the book after them and not miss a beat.Quote:
Unless they were the Russians, who spoke in the clear at the Battle of Tannenberg and got their butts kicked as a result by a much smaller force.
Movie name ?aalan94 said:
Wireless was not secure communications. Of course they had codes, but I'm sure the storyline involves that being compromised.
What seems contrived is the scene where the guy's running crosswise across an attack. Do that and you'll be shot by your own men as a deserter.
Speaking of which, I saw the movie based on the life of J.R.R. Tolkien. It was very good, but there was a bit of an unrealistic plot in the WWI scenes. Still a great movie to watch.
aalan is right as usual !Corporal Punishment said:I couldn't make it past those chapters. Book has been collecting dust for 5 years now.aalan94 said:Speaking of which, and maybe I've mentioned this before but my hands down favorite war novel is August, 1914 by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The key is to realize that the slow, boring chapters at the beginning (I think its 4 or 5) that do nothing but show how decadent capitalists were, were only put in there for the Soviet censors. You can start the book after them and not miss a beat.Quote:
Unless they were the Russians, who spoke in the clear at the Battle of Tannenberg and got their butts kicked as a result by a much smaller force.
TolkienBigJim49 AustinNowDallas said:Movie name ?aalan94 said:
Wireless was not secure communications. Of course they had codes, but I'm sure the storyline involves that being compromised.
What seems contrived is the scene where the guy's running crosswise across an attack. Do that and you'll be shot by your own men as a deserter.
Speaking of which, I saw the movie based on the life of J.R.R. Tolkien. It was very good, but there was a bit of an unrealistic plot in the WWI scenes. Still a great movie to watch.
Beneath Hill 60 great - many thanks for the list . Free with Prime video.gigemhilo said:BrazosBendHorn said:A quick list of Great War movies worth watching ...Irish_Man said:
Glad to see a WWI movie come out, how long has it been since a major movie came out on that.
https://explorethearchive.com/best-world-war-one-movies
If one were to watch these, which are the best?
Also, I noticed The Lost Battalion is not on this list. I thought it was pretty decent when it came out, but that was years ago and I don't remember much of it.
And over a million casualties (both sides) over 140 or so days. The numbers are just hard to comprehend.SRBS said:
First day of the Somme battle the British took almost 60,000 casualties, almost 20,000 of those dead.
In one day.
To this day the deadliest single engagement in US Military history was the Meuse-Argonne Offensive from Sep. to Nov. 1918. US forces took something like 120,000 casualties with 26,000 KIA. That's a single battle.Stive said:
The volume of casualties in most of the WW1 battles would twist peoples minds into noodles if they happened today.
gigemhilo said:BrazosBendHorn said:A quick list of Great War movies worth watching ...Irish_Man said:
Glad to see a WWI movie come out, how long has it been since a major movie came out on that.
https://explorethearchive.com/best-world-war-one-movies
If one were to watch these, which are the best?
Also, I noticed The Lost Battalion is not on this list. I thought it was pretty decent when it came out, but that was years ago and I don't remember much of it.
BrazosBendHorn said:I'm wondering how many people (on either side) were fully aware at the time of the extent of the casualties. I seem to recall reading the that press in England, France, and Germany were very much constrained by their respective governments with regard to the reporting on the war (focus on the successful battles, the exploits of flying aces like von Richthofen, Guynemer, Mannock; the sinking of enemy vessels by our heroic U-boat fleet, etc. etc.) ...Stive said:
The volume of casualties in most of the WW1 battles would twist peoples minds into noodles if they happened today.
My grandfather was gassed during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive. The Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery is amazing. It is the resting place of the largest number of American servicemen in all of Europe. It is on sloping ground and to stand at the chapel which sits high on a hill and to look down on over 14,000 headstones is a sight you won't ever forget.Belton Ag said:To this day the deadliest single engagement in US Military history was the Meuse-Argonne Offensive from Sep. to Nov. 1918. US forces took something like 120,000 casualties with 26,000 KIA. That's a single battle.Stive said:
The volume of casualties in most of the WW1 battles would twist peoples minds into noodles if they happened today.
By comparison the Battle of the Bulge had 90,000 casualties with 19,000 killed.
It's amazing how much American blood was spilled over that single, relatively small corner of Europe.
AtlAg05 said:BrazosBendHorn said:I'm wondering how many people (on either side) were fully aware at the time of the extent of the casualties. I seem to recall reading the that press in England, France, and Germany were very much constrained by their respective governments with regard to the reporting on the war (focus on the successful battles, the exploits of flying aces like von Richthofen, Guynemer, Mannock; the sinking of enemy vessels by our heroic U-boat fleet, etc. etc.) ...Stive said:
The volume of casualties in most of the WW1 battles would twist peoples minds into noodles if they happened today.
I'm sure the British held the press back, they did in WWII as well