- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Are older movies truly better?
Posted on 1/3/15 at 5:46 pm to Jim Rockford
Posted on 1/3/15 at 5:46 pm to Jim Rockford
More specifically, I have a hard time appreciating any war movie prior to Apocalypse Now. I find just about all of them, even Bridge on the River Kwai and some of the others in the pantheon, to be just kind of stiff and goofy.
I'd argue that war is such a visceral experience that getting an accurate physical portrayal of the experience, like in SPR or Band of Brothers or Pacific or on and on, is absolutely vital.
Now, some of the others (Citizen Kane, Godfathers, etc) are truly great and can be appreciated across the ages.
I'd argue that war is such a visceral experience that getting an accurate physical portrayal of the experience, like in SPR or Band of Brothers or Pacific or on and on, is absolutely vital.
Now, some of the others (Citizen Kane, Godfathers, etc) are truly great and can be appreciated across the ages.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 6:10 pm to AbuTheMonkey
While I think some recent movies have captured the visceral terror of war, there are older movies made their points and we're just as affecting. Paths of Glory, All Quiet on the Western Front, Battleground, Sands of Iwo Jima, etc. And Bridge on the River Kwai wasn't dependent on that kind of immediacy
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News