Worst WW2 movies ever made?

OK....I'll paraphrase my position.

1/John Wayne was a great actor.
2/"The Sands of Iwo Jima" was a terrible film.

Point two does not mean that point one no longer applies.
Niether is it that because John WAS a good actor that it doth necessarily follow that "The Sands of Iwo Jima" will also be a good film.

No good mentioning the state of the art at the time either, or other mangerial 'spin'. A bad movie will always be a bad movie regardless of the period.

The other entertaining aspect of this is that it's very politically incorrect to cast dispersions on the favourite actor of the sites top poster....(Hello Mr Carl!)..... It's almost worth it for the eye popping it will achieve with Mr. Carl, as he chokes on his snack and fires off a 'crisp' reply to the latest attempt by 'some damned poster' to rubbish the professional fruits of his avatar....

 

I reckon i get you...i'll give you points too for sticking to your guns.

 

Well, he kind of HAD to stick to his guns after stirring the pot like he did. Everyone was on his arse and didn't let up until the mods stepped in and saved him!

Serves him right for bad-mouthing John Wayne....

 

Hi Gents and than you all for those salutes.

Volga, John Wayne learned his walking style from that of superb character actor: Paul Fix. The walk works and does Duke well. Also, Paul Fix was one of the guys who tought Duke better fist-fighting techniques-which also served him well.

Ive never, NEVER, seen any of Dukes movies in the $2 dollar bin not even when some of his earliest Westerns-which sadly, are public domain movies, are churned out by DvD ""Puppy Mills"" who churn out product without putting any money into restoring them. Ive seen a few of Dukes movies in the $5 dollar slots at WalMart as well as many many more movies. I just went to WM today to look at the movies selections and noticed at the WM just a couple of miles from my home--located on North Lamar and Parmer-and counted no less than 20--of his movies on the shelves, most of them I already have, some I dant recall if I have them or not? because most of my DvD collection is still packed away from my last move. Anyway, if Duke was such a money loseer-WM-the worlds largest retailer-would NOT be wasting shelf space for Dukes products. I also happen to know that Wm has a deal with the side of Dukes family who run Batjak--Dukes Production Company--to have several of their productions available for sale on their shelves. You will easily recognize these because of the special coloring of their packaging. They all have a red strip at the top of the DVD package, white background and different images used on the rest of the cover.

Also, his name is not John Marion Wayne. It was originally: Marion Michael Morrison but changed to: Robert Michael Morrison. Marion was given to his younger brother when he was born and Dukes name was slightly changed. Marion is a "family" name and was why it was originally given to him. If you want to point out and make fun of names-take Gregory Pecks real first name-one that he hated and that was also a "family" name: Eldred Gregory Peck. Although I will not fun on Peck for that first name--I could see why he hated it.

I dont defend every movie Duke made, its been publicly stated here by me that I thought that The Conquerer, is a piece of crap, as well as I think its called: Legend of the lost and I also cant stand: Shepard of the Hills. I thought all three roles were "beneath" Duke and his abilities-and I also hate: The Long Voyage Home. I thought it was a complete bore, and his Swedish accent sucked prune pits all day long. There ya go, I named four of Dukes movies I absolutely hate. Im NOT a big fan of: The Quiet Man, but I own a copy and I like it more and more with each viewing.

Also, for Duke and his wide range of acting capabilities, try these on for size and judge for yourself: Allegheny Uprising, Stagecoach, Fort Apache, Rio Grande, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, Hondo, The Longest Day, The Alamo, The Comancheros, Rio Bravo, McLintock, El Dorado, The Horse Soldiers, The Flying Tigers, The Fighting Seabees, True Grit, The Undefeated, The Searchers, The Cowboys, Rooster Cogburn, Big Jake, Rio Lobo and The Shootist. You "see" him from when he was still "rough around the edges" to what he became. I became a fan of Duke because of: Rio Lobo, Big Jake, The Comancheros, The Alamo, The Longest Day, Rio Bravo, The Horse Soldiers, The Green Berets, McLintock and The Cowboys--mainly because I love all the movies but also that before cable TV was available, those were the only Duke movies ever shown on network TV.

I see nothing wrong with his portrayal as Marine Sergeant Stryker and I love the movie. Who gives a damn if it is accurate or not? its still great viewing. Same can be said for: The Green Berets.

If you want to put some Eastwood into the perspective: Take my favorites: Where Eagles Dare and Kelly's Heroes. I love both movies even if things aint so accurate in them. Take the ill-fitting (too small) M-43 caps they wore in WED-they look like grownups wearing hats made for children. I cant stand Eastwoods "Pasta Westerns" and that term "Pasta" is one ive been using for all my life and since I got on the net 14 years ago. I am not taking full credit for the term taking hold but-ive read Medved and maltins books and both use that term. Also, I grew up watching Eastwoods "pasta" westerns as well as The Outlaw Josey Wales-which though not a pasta western-still has a touch of spaghetti connected with it.

As for Duke being a great actor or THE BEST one ever--nope and ive also said this many times. I think that Richard Basehart was a much much better actor than Duke was.

 

I lol'd heartily when James Darren's charcater and that German Officer started walking up to each other firing Sten guns from the hip. Overall I agree with your observations. The only "men on a mission" movies I care for is Where Eagles Dare and The Sea Wolves (Even more so since its based on a true story).

 

I had more great things I was typing in reply but before I could post-our cable and internet (Time Warner) went out. Now thats its not only late but, I dont feel like saying again what I tried to say and he (VOLGA BOATMAN) aint worth any aggravation over this.

BTW Volga, I didnt select this avatar, Otto did as he made it especially for me--soooo, if you have a complaint about it sonny? send yer gripes to Otto-not the forum and its members. Also, I happen to like very much, this avatar and wouldnt change it for the world.

 

It's you!

 

Heh heh, I couldnt get no better a compliment ;-))

 

WHY I LIKE SANDS OF IWO JIMA (and some replys to Volga Boatman)

First I fully agree with LRusso216's comment that..

What I like I like, what I don't I don't. I am not trying to change anyone's opinion, but the thread is "Worst WWII" movies. I will try to explain why I like Sands of Iwo Jima as a war movie. I do not think it is one of Wayne's best performances but I do think it good and solid. I do think the movie has some cheesy scenes but overall, as a whole, it is well done.

I like Sands of Iwo Jima because it combines three of my favorite interests (History, Old Movies and the Marine Corps) and two of my favorite actors. John Wayne, Forrest Tucker)

History-Sands is a fictional story based on real battles but,....
1.)The Technical advisors were Gen. H.M. "Howlin' Mad" Smith, Col. David M. Shoup (Medal of Honor, Tarawa), Maj. H.P. Crowe (Navy Cross, Tarawa) and 1st Lt. Harold Schrier, the officer that actually led the 40 man patrol up Suribachi (Navy Cross and Silver Star for Iwo Jima). One of the biggest complaints about war movies is lack of accuracy, I can't think of a better group of men to make sure that the movie makers got it as right as possible within the technical capabilities of the time and the needs of telling the story.

Volga Boatman wrote:

You're right technical advisors don't guarantee a well shot film, because their function is to insure the film is technically accurate. They are not directors or screen writers.

Shoup was still a serving officer in the Marine Corps (at the time serving as the 1st Marine Division Chief of Staff) and was assigned the technical advisor duties. He was also known for speaking his mind. The producers were not paying him so they were not controlling what he said.

2.)Each of the above listed men had cameos in the movie, playing themselves, as did the three surviving flag raisers, Bradley, Hayes and Gagnon. From a historical stand point I think it interesting to see and hear the actual men involved. Shoup landed on D-Day at Tarawa, was wounded the first day, but stayed in command of the ground forces for the entire battle. His leadership is considered one of the most important factors in the battle being won. So yes, he did step ashore prior to the island being secured.

Col. Shoup (MoH) center with map case, Col. Merritt "Red Mike" Edson (MoH Guadalcanal, 2 x Navy Cross) hands on hips, back to camera and Evans Carlson (3 x Navy Cross) sitting in foreground. They are at Shoup's command post on Tarawa, behind an enemy bunker with live Japanese still inside. A real gathering of heroes, Edson and Carlson had commanded the 1st and 2d Raider Battalions.

Yes, their acting was atrocious but the novelty of seeing and hearing them I think outweighed the poor acting.

3.)For the filming the Marine Corps provided a battalion of Marines, all their equipment and vehicles, air support and the navy provided ships. The movie was filmed in the summer of 1949 just four years after the war. The majority of these Marines that would be extras were actual veterans of the war and those that weren't were real Marines, carried themselves as Marines, wore their equipment like Marines and employed Marine tactics. I don't care how well an actor or re-enactor is coached they don't ever get it exactly right, they may come close but aren't the real deal. They are wearing real uniforms, using real deuce gear and weapons, and these hadn't changed since the war. No rubber rifles, no helmet liners done up to look like steel helmets, no living historians questioning the proper color shade, and real tanks. (approx. 2000 marines were involved in the production). So even though it was a fictionalized story the historical aspects were as correct as you could get within the technical limitations of the time (i.e. special effects).

4.) The My Delores. This was the first amtrak ashore at Tarawa. She was returned to the U.S. for a War Bond tour, then was kept at Camp Pendleton. She appears in the Tarawa landing scene. One anacronism, of the film, is that the LVT's used in the scene were LVT-3's and the LVT's from the real battle were LVT-1's and LVT-2's. The LVT-3 does however bear a strong resemblance to the LVT-1.

The My Delores LVT#49

5.) The three surviving Flag Raiser's and the real flag (on loan from the Marine Corps Museum) were used in the flag raising scene.

6.)Real combat footage was used and the movie scenes were shot to mimic them, then the two were interwoven. This was a novel approach at the time and the director was praised for it. It was not as Volga suggests:

7.)Hal Baylor as Pvt. 'Sky' Choynski. Baylor had been a real Marine Corps infantryman and had fought at Saipan and Tinian.

Baylor (L) Wayne (R) Tarawa scene.

8.)The Marines in this film were the same ones that less than a year after filming, made up the Marine Brigade that saved the UN from being pushed off the Korean peninsula when they landed at Pusan. It's interesting to see these men prior to when they wrote history for their fighting abilities.
As a British military observer attached to the 24th Division observed in a wire dispatched on the morning of August 16, as Craig's brigade prepared for its new mission,

"The situation is critical, and Miryang may be lost. The enemy has driven a division-sized salient across the Naktong. More will cross the river tonight. If Miryang is lost...we will be faced with a withdrawal from Korea. I am heartened that the Marine brigade will move against the Naktong salient tomorrow. They are faced with impossible odds, and I have no valid reason to substantiate it, but I have the feeling they will halt the enemy.... "These Marines have the swagger, confidence, and hardness that must have been in Stonewall Jackson's Army of the Shenandoah. They remind me of the Coldstreams at Dunkirk. Upon this thin line of reasoning, I cling to the hope of victory."


There's a lot more but these are the things right off the top of my head.

John Wayne with Corpsman John Bradley one of the real flag raisers. Wayne doesn't look 50lbs overweight to me, I think he looks like an old time China Marine Sgt.
Brad your opinion please.

Actually it was one of the top ten films of 1950 and Republic's highest grossing film ever. It was nominated for 4 Academy Awards including John Wayne for Best Actor. The popularity of Sands along with Rio Grande also released in 1950, are credited with Wayne being named the most popular star in Hollywood for the first time. So it did appeal to a larger audience than you infer. Also go out to TCM's website, film buffs give it a 4.5 out of 5 star rating, and we know what notorious right wing extremist, republicans they tend to be.

 

I have nothing to add except that this should be moved to a thread of it's own.
As far as John Wayne's personal appearence at 6'4" I think for his height, according to the book, he is allowed to be about 230lbs. He appears well within regs.

 

That is a very clear and concise statement of your opinion and contains no factual or logical errors. Seems to be what this thread is about.

Not sure I'd agree with this. Certainly there are movies I watched back in the 60's that I considered very good that I wouldn't consider so today. If you look at TV programs Star Trek was considere very good by many at the time but is pretty dated by todays standards especially in the special effects area. I also remember thinking the movie made about Thermopoly back in that time period was very good at the time. Watched it again recently and found it rather unimpressive.

 

Perhaps we could debate something non-contriversial? Say a Micheal Moore film maybe?

 

Why don't we just rename the entire site "The John Wayne Testimonial."

If I don't like a damn movie an opinion expressed in a post devoted to our opinions of what we consider bad films is quite ok.

All I can say is that I don't feel that melodrama is a suitable vehicle for the production of an entertaining film. It's more like a costume soap opera. I can see that on any channel.

The real story here is all the John Wayne fans rallying around to support their idol.

Just remember, actors like Mr.Wayne were used by the government of the day to whip up popular support for whatever government policy happened to be in vogue. William Manchester complains of a film in the WW2 period, (I think it was "To the Shores of Tripoli") that "fooled a lot of people into bootcamp". Academy awards aside, (and who really cares what the 5,000 voting members of the sacred 'Academy' feel to be a good film?) Their about promoting their own product, not awarding cinematic excellence, which is substantially subjective anyhow. Awards are so much chutzpah.

My real crime here is to dare to criticize a John Wayne film. Big deal. Now that you've all rallied round the flag I'm sure Mr.Wayne can rest easy in his grave, knowing he's got individuals like yourselves to carry the torch for him....Yowzah! Whatever rows your boat.

Mr Carl said it all...."Who really cares what Volga thinks anyway.....?" Great attitude from our top poster.

Just to make you all feel good...."The Sands of Iwo Jima" is the best war picture it was ever my privelage to lay eyes on. Shoup's wonderful advice created a visual feast that enthralled me from beginning to end, thrilling me beyond comprehension, and stirring my heartfelt emotive responses in a deep and very meaningful manner. I think the American Academy of Film is the height of opinion as to what exactly constitutes a great movie, and I scratch my eyes out in shame and disgust at myself for critizing any project that John Wayne, (salt of the earth) put the sweat of his brow into."

Satisfied? I'll stand in a corner of Australia....

 

It actually has more to do with the way you expressed your opinion and your general derogatory tone with which it was conveyed.

 

My sentiment and interpretations exactly. We can all disagree about whether a movie was great or whether it sucked donkey deeks, or if a particular actor's performance was oscar worthy or not, but when a post such as yours (VB in post # 322) was chock full of thinly veiled anti-US, anti-conservative, anti-Duke, anti-1940s style of movie making rhetoric, etc, then you must expect a backlash as you did here. The backlash really wasn't that bad, but you started it. If you didn't like the movie, or any ww2 movie, all you had to do was say so and move on like most of us did here in the 350+ posts here in this thread. But nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, you had to go and spout your rhetoric and p1ss in a lot of people's cornflakes, and now you must face the music. It's ok, remember, it's just the internet, and we're all cyber-friends here. You and your freedom of speech is guaranteed, but so is the freedom of retribution as well, within reason that is.

FYI, there is a "why I don't like John Wayne" thread here in the forums already somewhere. No need to rename this one. You are free to go there and MF the Duke to your heart's content.

 

I seem to recall saying Mr Wayne was a great actor in a terrible film. Far be it from you fellas to ignore this.

Bloody hell, has anyone ever met John Wayne? Or are we just supporting his career for the American value of it?

And if you guys don't mind dishing it out yourselves, surely you can take it as well. Ive stuck to my guns. "The Sands of Iwo Jima" was a TERRIBLE movie from many angles. Thank the sweet Lord we don't make em' like it anymore.

And "General dreogatory TONE...?"...Hate to burst your indignation, but the internet is silent....the "tone" is supplied by your imagination.

 

Yes, it was duely noted that you made yourself clear on the point of John Wayne being a great actor in a terrible film. And your input is appreciated very much. I'm not sure what meeting John Wayne has to do with anything, or if supporting his career for the American value means, so I'll defer that one for someone more learned on such matters. There's no problem about who can dish and can't take the dishing here at all, it's the point brought up in formerjughead's post (#354) that caused all the anguish here (your delivery). And you have been given credit for sticking to your guns as well (good for you dude). And yes, if the technology and know-how to make "The Sands of Iwo Jima" like the opening and closing scenes of "Saving Private Ryan" were available in 1949, then yes, it would be a much better production. But said tools and tech wasn't available, and we have what we have now.

At least nobody brought up the lack of actual and realistic likeness of the of the movie's name to what the Marines dealt with on the beach. Somehow "The Volcanic Ash of Iwo Jima" doesn't roll off the tongue as well, nor does it sound quite as cool either.

And sorry about the timing of this post Lou, I was crafting it as you posted the proceeding post. Yes I agree, let's move onto another movie to trash.

 

I sense a LOT of jealousies on your part concerning Duke, his status-which NO Aussie actor-even Errol Flynn, has equalled. Also, all I can say about you not liking the avatar of Dukes image is, tant pis.

 

Duke sure looks fit as a fiddle to me. Also, as he looks in this photo is EXACTLY what he looked like-no makeup at all. This info comes from a Mr. William T. Brooks, who had onscreen parts in several of Dukes movies including: Rio Grande and She Wore A Yellow Ribbon as well as had parts in several of James Stewarts westerns.