It doesn't bother me that U-571 doesn't coincide with historical fact in the WWII-era. Did Indiana Jones? Why anyone would look to Hollywood to accurately report history is beyond me. Look at who directed this movie, for crying out loud. For a submarine movie it was decently entertaining, and I found the pacing and tension to be greater than in The Hunt for the Red October. Just my humble opinion.
shareIt doesn't bother me that U-571 doesn't coincide with historical fact in the WWII-era. Did Indiana Jones?
So you're arguing exactly what I said earlier, that the movie doesn't coincide precisely with historical fact. The question is, why should anyone expect it to? Mostow directed other documentaries based on true events such as Surrogates, Terminator 3, and Beverly Hills Bodysnatchers. Does a less than literal interpretation of events completely negate the entertainment value of a movie?
shareSo you're arguing exactly what I said earlier, that the movie doesn't coincide precisely with historical fact. The question is, why should anyone expect it to?
Mostow directed other documentaries based on true events such as Surrogates, Terminator 3, and Beverly Hills Bodysnatchers. Does a less than literal interpretation of events completely negate the entertainment value of a movie?
I'm justifying the film by its entertainment value, not its accurate telling of events. Why is a little discrepancy so disappointing for you?
My Indiana Jones comparison holds because I'm only saying it's not historically accurate, and neither is U-571. And why should entertainment be? So long as it's good fun I don't consider it a wasted effort. To answer your question, I'd rather see a film in which British Palace guards take Baghdad, with the stipulation that they wear their funny hats through the whole spiel. Get over yourself...
I'm justifying the film by its entertainment value, not its accurate telling of events.
Why is a little discrepancy so disappointing for you?
My Indiana Jones comparison holds because I'm only saying it's not historically accurate, and neither is U-571.
To answer your question, I'd rather see a film in which British Palace guards take Baghdad, with the stipulation that they wear their funny hats through the whole spiel.
Get over yourself...
I lean in teh same way as the original OP.
I's an entertainment adventure movie, that try to revamp the "sub movies" that did some money in the good ol'time.
It's some sort of "indiana Jones under water, with more than an hint of U-96" indeed.
And it's an "adventure" movie as Saving Private Ryan, that took just some snips of reality to frame a fictous story.
Here the enigma machine and an existing sub, there D-Day and the four Ryan brothers (not to talk of SS on tigers that weren't there)
Yes, it was unfortunate that they didn't got for something else: The story would work also in the U-#fantasynumber carried a part of V-2 rocket, Heavy water for the atomic Bomb, the secret design for a jet plane, a roll of microfilm, a piece of kriptonite, the Arc Of The Alliance, Hitler's moustache trimmer, a brief with light inside and 666 combination or what else.
But all those McGuffins were more or less impratical to put on a nazi U-boot: it would require some kind of absurd story to explain how they know that exactly that sub had that McGuffin on board when it got the one-in-a-million chance to broke down where the "adventure" was possible.
So they went for something that is belivable to be in any sub, and something that even the most low-brow audience could get: the ENIGMA machine.
They could go for some obscure techiical gadget (as the snorkel), but wasn't a prize good enough for such and adventure (and How could they bring a snorkel on the lifeboat at the end?)
That's infortunate decision: as it stepped outside boundaries and put the americans on a british field - Exactly as miracle At St.Anna put americans on an italian field (Resistance) and got a lot of flak for that: also if Spike Lee's flick was somewhat more near to reality and not a pure "adventure" movie.
Saving Private Ryan had some flak for his historical inaccuracies, but was an "hollywood" version of what's happened. The good Yankee boyz acted a bit over-the-top mission than real, but it was OK.
I agree. History buffs need to get their panties out of a wad. Their one star reviews are annoying. As a MOVIE this is a good one. Suspense is perfect. As FACTUAL movie I can see where it falls.
shareI'm a historian and I love this movie, greatly entertaining.
Clark Kent + Lois Lane 4ever
DC Can Suck It
I too am a history, and specifically WWII, buff. I like this movie. Some people just need to remove the stick from their ass.
shareIt's entertaining. Now you want a bad WW II movie, then it's Pearl Harbor, hands down.
shareAt risk of being torpedoed, I'll wade into the fray. I think the reason plenty of feathers have been ruffled here is simply because the subject matter touches home to just about everyone on the planet. The backdrop being World War II with all the countries involved, national pride, millions dead, atrocities, winners, losers, he said, she said etc. it doesn't take much for anyone to get their nose out of joint if anything isn't spot on.
It's kind of like watching a tragic TV news story which involves someone you know. If the reporter gets something wrong, big or small, you're outraged and let the station know about it. If it's a big mistake sometimes they'll offer a retraction. If it's small they might offer an apology and hang up.
It seems in this movie they sort of offered an apology or explanation in the ending credits by listing some dates and statistics without much context. I find it interesting that the British ships were listed with the acronym "HMS" while the American ones were spelled out "US Navy..." (or equivalent. I couldn't back up the PVR far enough to get the exact phrasing). I'm sure someone will clarify the exact terminology, font and type size.
Anyways, back to my main point. I don't think any of us, myself included, can watch this dispassionately. If you're American: "Hey, we won. Great movie. Get over it." If you're British: "Good movie, but you got it wrong. You're taking credit for something you didn't do." If you're Canadian like me: "Hey Britain, get used to it. We live in the apartment right above them and they still portray us as living in igloos, some even with wifi."
Don't even get me started about Argo.
Coz the movie is called U-571 (which was a real life U-boat in WW2) and it's about the capture of the Enigma code machine (which was a real life event in WW2).
Lots of war dramas are loosely based on real events. It was a work of fiction, great liberties were taken. Personally I think that 6 men with NO experience in a German submarine and the only person who even knew German wasn't a sailor and didn't know technical German would probably sink the boat, not sail it and sink 2 ships in the mean time. But it was a work of fiction, no more out of bounds than the average gung ho WW ll movie
shareI don't care about it being factual. Americans can make as many films as they want that whitewash/alter history because facts simply aren't on their side.
But I care that this film was absolute crap regardless of how accurate it was.
the problem of this film is not the inaccuracy of yanks taking credits for british achievement.
the problem with film is that it wants to desperately be like Das Boots, Hunt For Red October and Crimson Tides. it has not identitys, it just copies from previous sub film. it wants to be tauts thriller, and action film, and adventure, and summer blockbusters. it is all over place.
I assumed this was one of them war movies that spit-balled two dozen different true events into one movie.
share