WW II Moveis

Only while Blair is Prime Minister

Reply to
Les Pickstock
Loading thread data ...

Depends upon what point he was making. I'm sure we can all get the thrust of the matter without being flagellated to it.

Bill Banaszak, MFE ;)

Reply to
Bill Banaszak

I don't think I have ever commented on an OT post since reading this group daily since late '97 or so. That being said, Amen to the above statement.

Curtis IPMS 40355

Reply to
IPMS 40355

"Armored Attack" (a.k.a. "The North Star") Ick! (Do a Google Search on the title and read some of my previous posts if you must know why...)

Reply to
Edwin Ross Quantrall

I sure would have if you hadn't! One of my favorites too! Now if someone would make "The Last Battle", the trilogy would be complete.

Reply to
Edwin Ross Quantrall

For the past three years or so, TBS or TNT has been running it as a 24 hour marathon; usually on a weekend; close to Christmas. Look for it then.

Reply to
Edwin Ross Quantrall

Hmm, it is a fact that Tarleton's men murdered surrendered troops. Not real honorable by then contemporary, or modern, standards. And, for a "good soldier," he lost what percentage of his army at Cowpens?

The Revolution was plenty nasty. But among the regulars of both sides, Tarleton was something less than average even by the standards of his day.

Reply to
SamVanga

Not counting the rather silly action/storyline, what was bad about U-571? The US did in fact capture a U-boat, on display in Chicago (I think, I know it is one of the northern cities).

Reply to
SamVanga

The U-505 is at Chicago's Musum of Science and Industry. I hear its being moved to an underground enclosed display. Its capture has been covered on some History Channel shows.

They also have a Spitfire and Stuka now hanging right off a balcony offering a spectacular view. For a long time there were only two surviving Stukas in the world. I think that is changing with all the stuff they have been finding, digging, and rebuilding up in the past 15 years.

Tom

Reply to
Tom H

You leave our Road Warrior alone, you big meanies, you.

RobG

Reply to
Rob Grinberg

Tom, Interesting comment. My Mum saw the movie (I haven't - yet) and commented that it was 'brutal and graphic but not particularly violent' meaning that she wasn't offended by the violence depicted: ie; it had a purpose. She saw it as a reasonably realistic portrayal (within the confines of decency, censorship and movie-making) of what Christ suffered. Yes, we're both religious and He was almost certainly treated a lot worse than the movie depicts. And, not picking on you, but to which 'trash' were you referring - the movie or the sign on the wall? Just to clarify the point.

On a lighter note, as Mum was leaving the theatre, she heard a young, male voice behind her say " That was interesting - I wonder if it'll come out as a book... " She swears this happened!

RobG

Maiesm72 wrote

Reply to
Rob Grinberg

Generally, it was the extreme demand placed on one's suspension of belief. Within minutes of having climbed aboard a stricken inoperational vessel, our intrepid heroes managed to set the ship for scuttling, come under attack, scramble back aboard, disarm the charges, acclimate themselves to a completely foreign weapons system, conduct a rudimentary surface rescue operation, sequestor a prisoner, ressurect the sub's propulsion system, place the sub back into operation, submerge the boat and engage in an underwater submarine dogfight that enabled them to defeat the enemy with combat tactics beyond the wildest dreams of a submarine that was equipped by neither a guided torpedo weapons system nor a crew trained to deliver such a blow.

And then there was McConuaghey's haircut. ;-)

WmB

To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net

Reply to
WmB

"No evidence exists that Tarleton was involved in infanticide or any incidents such as the church arson and murders, said Scott Withrow, historian at South Carolina's Cowpens National Battlefield, where the Redcoats were defeated in 1781."

Certainly Tarleton could be said to be ruthless but they were'nt re-enactors who got to go home at the end of the day, they were an army effectively cut off from home by 3000 miles of ocean. Warfare in the 18th C tended towards the brutish. And in all this the Mel Gibson charactor was based on Francis Marion "Swamp fox" of TV series fame. An irregular soldier of skill, some of his exploits were less than laudable.

Reply to
Les Pickstock

had mr gibson died after those 2, i would venerate him as a saint.

Reply to
e

i turned down a free dvd rip od that. i am glad.

Reply to
e

yeah, like tie the guts around the tree they did to english prisoners.

Reply to
e

Are you sure the character wasn't supposed to be based on Ferguson instead of Tarleton??

Bill Shuey

Reply to
William H. Shuey

Nearly everything I've read about it says Tarleton. Even Jason Isaacs says he read up about Tarleton. One article mentioned they had originally intended to use Francis Marion and Tartleton's names for the characters but changed because Marion had been a slave owner. So they didn't mind upsetting the English but God forbid they upset the African Americans.

Reply to
Les Pickstock

Well, we've all got our cross to bear! ;-)

Ooo, nay Matron (...etc) !

Richard.

Reply to
Richard Brooks

Have we listed the B-17 film with Gregory Peck in it ?

I'd just found part of this film in my video archives. I think it's the (yet another) one where the control towere windows get blown in by an exploding B-17.

Richard.

Reply to
Richard Brooks

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.