An excellent anti-war film is _La Legionne de dannati_/_Battle of the Commandos_ by Umberto Lenzi and starring Jack Palance and Curd Jurgens. Dario Argento co-wrote the screenplay. While on the subject of Lenzi, can anyone see the parallels between _Cannibal Ferox_ and _The Cook The Thief His Wife & Her Lover_ pointed out by Phil Hardy? I've only seen the latter, and considering what Video Watchdog said (and showed) about _Cannibal Ferox_, I don't think I want to, een though it sounds interesting enough in structure. Scott On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, Rick Moody wrote: > Alright, since some brave souls had the audacity to suggest they "hated" > the > somewhat overly-praised SPR, lets deal with it. I agree that > there is really no reason why anyone could "hate" SPR...however, it is > irritating that many critics are tending to label it the greatest WWII film > ever and berate prior efforts made by filmmakers WHO ACTUALLY HAD BEEN IN > THE WAR as fluff. While the first forty-five minutes is harrowing stuff, > the other two hours is basically two episodes of "Combat!" edited together. > Not bad, but certainly not original. > Too, there is a more elemental problem. While many of us older film > students are aware of the fact that men involved in war were perhaps > "numbed" by the day-to-day struggle to survive due to insufficient sleep > and constant tension and the constant loss of comrades, the movie itself > does not delineate this state of affairs for the unenlightened. I > sincerely doubt whether the rising generation would understand these > people. > Take, for example, the aftermath > of the Omaha Beach incident. These men have just been through literal > "hell," and understandably stagger away, but then seem to snap back into > line as if they were unfeeling automotons. Moments later the only residual > manifestation of this trauma is Tom Hanks' trembling hand. Are they > kidding? Surely someone would have started crying, shaking, cracking up, > etc. I mean I don't expect a freak-out on the scale of Ken Russell, but > some upset....? > > ---------- > > From: Joshua Redmond <[log in to unmask]> > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: Translating Private Ryan > > Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 1:34 PM > > > > Robert J Vest wrote: > > > > > > Scott Hutchins <[log in to unmask]> on 09/14/98 12:04:41 PM > > > > > >> The obvious reason to hate the film is Private Ryan the all-American > > >> soldier boy that keeps the film from being a truly an anti-war film, > as > > >> do other aspects of the film. > > > > > > I must have been seeing a different movie. What possible reason could > you > > > have for 'hating' this movie? (I know you are not the original poster, > but > > > I used your response to reply to the list) The 'all-American soldier > boy', > > > 'a truly anti-war movie'? I may deft here, but I don't get these > comments. > > > Reply off-list if you would like, but I thoughthe movie was a veritible > > > masterpiece. > > > > You're right, Bob. SPR was a masterpiece that no one could reasonably > > deem to be pro-war. Anyone's reasons for thinking otherwise will be > > amusing. > > > > - Josh > > > > ---- > > Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the > > University of Alabama. > > ---- > Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the > University of Alabama. > ---- Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite