Operation Mincemeat

Posting mainly for the Fleming reference.

(And yes, quite inaccurate - Fleming didn't begin writing Bond until 1952).

As for the film, looks like a good cast, but as with everything else churned out in recent history, looks to be replete with Marvel-esque jokes shoehorned in for a cheap laugh and to punctuate the trailer I guess.

I might check it out. I've seen the film they did back in the 60s (The Man Who Never Was). Ben Mcintyre's book is a must read.

Modern war films don't hold much for me, comes from growing up seeing the likes of Sink the Bismarck, Guns of Navarone etc.

Hilly wrote:

I might check it out. I've seen the film they did back in the 60s (The Man Who Never Was). Ben Mcintyre's book is a must read.

Modern war films don't hold much for me, comes from growing up seeing the likes of Sink the Bismarck, Guns of Navarone etc.

What did you think of Saving Private Ryan, Hilly?

On the quiet I quite liked it, I brought it on DVD after seeing it on Film4. I should say that when it came out, our tabloids (in particular) where full of "the Yanks won WWII single handedly", "what about the British?" kind of thing and so I left it alone. Being a fan of Spielberg, and Hanks, I eventually first saw it circa 2014. I put aside what our media had said and saw, of course, that it wasn't like U-571 in its telling. Spielberg and Hanks are keen WWII experts and so it shows here.

I found it quite moving at the end.

It also shows how movie making or telling has changed. In 1962 Longest Day depicts D-Day but it looks quiet. Sam Fullers' Big Red One (one of my favourite films) was constrained by budget so it looks even quieter (one landing craft in the background) and in SPR, D-Day is this violent vivid image.

I dare say that might be the one post 1980 war film I can revisit. I did Media Studies in 2002-03 and remember when this film was mentioned a couple of the guys laughing at the GI trying to find his arm which I found distasteful.

Distasteful, indeed.

Yes, I rate SPR highly as well. The chief criticism--that the film falls off rapidly after the first 25 minutes--is, I think, very wide of the mark. Yes, the opening of the film is extraordinary, but the alleged drop-off is from extraordinary to "merely" superb. And how many films have been made that don't even boast a single superb frame? The large majority, I dare say.

I think that's the trouble the general public have with SPR is that opening shot of D-Day. It seems to dwarf most peoples minds and they forget there's a film after it. I think it holds itself well right to the end. There's something like an old war film in that last stand.

I dare agree about a single superb frame. There's a thousand and one straight to DVD type war films that I won't even try to watch. Spielberg has at least this empathy that works.

Hilly wrote:

Modern war films don't hold much for me, comes from growing up seeing the likes of Sink the Bismarck, Guns of Navarone etc.

Yes, it's quite hard for contemporary WWII films to match those made by and starring those who lived through those events (often veterans themselves). They could embody the attitudes and customs etc. of the era a little better than those who've just scanned through a Wikipedia article about that period.

I often see Fury cited as the best contemporary WWII movie, but I suspect that's by those whose knowledge of WWII (and perhaps war generally) comes from Call of Duty video games and whatnot.

As an aside, that's not just a Western phenomenon; Russian war movies these days lift all the worst aspects of contemporary Hollywood and aren't a patch on those made in the 60's and 70's.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Yes, I rate SPR highly as well. The chief criticism--that the film falls off rapidly after the first 25 minutes--is, I think, very wide of the mark. Yes, the opening of the film is extraordinary, but the alleged drop-off is from extraordinary to "merely" superb. And how many films have been made that don't even boast a single superb frame? The large majority, I dare say.

Agreed. SPR was very good (even if the premise is often called fanciful). Almost a shame that it peaked in that first, epic sequence as it seems to be judged harshly for not maintaining the same grand scale throughout.

Hilly wrote:

There's something like an old war film in that last stand.

I agree. The opening is brutal and technically a masterclass, so of course the film literati like it. But then the film takes on the traditional Hollywood structure and builds toward that more classic finale, which turns out to be sincere, patriotic, and sentimental, so of course the film literati hate that and thinks it lesser than all the trees swaying in Thin Red Line from the same year, which is supposedly brilliant but which gave me the most deep pleasant sleep I'd had in a decade when I saw it.

CJB wrote:

Yes, it's quite hard for contemporary WWII films to match those made by and starring those who lived through those events (often veterans themselves). They could embody the attitudes and customs etc. of the era a little better than those who've just scanned through a Wikipedia article about that period.

Good point I'd not thought about before.

Still haven't seen Fury so can't comment about that.

I've heard good things about Hacksaw Ridge too but I didn't ever get around to it either.