2002's Windtalkers is the semi-fictional tale of two Navajo code-talkers and their USMC "protectors" during the Battle of Saipan in the Pacific during World War II.

The Navajo code-talkers were a very real and very effective weapon in the Pacific theater. Put simply, the Japanese just couldn't figure it out. Check out more in this Wikipedia article....

But that's about where it ends. There's been a lot of unfavorable reviews of Windtalkers, and for the most part I'd have to agree with a lot of it. At times the battle scenes and gunfire gets a little too outrageous to be believed. Taking out four or five enemy soldiers with burst from the old Tommy gun while standing up, and not getting a scratch. Noplace else but Hollywood. Granted a lot of that probably comes from Director John Woo's Hong Kong action flick history, but a little more thought could have gone into it.

I'm not exactly a huge fan of Nicholas Cage either. He brings the same wooden acting to Sgt. Joe Enders as he does to everything else. The whole flashback thing just doesn't seem necessary, except as a counterpoint to a situation he faces later in the film...which is also pretty unrelated to the core story.

On the other hand, Adam Beach's Navajo code-talker Ben Yahzee is an awesome character. He goes from the stoic stereotypical Indian, to just your average Joe, to knife-wielding berserker with ease.

Sure a lot in this film is on the hokey side. Planes flying in and dropping their bombs at an altitude of 30 ft. Huge explosions (actually there's just a few but shown from several different angles) and bullets that don't seem to hit anything. Plus enough World War II movie cliches to choke a horse.

They can't all be works of art, but Windtalkers is still a sound wartime-action movie, if you get past Cage's acting and the technical/effects snafus.



Technorati Tags: war movies, reviews, movies, windtalkers, world war ii, code talkers

Much has been said about Oliver Stone's 1986 Platoon, culminating in a Best Picture Academy Award that year.

It's the story of young Chris (Charlie Sheen), fresh off the plane into the shit. And he winds up in all the usual Vietnam situations. Firefight in the jungle while on patrol, getting high back at base, burning up suspect villages and culminating in a huge NVA offensive against their position.

However the film's not about young Chris. At least not in my opinion. It's about the conflict between doing what's right (well, as right as it can get out there) as personified by Willem Dafoe's Elias, and the primal rage, fury, and killing nature inherent in all of us, personified by Tom Berenger's Sgt. Barnes. Chris is just an observer in all of this.

I saw Platoon when it first came out, and didn't understand it fully. Now that I (well I think anyway) get it, I wonder what all the hub-bub was about, really. Sure its a fair movie, and I'm told that its fairly spot on in its portrayal of "how things were"... but either it's just too full of the typical Vietnam war movie cliches, or it invented them and just hasn't aged well. I don't know which.

That's not to take away from the visual masterpiece that Platoon is. There's some incredible visuals here, and at times the action is pretty intense. At other times it seems almost funny-comical (i.e. when they're partying in their tent...) and comical in a not-funny way at others ("Dance! M-Fer!"... come on)

Given the importance of the film in War Movie History, I'd recommend you see it. Keep in mind the conflict between Elias and Barnes, and that there is the real drama and conflict.



Technorati Tags: movies, reviews, war movies, platoon, oliver stone, vietnam

I've always wanted to see "Jacob's Ladder" since it came out, and never had the opportunity. When it finally aired on HDNet Movies this past weekend I made a point of staying up and watching it. I'm glad I did.

I suppose you could say this isn't a "war movie" in the strictest sense, but it's premise relies on the Vietnam war experience of one Private Jacob Singer (Tim Robbins.) In fact the movie starts out with an ambush on his platoon's position by an unknown force.

And then it gets weird. And it keeps getting weirder. Part horror movie, part psychological thriller, part conspiracy movie, this thing just keeps your brain wondering just what the *@$% is going on! And it does it in a way that keeps you on the edge of your seat, and sometimes hiding behind it.

I'm sitting here trying to come up with a way to explain it without spoiling it. If you have seen it you'll understand, if not then there is no other way than to see it. Period.

Tim Robbins as usual does an amazing job in his portrayal of Singer. Facing his angels and demons and trying to make sense of what is happening to him and his ex-army buddies. I will say that a big part of this revolves around him (seemingly) discovering that his unit was exposed to an experimental chemical agent that was supposed to make them better warriors, but had undesired effects. The film ends with a slide explaining that there are unconfirmed rumors that troops were actually exposed to a chemical called 'BX', but how that matters given the outcome of the movie really doesn't make any sense when you think about it.

When its over, you'll look back and see certain things that begin to make sense, especially when it comes to the whole angels-and-demons thing, and in particular Danny Aiello's role as Louis, Singers chiropractor.

Only tangentially a "war movie," "Jacob's Ladder" is an experience that must be seen to be understood.



Technorati Tags: war movies, movies, jacob's ladder, vietnam, reviews

Since I'm on a "Cold War" run to start off the site, lets look at 1995's "Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie."

"Trinity" is a documentary that explores the creation and development of nuclear weapons technology, primarily in the US military, but with a little bit of Soviet action thrown in as counterpoint.

Being a documentary, action is non-existant. That's not the point. The big draw of this film is the absolutely stunning film of the seemingly endless nuclear tests conducted in the South Pacific, in atmosphere (which I never knew were conducted) and underground. It's absolutely incredible to believe that something so infinitely destructive could at the same time be so, well, beautiful. You will find yourself feeling guilty at marvelling at the slow-motion footage of these detonations, only to realize their intended purpose. The different stages of the explosions, how they progress from initial detonation, to shock wave, thermal expansion and beyond are visible in nearly every one.

It starts off detailing how they came up with the "benchmark" for nuclear weapons strength, the kiloton. In essence, they put 1000 tons of TNT up on a test stand and set it off. I felt honestly scared for these guys manually carting box after box of TNT up onto the stand and tapping it firmly into place with their hammers. shudder

The absolute devastation of the bombs are shown in detail, both at their first two actual uses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and at the various test islands and atolls. Literally wiping them clean of pretty much everything.

There's a bit of a look at the 50s-60s cold-war hysteria that went on, and when you look at this footage and what was being developed, its easy to see why the entire country was so nervous.

I'd recommend this to anyone interested in the history of nuclear weapons, and to anyone who scoffs at the seriousness and destructive power of the atom. I'd put it in the "must see at some point" category.



Technorati Tags: war movies, documentary, trinity and beyond, atomic bomb, nuclear weapons, reviews

Ah the eighties... The height (well, maybe the second peak...) of cold-war paranoia and anti-Soviet-isms. One of the prime examples of 80's Anti-Red movies is '84's Red Dawn.

Now lets just excuse the near tactical impossiblity of the Soviets landing ground troops as far inland as Colorado. Just for a moment. The official explanation is that in this "universe" Mexico fell to the red menace during a Cuba-like revolution along with most of Central America, and they were able to enter from the south, later bringing troops across into Alaska and down through Canada. In the words of Bill Cosby, "riiiiiiigggghtt!" Of course at the time we were led to believe in the might of the Soviet military, but in retrospect it kind of looks rather silly, doesn't it?

As they land at the (supposedly) strategically important town of Calumet City Colorado, a band of high school students led by Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen escape into the mountains, and exist off the supplies they took with them and what they're able to hunt. They later venture back into town and then to a family friends house, where they pick up their female companions played by Jennifer Gray and Lea Thompson. During the venture into town again to the concentration-camp like location (the local drive-in) where a number of "persons of interest" (to use a current phrase) are held, including their dad who delivers a typically 80's gung-ho speech as they tearfully run back to the hills.

They start their "insurgency" by offing a comical trio of Russki officers on a sightseeing mission, and with the taste of blood in their mouths begin striking supply brigades and other targets of opportunity.

Eventually a downed F-15 pilot joins them in their adventure (um, no rescue mission? No "Hey I need to get back"?) and is lost along with one of their comrades as they're pinned down in some mountain-bound tank warfare action.

Fed up with the increasing effectiveness of this band of rebels, the Soviets send a "specialist" to mount the hunt for our heroes. One of their buds has given them up, and the hunt is on. Eventually the villain sends three helicopter gunships out after them, and succeeds in taking out two more. On the verge of giving up, they send two of their band off towards "Free America" and mount one last mission against a supply depot. It goes terribly wrong, and Charlie Sheen's character is mortally wounded. They escape only by the grace of the "tired of war" Mexican (Cuban? or ?) commander who just lets them pass.

Again, lets just assume that these Soviet ground forces seemingly don't run recon patrols (either on the ground or the air) and our merry band is able to get away with this. Run with it here! There's a lot of suspension-of-disbelief that has to happen here, and if you do that, its actually not a bad movie. I wouldn't call it good, though. Compared to other films of the era (Rambo, Missing in Action, etc.) it actually comes across a little more plausible and not quite as "A-Team"-ish.

All in all I'd recommend it if you've never seen it, just to say that you have. But that's as far as I'm going with it. A lot of pro-America, anti-Red stuff going on, and a lot of AK-action, but not much else of substance.



Technorati Tags: movies, reviews, dvd, war movies, red dawn, cold war

We'll start things off with a cold war suspense film about a destroyer and its captain in the hunt for a mysterious unidentified submarine somewhere in the general vicinity of Greenland.

Sydney Poitier stars as reporter Ben Munceford, sent to the ship to observe and interview captain Eric Finlander (played by Richard Widmark) on what should be a routine patrol mission. Of course things aren't that simple, and during the cold war, it's made clear there isn't much simple about anything at all.

We're given a good hard look at the state of cold-war politics as it relates to the military here. The captain and his crew on the perpetual hunt, but never able to pull the trigger; The German ex-U-boat commander who's experience is asked for but ultimately ignored as he longs for the "good old days" of naval warfare. The aging navy doctor relegated to roles he doesn't feel fit to play....

And ultimately, its that tension, confusion and misinterpretation that ends the film in a final and explosive fashion.

The film follows a pretty basic plot, ship trails unidentified sub, assuming its Soviet. Along the way various events ensue, such as getting stuck in the icebergs, compartments flooding, and sabotage insinuated, or at least blamed on the increasing complexity of their military hardware. Despite its episodic and ultimately predictable (to a point) nature, the movie manages to maintain a certain amount of tension, both relating to the hunt for the Soviet sub and the tension between crewmembers.

Of course, like a lot of mid-60s cold war movies (think Fail-Safe-ish), the end comes swiftly and without much reflection (you're left to do that on your own) I suppose to portray how the impending World War III would be fought.

So, if you're in the mood for an always-tense cold war suspense-fest, then The Bedford Incident is right up your alley. 1965, Black and White, 102 minutes.



Technorati Tags: movies, war, cold war, reviews, the bedford incident

Hi folks! Welcome to the WarMovieBlog!

Here's the deal.  I'm a bit of a war movie buff, I can't resist watching them, and I figured I'd share my thoughts and experiences with the world at large.

This is also my little way of saying "Thanks" to all those US servicemen, present and past who've made it possible for me to put up a site like this.  I'm not a veteran, and I'm eternally thankful to those who are for making it so I don't have to be.

So, as I watch a film or hear news about new projects, etc. I will post here.  Feel free to comment and discuss.

Technorati Tags: movies, war movies, reviews, news, warmovieblog