Worst WW2 movies ever made?

Jawol!!!!

 

I couldn't care less if Shoup was a technical advisor, what came out the other end of the pipeline was melodrama of the worst kind. Cliche' ridden, wooden acting, old footage spliced in to save money. John Wayne was about 50 pounds overweight for a Marine, and moved around the set like a mobile sack of potatoes.

I'm sure the film meets all your criteria, but to those of us wishing to be entertained, it STANK.

Technical advisors don't always guarantee a well shot film. "The Sands of Iwo Jima" was a flag waving, overdramatized soap opera that only appeals to right wing extremists.

And, as for Shoup's testimonial for this celluloid junk, what in the hell else would you say when the exec producers are paying your wage?, ("Oh yes, this film bears absolutely no reality to the battle as I remember it."). I'm sure Shoup also described his time on set as "A wonderful learning experience(...insert name here)... was a JOY to work with, a consumate professional....etc etc etc). BTW, did Shoup actually step ashore at Tarawa before the area was declared 'secure'? Just a small question.

 

Hey Volga, don't bottle up your emotions like that, it will give you an ulcer

 

Of course "The Sands of Iwo Jima" doesn't hold a candle to productions made today as far as realism and technical aspects, but for 1949 that was the way movies were made. Look at any movie from that era and you will see the same styles and techniques used. And so what if it was a flag waving over-dramatized soap soap opera that only appealed to right wing extremists-it's a movie, made with the intention to keep the movie going public entertained for about 90 minutes, and above all, TO MAKE MONEY for the movie companies and producers. And it was made primarily for US audiences in mind. If it made a few bucks overseas, then fine. Keep in mind that it was not supposed to be a documentary, and it never made such a claim. It was based on a true story, it was not an exact docudrama. It was just a movie. Some liked it, some didn't.

 

It aint but this was in relation to somehting someone else said. As its been quite sometime since the post was made, I cannot remember to whom I was replying to.

 

No pologies needed ;-)) To each his own.

 

Ive been saying all along: "You cant make an Eagle out of a Turkey". The original was bad enough and I now know the remake is even worse.

 

Duke was 6 foot 4, most anyone I ever knew who was that tall, moved like sacks of potatos.

PS, you GOTTA quit reading leonard maltins crap for works on movies. Hell, most of the entries in his books come from leftover hippie peacenics wannabes who dont know their asphole from a hole in the ground. Yeah, I recognize the terms you used and one of the sources you got them from.

Also, if Duke was sucha bad actor, he wouldnt be THE NUMBER ONE ENTERTAINER IN THE WORLD-like he is today well over 30 years after his passing. Its NOT my opinion I am stating hhere but proven fact. Also, if he was sucha hammy """wooden""" actor, he would not have been around long enough to make over 160++ movies, he would also NOT have won as Oscar for his portrayal as "The Fat OLd Man" in True Grit, John Ford would have never used him more than once--you CANT dispute John Ford not being a great Director. Heck, Sir Roger Moore is portraying him in a movie about him making The Quiet Man, and others such as the coen bros, would NOT be interested in making remakes of Dukes films. Oh and, they have not been the only ones in hollywoodland who were interested in or tried to to-a remake of some of Dukes films.

In all endings here, if you dont like Duke or his movies, dont watch em.

 

'Sands' was not JW's best film by any means, but it was a product of its time, nothing more or less. Personally his westerns are my favorites.

 

now wait just a cotton pick'en minute!

I've never heard of Leonard Multin.

John Marion Wayne made some fine films, (The Quiet Man, Stagecoach, True Grit, too many glorious westerns to mention).

But a fine actor does not make a fine film all the time. As for Shoup's 'technical advice', (I can hear it now...."Now son, I really haven't the first clue what you're trying to achieve for this scene. Just put my name on the darned credits and fix me another scotch on the rocks, for chrissake!").

All of these glittering testimonials still don't add up to a film that is for sale in any section of the video store, with the possible exception of the $2 dollar basket at the entrance.

Great fan of American films that I am, the only film critics I've ever read religiously were Harry and Micheal Medved, (The 50 Worst Movies of all Time, The Golden Turkey Awards, Son of Golden Turkey) Laughing at poorly produced films is a little hobby of mine. (I happen to think Edward D. Wood Jr is an American icon).

Musically, I like Johnny Cash a whole lot, but that doesn't mean I'll defend everything he sang.

As Micheal Medved wrote..."For every good film released, it seems, there are five bad ones..."

Lastly, John Wayne's walk is that of a tired gunslinger....just tak'in his time 'bout everything. No hurry, just step by step to the bar, and down the street he walks at the same speed to a confrontation, or to his hotel room for a night of whor'in. In "The Quiet Man" he got a chance to play someone that suited his size, shape and image perfectly. In "The Sands of Iwo", he reminded me more of Marlon Brando playing Kurtz, ("The horror! The horror!")
As an American icon, he was in a class of his own...(illustrated perfectly in 'City Slickers 2', with a line near the end of the film..."Just WHAT, in the name of John Wayne's ass is going on?")

Anyhoo...I thought it was each to their own?

 

A-58 makes some good points but he didn't follow them to their logical conclusion in the following:

Note the implications here. Either the US audiance is composed of "right wing extremists" or it wasn't made to make money or the premise about it appealing only to "right wing extremists" is wrong.
I doubt anyone can produce a strong argument that the profit margin wasn't a major consideration. So that takes care of one of the above.
The term "extremist" can only be applied to a minority of the population if something is the majority veiw then it's adherents can hardly be described as "extremist".
The only possibility is that the original premise i.e. that it "only appealse to right wing extremists" is wrong.
No one says that anyone has to change their opinion. You are welcome to be hold whatever opinions you want although you should expect people on this board to point out ones such as this that are demostrably incorrect.

 

OK, nitpickers...scratch right ring extremists...

Substitute "Right wing Republicans"

Either way, it was a terrible film, deserving of as much literary mud as we can sling. Money making venture it may have been, but that excuse simply illustrates the lack of production values, when a movie industry that lead the world at the time can make a great actor like John Wayne look incredibly ordinary.

I mean, that was one of the social issues raised by "King Kong". The eighth Wonder of the World utterly destroyed in one night by the American media.

John Wayne WAS King (Kong). And the pursuit of profit for profit's sake made a complete and utter monkey out of him on too many film sets.

I feel like I'm in Red Square complaining that Lenin looks "too waxy" and getting stared down by patriotic Russians for having the temerity to point out the bleeding obvious.

 

Still doesn't work. I think you will find that his films in general and this one inparticular were very popular among the working class. They needed to be to make the money they did and many of those would have been Democrats.

Just because you don't like the film there's no reason to try and put inappropriate labels on those who did/do.

Either way you are wrong in your characterization of the appreciative audiance this certianly brings to quesiton any other value judgments you expouse.

This implies that this film was significantly inferior to most of the films made during that period. You certainly haven't demostrated that or even made the begining of a case for it.

??? Seems to me you are waxing incoherent.

 

lwd seems to feel that American icons are untouchable. I beg to differ. Actors are bums that spend the majority of their time out of work and sitting on their arses

One aspect of America that has always mystified me is the idea that just because you stand in front of a camera, you are suddenly put on a pedestal in every other aspect of your life. I mean, every word uttered is taken so darned seriously. Just because you make movies that does not make you any sort of judge about anything else. And who was the last actor with a cause to give away his money to the vital foundation he supposedly lives and breathes for? Endorsements are another con. Just because John Elway puts his name to a car dealership, does this really prove that the damned product is any better than the competition? Yet, American consumers are drawn like moths to the flame.....

It's as if the United States cares more about it's movie stars than they do about their own government policy! Bread and circuses, anyone?

 

Nope. Just pointint out logical or factual errors.

Feel free.

If taken litterally this is obviously false as few are really bums. As for being out of work the majoraty of the time that depends on the actor and how you define "out of work". In any case I doubt they spent the majority of their time "out of work and sitting on their arses". Or do you have some data to back that up?

Perhaps you are mystified because it isn't true.

I completely agree as do many others.

Hard to tell on that one I don't keep up on the latest in that sort of thing, do you?

And it's different eslewhere? Certainly not the impression I get after a quick google.

or another ill formed opinion?

 

No politics and off topic comments gentlemen or this thread will have to be thrown in the stump or closed.

 

The films of the 50's were made for the audience of the 50's. America of that era was different than today. 'Birth of a Nation' is considered a ground breaking film with a plot no one today can embrace. Times change

 

Guns of Navarone has got to be one of my all time least favorites and it really shouldn't be considering the cast. Force Ten From Navarone was really just Empire Strikes Back circa 1944 (pretty much the same movie) Then there are the movies wich follwed the Dirty Dozen; those aren't even entertaining from a violence and defeat of tyranny stand point.