ten most disapointing (not best or worst) movies

André7 wrote:

I'd have to disagee, I've used it both verbally and written, and heard it used with regularity where applicable. Not a bookish sort of word at all. Maybe it's a Marine thing? What think you Juggs? (for clarification Andre', in this case "Juggs" is short for Jughead. He probably doesn't like it, but we'll live on the edge this once and use it. Not to be confused with "Jugs", normally referring to female breasticles.)


Formerjughead wrote:

Actually the Japanese guy was probably Shinto. Shinto is indigenous to Japan and is the national religion(or more properly a belief system), over 80% of Japanese practice Shintoism.

 

I know tons of Marine Corps Vietnam Vets, including my father and most are of Historian's opinion, "self-indulgent BS." Most Marine Corps veterans hold Ron Kovac's in very low esteem, a Benedict Arnold. While the substandard treatment of some wounded servicemembers is and was a real issue, the main focus of the book and movie was to promote the anti-war stance Kovac adopted. There is a common Marine Corps saying that I think applies here, "everythings fun and games until someone gets hurt." That is my opinion of Kovac's and his beliefs. He says he was trying to expose the truth about the war when he became an anti-war activist. Why then did it take him so long to see the truth? He had already done a 13 month tour (Dec. '65-Jan '67) in Vietnam as an infantryman with 3/7. and later 1st Recon Bn. Was he so dimwitted that he didn't suspect things were not as they seemed? He was assigned a safe job with 2d Marine Aircraft Wing, but volunteered, after being home for several months, for another combat tour! Wonder why he did that if he thought the war was wrong? Yes, he was wounded and crippled. It is sad. However, he turned bitter and now everything about the war was bad. He knew the risks, He volunteered to take the risks, not once but twice, and the second time after getting to see war up close and personal. He knew the risks, he gambled, he lost, and didn't man up and accept what had happened, but wanted to place blame and be a victim. In the process he devalued the sacrifices of all those he had fought beside, including the Marine that was killed trying to rescue him, and the Marine that did rescue him but was killed later that same day..If the war was right, and fighting it the right thing to do, how did his getting f**ked up change that? If it was wrong and fighting it was wrong, why did he want to go back?

 

I know that....trying to be a little more "work a day" for my pedantic friend. I was just trying to avoid the obvious follow on debate of Buddhism is to Christianity as Shinto is to Boy Scouts; ie You can be one without the other or you can be both, they are neither mutually inclusive or exclusive.

"Juggs" "Juggy" "FJH" "Jughead" are all acceptable

 

I agree with you that his political stance during and after the war was inconsistent. That confuses me as well. The vets, my father included (USMC) was and still is appalled by the treatment of Vietnam veterans. That is what some have taken out of the book and film. I'm not debating, just adding to the convo and my take.

 

Agreed. The VA's shortcomings during Vietnam and the current VA scandals are appalling. We (meaning the government) send men to war, we should give them, and owe them, the best of care when they return, for both the visible and invisible wounds.

 

Well, FJH, tit for tat. If you find me pedantic, all I can say is "Watch your tone."
As for the supplementary explaination, thanks for taking the time. I'll re-read it and try to figure it out.

 

There was no "tone" expressed or otherwise inferred; I am trying to be sensitive to your hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia or more to the point you being a bit less sesquipedalian; I assure you any vilipendance is unintentional.

 

Keep 'em coming pal, I love learning new words.

 

This is a lot of supercalifragilisticexpialidocious .

 

The Thin Red Line. I just wasn't a fan of the film. The cast was very suspect.

 

I agree. Terrible movie in my opinion.

 

Oddly enough I have a list
in no specific order:

Bridge at Remagen
Battle of the Bulge
Big Red One
Wind Talkers
Thin Red Line
Pearl Harbor

Ones I just don't care for:

Anything Navarrone
The Longest Day
Midway
Tora Tora Tora
None but the Brave
The other "Dirty Dozen" movies
Tom Selleck's "Eisenhower"
MacAurther

 

Interesting list. Would you care to attach reasons for some of them-

"Midway" (use of stock footage instaed of fx compromises unity of the look) ?

 

Many of them need no explanation

 

Mostly due to the "ensemble cast" approach where the presence of several "names" is expected to make up for a lack of story

 

Midway and Tora - saw as a teen. Had no real knowledge of the events, and the movies seemed to preclude the viewer knew what the whole or part of story was... Nay, nay, I say. Sat through a bunch of words just to get to the battle scenes. We didn't have internet back then, and real battle footage/materials were like todays viral videos without the access. ..So enjoyed seeing Fords footage, although it didn't really meld with the movie- my opinion.

 

How did you know ?

 

This is an easy one : antidisestablishmentarianism

 

This one OTOH,is not bad :

The effects of drosophilia melanogaster proteins in the enzyme activity of polyphenol oxidose from malus pumila .