homepage Forums SimHQ Community Community Hall What Is The Last Movie or TV Show You Saw?

I partly blame Hollywood marketing for my bad experience with "The Thin Red Line". In the tv commercials at the time it was very clearly portrayed as being "Saving Private Ryan but set n the Pacific". The film turned out to be VERY different from that so my expectations going in to see the film were completely wrong.

The mess call the novel opens with is in 1917, his death - the last of the idealistic class of '16 which had signed up together, the last of the 1917 2nd company veterans, an estranged son and brother unable to find a place when on leave - occurs in October 1918, as an utterly insignificant event on a day on which nothing occurred.

That isn't 'a mistake in the 2022 film', it is the setting and theme of the book. I can't say I've seen it, and it sounds like they made his death not a 'random sudden end' as it was in the 1930 and 1979 movies, but part of a battle... which is a mistake if that is what was done.

Sure, the invention of a butterfly as the cause of his distraction in the earlier film makes little sense if examined (a butterfly in October?), but it is the type of carelessness which does get experienced soldiers killed, and there not being any substantive *combat* on the day is more in keeping with the communique.

Is the dubbed version of "All Quiet" worth watching? I don't want to read subtitles if I do not have to, particularly a historical action movie.


"The Thin Red Line" was exceptional, in terms of filmmaking and display of the brutality of war. In the end, the message as I recall was one of anti war and sorrow. Definitely not a "Saving Private Ryan." War is hell, and despite being a bit weird, this wasn't an ABC Hollywood experience, but far more of a contemplative one, as most of Terrence Malick's films are.

in the 1979 film, Paul dies when looking up to get a better view of a pigeon (dove)? that had perched in a branch of one of the few remaining trees near his trench. I don't recall whether it was a bird or a butterfly in the novel.

Depends on what you expect from the movie. if you expect a faithful depiction of the novel, but with better war and battle scenes, you will be disappointed. Although the battle scenes are well done, the movie does not really focus on Paul's increasing disillusionment with the war, himself, and his former life. In other words, the director appears to want to avoid humanizing Paul as an individual in order to focus on how war dehumanizes everyone. That is not to say that Paul is not a sympathetic character. He is; but the director's purpose is not to make a character study or to follow the contours of the novel. Instead, he is out to make an anti-war movie. At that, I think he is largely successful. I still enjoyed the movie, but only on its own terms.

Regarding the captions, I can't tell you much, since I am used to reading captions and they don't really bother me anymore. However, the English dubbing I heard in the first minute or two of the film seemed to be fairly decent, so I don't think it will bother you too much. However, your mileage may vary.

I haven't read the novel, just looking for a good action movie to watch--which seem to be hard to come by these days. I have considered watching the older versions of this film, too.

You are correct on all counts so the fact that Hollywood didn't market the film that way suggests to me that they were worried not enough people would pay and show up to see it. Judging by the box office performance I hate to admit Hollywood was right.

Battle scenes are well done, although I hesitate to call it an action movie. The 1979 movie is pretty good, once you get past that "John Boy" is playing the main character. Ernest Borgnine does a surprisingly good job as Kat, even if he is a bit portly for the role.

Because I saw the '79 movie for the first time when I was a kid, the casting never bothered me at all. I still think Borgnine was great, so was Donald Pleasence. Its final scene fits with the novel - Paul is just tired and past caring at that point. Precisely this is something that I found completely missing in the 2022 movie. (The bird is a songbird, not a pigeon, by the way, and there is no mention of it in the novel )
The 1930 movie is classic cinema, but keep in mind that it was made when talkies were still new - a bit hard to watch with modern eyes.

I don't understand.

Everything (spoiler)



https://www.amazon.com/Usual-Suspects-Stephen-Baldwin/dp/B00101ZOTA

Sure, why not?

I agree, it seemed a clumsy attempt to highlight the unnecessary deaths in the last few hours between the signing of the armistice at 05.10 and ceasefire at 11am with a completely fictitious final attack by the German forces.

While I didn't care for that final battle, I actually did like the attempt to portray the armistice talks. I certainly wouldn't mind if someone made a (good) movie about that. There is already a very good TV series about the run-up to the war: "37 Days". Absolutely worth seeing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/37_Days_(TV_series)

On a related note, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that WW I was THE critical event of the 20th century. Without that war there would not have been a WW II and the world today (at least the West) would look radically different today.

Perhaps, but the combination of the rise of German economic and military power, the rise of nationalism (particularly in the Balkans), and the entanglement of alliances between the great powers pretty much guaranteed that there would be a major European war sometime in the early 20th century. It was only a question of how and when.

I finished the show "The Tudors" last night, and it was good.

I was surprised, actually, how well the show was done. The weakest link, I feel, was the actor chosen to play the King, himself. He did a fine enough job most of the time, but there were a few instances where you could see he was grasping for acting tools that he simply did not have. Beyond that, I enjoyed their exploration into the demise of Catholic influence over England, the implementation of the Church of England, and the emergence of the future protestant reformation. These I did not expect to see explored as much as they were, and for that I am grateful. Henry VIII is arguably more famous for his many wives and a couple of their executions, which were depicted in gruesome detail, as were many others. It is a period of time I have read about over the years and is both fascinating and harrowing--that Man can be so despicable, including his children such as the future, yet thankfully short lived queen of England Mary I, who put to the torch hundreds or more protestant "heretics" for disagreeing with her Catholic faith. As a Christian, I appreciated how they handled these nuances, and was surprised being a Showtime production, and their obsession with checking political checkboxes in every one of their shows. I believe they did the struggles within Christianity at the time a fair bit of justice. So many people died, and so much wickedness thrived in Henry's court. So many evildoers who had others chopped down later met their due, too.

This show further reinforces my thoughts that G.R.R. Martin drew heavily from this time period as inspiration for Game of Thrones. He's said so, publicly, and can be witnessed on the screen through this series, without the labor of reading about these shenanigans. There were quite a few "grey" characters, from Thomas More to Thomas Cromwell, and also a few mostly innocent such as Anne Boleyn, yet not always so saintly, either.

A great show that sometimes deviated a bit from history, while accurate with many others. Some liberties were taken, but overall they did a splendid job with the period. At a minimum I would rate this *** 1/2 stars out of **** for a semi-non-fiction show. I would watch again.


Alas, now I am faced with the hard task of picking my next show to watch. This one scratched the medieval itch.

The Professionals, a 1966 Western film set in the post frontier year of 1917.

I like Westerns set in that era since its not been done to death like the typical frontier era Western, and they have some interesting hardware.

By modern day sensibilities Henry VIII could definitely be seen that way but by 16th century sensibilities he really was no more ruthless than the other European monarchs at the time.

I suppose so. I have not read much history of the Holy Roman Empire or even some periods in France, so you may be right. It wasn't just Henry, however--the first half of the 16th century in England is marked with shenanigans from so many in court, lords and ladies and even priests conspiring. Just a nasty place, all around. I'm not sure many sensible peasants would have wished their poverty away, knowing lifespan in court was shortened because someone was always trying to eat another.

I did spend some time the other day looking up what peasants earned versus costs, craftsmen and lordly income to put in better context the sums of money granted by the king to various people, such as 100 pounds a year to a lady, or 7000 to his last queen. The sums did not seem like much but by my math based on the figures I found, 100 pounds a year worked out to be the equivalent of someone in modern day who has 20 million in assets earning 5% on them, i.e. a million a year in income. Pretty wild. Thus the average peasant was earning about 20k/year, which is about right for an unskilled laborer. Skilled ones might earn 50,000, and a blacksmith could make 180k - 250k in today's dollars. That 7000 figure... well, that's when things get ridiculous so while it seemed little in history, it was the equivalent of 70 million a year. To annuitize that one would need a base of ~1.4 billion.

Sobering figures. We're all still peasants, it seems.

Season 1 of Man in the High Castle.
Weird premise, I'm not sure how Japan and Germany could have invaded the US, but it's an interesting premise. Gets weird with the videos though. Where do they come from? Who wants them? Some of the writing and acting seems well done and I'm interested enough to continue on and watch the next season.