MovieChat Forums > Passchendaele (2008) Discussion > worst war movie in long time

worst war movie in long time

posted 14 years ago by robert_nolle
15 replies | jump to latest

ok, i DID NOT see the whole movie, but i did see a couple of minutes and several clips. i think it is poisend with heroic and unrealistic thoughts.
example:

the scene in the village with the Mg- nest
the german mg-nest is in a church, those "bad godless german bastards". this scene is not about showing how terrible it was to fought in WWI, it's about setting up a picture of evil german soldiers. the other side killed people, too. both sides went through hell and invented it every day in a new form.
but the worst part is, when they plan the attack on that mg-nest. the main charackter grinned like he was looking forward to the attack. i had the feeling that i was watching a bad action movie. IT WAS HELL and nothing else. i had the feeling that the main charakter was a action hero, who "knows" that he is better in fighting then anybody else.
the part was not even historicaly realistic. nobody is flying through the air or gets wiped over the floor when he gets shot. thats just bullcrap and a sign of lacking knowlegde.

sorry, but that is not a good example to represent our ancestors.

[–] urbanana 14 years ago

You've got it all wrong, mate. Why bother to post about a movie you didn't even watch?

[–] robert_nolle 14 years ago

i've seen many parts of it and i still think that this is an insult for all poor men who fought there. did you even recognize, that when the germans are attacking the british/canadian trench, no german fires his gun..... they just running, taking no cover.... htey just dying. even when it goes to man to man combat, the germans get their ass kicked. its just dumb. don't get me wrong. shurly i think that the allies were brave and fought well, but so did the germans, too. nobody lets himself shot so easily.
don't tell me that this was a normal attack in WW1..... the soldiers did have cover on the way to the enemy trench. but one of the worst scene: the allied MG runs out of bullets, but the men reload it just bevor a german soldier (3 yards away) reaches the mg nest. i was wondering...... when he was so close, why didn't he shoot??....but no.... he just keeps running and gets shot like 1 yard away. also it is very stange that 5-8 soldiers keep fighting to 50 germans.....
it's just a heroic movie, which wants to show how brave the own soldiers were and how dumb the enemy was.
my great-grandfather fought in WWI, and his brothers were killed. he respected the enemy, he was afraid to get killd and he surly whished to go home. but this movie just shows bravary and it does not respect the germans....sorry, i don't believe this....

[–] lgjmccall 14 years ago

You really should see the whole movie before you make judgement calls on it, though I don't really think its a great movie myself I do think you owe it that much before you bash it.

I'm sory but I do have to say it that was what an infanty attack was in World War one walking/running towards the enemy in a way seems, and was completely illogical. did it get anyone anywhere? not really, did it create general chaos in situations like the one we see in Passchendaele? yes.

Passchendaele in a rare War movie example does awknowledge the Germans as people and not as some great faceless bad guy, something that you would have noticed had you seen the whole film. Yes it is a movie where we are presented with heros we are meant to cheer for there are also badguys we are meant to hate and within the context of the films storyline the Germans are really not the badguys at all.

Really though, If you where expecting a film that presents a balanced perspective of both sides you probably shouldn't be expecting it from a Canadian made movie about a battle that any history book could tell you was won by Canadians.

[–] IgnorantGenius 13 years ago

I DID see the whole movie, and it blew donkey ballz, and the lead kid was the worst actor of all time. Sorry, I just don't buy a Canadian in the role of a bad ass, maybe, but this movie was an epic fail

[–] vinny6737 13 years ago

I don't know which movie you did(or didn't) see but this was one of the better war movies I have seen...no crappy 'Rambo' scenes...have never heard of artistic license?...Look it up....I thought it portrayed events and characters truthfully and honestly

[–] Alby75 13 years ago

I just finished watching it and it was an excellent film up until the end. Watch the movie, then criticize. I honestly would rather watch "All Quiet On The Western Front" again. I would almost say "Flyboys" but that is an insult to any movie lol.

[–] lorddeseiz 13 years ago

You have a point on that. but for the wrong reasons, since you didnt watch the whole movie you probably didnt see the crusifiction scene and the dude runnin towards the enemy line to go get the boy.
the battle went as the battles in WWI went, blindly running toward enemy lines hoping to kill before you got killed, thats how they fought it.
The crusifiction scene and the heroic saving, now that was over the top. Germans stop firing ? They all miss ? Well eventually he did get shot, but theres no way in hell you can ever explain how one man running up an enemyline getting that far without getting shot. I was into the movie untill that scene and pretty much killed it.
To make things worse, right then it stops raining, some fluffy dove flys by and suddenly he finds some second awesome woopass strenght to carry the kid and cross back to friendly teritory ... AS IF.

I am from Belgium, I know what the allied forces done for this place, so I aint bashing anyone who was in that *beep* of a battlefield,
My sister lives near Passchendaele and every time I go visit her i have to pass zounds of these nameless soldier graveyards. And its hard to ignore that stuff. Im bashing the way they romanced this stuff, pretty ironic that even the lead character says to the kid, if your looking for romance your in the wrong place, yet thats just what this movie does.
Its ok to glorify a hard earned victory, but the way it is done, it just dont feel right. So the OP has a point and i agree.

Lots of respect for the soldiers that died there, not for this movie.

_____________________
Any last words ?
Shut the *beep* up
-Mutant Chronicles-

[–] domester82 13 years ago

I just watched it then on DVD. It was OK. I mainly watched it because I was looking for a WW1 film, and they aren't commonly made anymore.

The movie was alright up until Michael carrying the kid on the cross. That was just ridiculous.

And also the way Paul Gross acted like an action hero half the time, making little quips and grinning before he attacks the MG nest. These guys were going through hell.

The film wasn't very realistic, but it was alright. All Quiet On The Western Front (1930 version) remains the best WW1 movie.

[–] mcwoolford33 10 years ago

I felt his advance through all that gunfire was a bit ridiculous as was the crucifix, however the German cease fire I could potentially believe. There was a sort of honor and respect between the enemies in the Great War and it was not uncommon to stop firing and allow the enemy to render aid and evacuate their wounded.

[–] Dave-R011 8 years ago

the battle went as the battles in WWI went, blindly running toward enemy lines

Actually, by 1917, the BEF, including the Canadian Corps, were trained to use fire and movement when advancing using any available cover much as modern soldiers do. They were also fairly sophisticated in the use of artillery with things like creeping barrages and box barrages. The walk slowly in a straight line to get Field Marshal Haig's drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin sounds funny in Blackadder, but it ain't history.

The problem with the Western Front was that right up to near the end, it was like the invasion of Normandy or the landings in the Pacific without the watery bit. We eventually won because we had more stuff and more men to lose than the Germans.

if your looking for romance your in the wrong place, yet thats just what this movie does.

I think that's more the Truffaut effect than a deliberate glorification by Paul gross. Francois Truffaut said that it was impossible to make an anti-war film because film tends to make things seem heroic and glorious no matter how hard one tried to do other wise.

[–] gjordan77 8 years ago

It's quite easy to explain. Most soldiers of the time didn't shoot to kill, doubly so if they were drafted. Upwards of 70% of soldiers in both world wars were mostly firing their weapons over the heads of their enemies. I don't remember exactly, but I think 75% of the people killed in WWI were killed by artillery (i.e. killed by people who couldn't see their targets).

The popular theory is that people aren't born killers, which is why after WW2 there was a massive shift in how the military trained its soldiers. That's why in movies about the World Wars you see them using targets similar to archery targets, whereas now it's all human-shapes. Now they teach the soldiers to shoot at the silhouette (aiming for center of mass, where the chest and neck meet) of their enemies as soon as they are exposed, which is why those human shaped targets are often set up to pop up and down. There was also a shift from "bulls eye" firing to firing at "formations", similar to how archers in the medieval ages operated. They didn't aim at individual targets, but at large formations.

It may seem counter-intuitive to do this in a war which saw many large scale charges, but nevertheless, they were taught to pick one target and shoot at it, which (if the theory is to be believed) is why soldiers tended to purposefully miss.

Now, In WW2 the shift had already begun as they began to understand the psychology of killing. There was an emphasis on "suppressing fire", i.e. teaching people to shoot in the general direction of enemies, but not necessarily at them to discourage return fire. At the end of the day, it's not who killed the most who wins, but whomever lost the fewest, if that makes sense. But, point being, it hadn't progressed to where it was now then.

Also, sorry for responding to your post from years and years ago :P

[–] freakyjoe13 12 years ago

i stopped reading after "I did not see the whole movie"

[–] ecostarr 12 years ago

Don't review movies you haven't seen. That's just bad form. If you watch the movie in its entirety, and you don't like it that's fine. But I hate reviewers that are critical of a movie they really haven't seen.

[–] nammage 8 years ago

ok, i DID NOT read your post, but i did read this opening remark and thought about reading the rest. i think it is poisend with diatribe and unrealistic thoughts.

-Nam

I am on the road less traveled...

[–] saniainen-748-829141 8 years ago

You do realize that they tend to build churches in the middle of the town, from where you have great view? It's perfect place for MG nest, Germans did it, Allies did it.