Worst WW2 movies ever made?

Actually, the question is left open to interpretation.

If you remember, the owner of the major defense contractor responsible for designing & building the Nimitz is a recluse named Mr. Tideman, who we find out is Commander Owens, who was "left behind" on an island with the senator's secretary.
Which poses the question...Would the Nimitz have been built at all had Owens not been left behind?

So was the future "changed", or was it already preordained.

 

Another time travel movie?
About Korea or Vietnam? The SS United States never formally served in either war. Completed(1952) relatively late in the Korean War, and taken out of service(1969) as the Vietnam War was developing.

 

Battle of the Bulge is great when you're 8-13 year old. Not so as an adult. I saw some interview where a general (Manteuffel?) denounced it as an insult to men of both sides who fought in that campaign.

Red Tails is another example of Hollywood taking a good story and trashing it. Movies are for entertainment, not education.

 

Navy was delighted as recruitment went up after it was released.

 

Maybe many of you will disagree but I consider Fury one of the worst WWII movies ever made. I had great expectations about it, as it was presented as a realistic war movie with real tanks. I expected smthg like Save Private Ryan with tanks. Instead it turned out a "Tarantino violence porn" like an Inglorious Bastards with tanks (another movie I hate, like Tarantino films in general). When I saw the initial scene with the nazi officer strolling on the battlefield on a white horse and Brad Pitt jumping on him from his M-4 I immediately smelled Hollywood BS... I will not discuss other parts of the movie bc I don't want to write spoilers, but I think the battle scenes were unrealistic - even conceding that no war movie can be 100% realistic.

 

I think you mean Captain Tavington...Or was it Captain Hook? Now that I think of it, it might have been Captain Steele.

 

Fury could have had a better ending. One tank against an Infantry company or battalion is ludicrous. Small arms fire buttons up the tank, restricting its visibility and then somebody with a panzerfaust/shreck nails the tank.

It would have been better if they were retreating and then came upon an infantry company or plantoon that begged them to help hold the crossroads.

 

Yes, and the Germans were running around like beheaded chickens before remembering that they had some panzerfaust... And I think the battles against the Germans in the wood and against the Tiger were unrealistic too.

 

Absolutely no reason for the Tiger with its longer range gun to close the distance. The Tiger could have stood off and picked off the Shermans.

I think the Tiger was the star of the movie. Everything else was meh.

 

But spinning in place creates appreciable wear on a valuable museum piece. More seriously, I wondered about that when I first watched the movie too.

Lest we forget though, Hollywierd is for entertainment, not education.

 

The Tiger exposing itself was ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as the Shermans having to close to a ridiculously short distance to get a penetration (in particular Brad Pitt's tank moving to within mere feet of the Tiger in order to get a shot through the rear). The 76mm Shermans could have easily penetrated the Tiger from the front at the distances shown during this sequence.

Oh, and during the last scene I guess the crew forgot that all hatches on a Sherman can be locked from the inside (and if locked would not have been able to be opened from the outside without the use of a cutting torch or very very large pry-bar....)