Derekstuart Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 I shall keep a watch out for this film in the bargain shelves at HMV. If it is a good film, I will look for it shortly. If it's a bad film I will look for it next year. I should add that my definition of good and bad might differ to that of the film producers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianusa Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 There's not much to find wrong with this movie Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammy Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Saw it at the weekend very funny and very dads army think the new actors got the manerisms very well Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanuts Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Does it keep true to reality or, like most of the more modern war films, does it depict Britain dependent upon American volunteers to keep us safe whilst we garden? (thinking U571, bits of pearl harboUr, The Great Escape, Colditz). No offence intended to America btw. But I get irritated by films that re-write history. Thankfully the Dambusters wasn't re-filmed as planned as that was originally going to have Guy Gibson as an American living in Britain. BTW what does anyone think to re-writing Battle of Midway being won by a Royal Navy task force or saving Private Ryan being re-filmed with British Commandos? hopefully no yanks will have been magically seconded to any of the units in this http://www.pegasusbridgethemovie.com/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Just to be clear, I have nothing against history showing American bravery in WW2. It is a shame that one of Hollywood have chosen to portray ALL WW2 films- both of America and the rest- in a particularly bad way. British and Commonwealth effectively eradicated from history and quite frankly if America had acted the way they were portrayed in Battle of Midway and Pearl Harbo(u)r then they would have been a disaster. In fact, Americans fought with great bravery and sacrifice- though hollywood portrays them all as little bruce willis's. My apologies for drifting off topic but I wanted to be clear to our American friends on this forum that I am not anti American- even if they did screw us over Suez, they are still our allies to this day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted February 7, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 7, 2016 That said the US film industry has made some outstanding war movies. The opening 20 minutes or so of "Saving Private Ryan" is one of the most powerful recreations of battle ever created for a movie I think. Although it is not especially historically accurate in many ways George C. Scott delivered one of the truly great portrayals of a General in Patton, the opening monologue set against the backdrop of a huge US Flag is genuinely iconic. "Tora Tora Tora" was a remarkably balanced movie and for a motion picture it was very true to historic events too, the battle sequences were superbly shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 I think that as special effects improve that story lines get worse. Having said that, from a technical perspective "Where Eagles Dare" must be one of the worst- plot holes, technical errors, continuity problems and yet it must surely be one of the best known and most successful of them all. But we are going off topic.. Apologies to the OP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianusa Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Back to Dads. No one has mentioned CZJ, a prime star in a British movie that is unlikely to be seen by general audiences in America. US cinemas are reluctant to show what they class as art films; in other words anything that does not show prolonged sequences of car chases, multi explosions and graphic gun fights accompanied by the ubiquitous copulatory scenes and non stop swearing. Instead they will end up in 'art houses' which specialise in anything the general distributors wouldn't touch. Even she couldn't make any difference to the outcome! Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Does it keep true to reality or, like most of the more modern war films, does it depict Britain dependent upon American volunteers to keep us safe whilst we garden? (thinking U571, bits of pearl harboUr, The Great Escape, Colditz). No offence intended to America btw. But I get irritated by films that re-write history. For the answer, follow the money. Every film that purports to be historical, 're-writes' history in some fashion. It is inevitable, but I understand what you mean. Were I feeling pedantic I'd mention that Pearl Harbor is a place name, however you may feel about Mr. Webster's early 19th century 'innovations' in spelling, so sadly or otherwise "Pearl Harbor" is the correct spelling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Back to Dads. No one has mentioned CZJ, a prime star in a British movie that is unlikely to be seen by general audiences in America. US cinemas are reluctant to show what they class as art films; in other words anything that does not show prolonged sequences of car chases, multi explosions and graphic gun fights accompanied by the ubiquitous copulatory scenes and non stop swearing. Instead they will end up in 'art houses' which specialise in anything the general distributors wouldn't touch. Even she couldn't make any difference to the outcome! This rendition of "Dad's Army" is hardly an "art film". While no doubt "Dad's Army" has a small fan base in the US of people who might have seen it on PBS at some point it there's no where nearly enough of them for this film to succeed in a multiplex. I don't see how this movie can really appeal to anyone who has never seen the TV show. It might show up in some independent cinemas. It's more likely to show up on a streaming service. The most popular movies in the US really aren't like what you describe (except for the explosions and maybe some form of weapons). You won't find any copulation or non-stop swearing in Star Wars. The top-ten highest grossing movies in 2015 were: 1 Star Wars Ep. VII: The Force Awakens 2 Jurassic World 3 The Avengers: Age of Ultron 4 Inside Out 5 Furious 7 6 American Sniper 7 Minions 8 The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 9 The Martian 10 Cinderella Of these, Furious 7 is of course exactly the kind of movie you describe. I apologize for being so far off topic, but the success of Inside Out, made me remember this gem on the 'train of thought': "These facts and opinions look so similar." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWrG6l-5CAg Which in a way was the kind of point I was trying to make. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianusa Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 As we live in Gig Harbor, so named by Vancouver on his exploratory voyage around this area and as its the official name of the city, how else can it be spelled (spelt?). Most of our UK rels have now got the idea although there are quite a few who insist on including the U. Must admit I find it hard to spell the American way but nobody cares anyway. Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 Back on subject - we went to se the film this afternoon and it is great fun, very much in the spirit of the original and not a pastiche of it. It has a suitably stupid plot line, some of the characterisations are very similar to the originals, particularly Michael Gambon as Godfrey (who has some of the best lines) - the others are very much 'in the spirit of' the tv series parts and capture them well in that way. The comedy ranks well with the original I found. Another interesting things - which all the dumbo critics seem to have completely missed - is the various directorial acts of film homage that Oliver Parker has worked in, thus there is one scene which is very much a hint of a scene in 'North by Northwest', another which is pure 'Downfall' and which you begin to expect to go in the same way but finishes with a delightful twist in a re-worlk of a Jimmy Perry line, and of course you'd have to be blind to miss the 'From Here To Eternity' scene. There were I think possibly others but it really needs a second run through to spot them all and there is one which draws on original scripts but in complete reverse which you can see really ought to end with a particular line but doesn't. So some rather nice touches in script and direction. Spotting the actor is also great fun. My only complaint is the dimwitted sc*m who get up and shove in front of you before the film has finished - a very good reason for staying seated right through the credits on this one is the out-takes at the end with brilliant one played totally in character by everybody but completely out of place. So good fun, thoroughly recommended but don't expect the original (which would be stupid anyway of course) and interesting to watch for the various homage scenes including the ones you think are going to end a certain way and don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold john dew Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 Thanks Mike....that's a great review which I really enjoyed reading. Hadnt realised you were such a film enthusiast Sadly I guess it will be something of a challenge for me to see it! Hopefully eventually there will be a DVD Vancouver is a brilliant place in which to live but occasionally one is reminded there are some disadvantages Best wishes John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Phil Bullock Posted February 10, 2016 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 I think you and I are of the same generation and mind set Mike There is something in the screening times locally that suggests to me the film industry don't want this to be a success... Phil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 10, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 I think you and I are of the same generation and mind set Mike There is something in the screening times locally that suggests to me the film industry don't want this to be a success... Phil That's a shame Phil (your second sentence that is - not the first of course). We went to the 13.30 performance and being Wednesday afternoon (which is wrinklies day anyway) it wasn't exactly busy but there were quite a few folk waiting to go in for the next showing and I presume they are wringing at least 3 showings a day out of it here. What I can't understand is some of the reviews I have read - one over the weekend (probably in the Telegraph on Friday but I'm not certain) left me today seriously wondering today if the reviewer had actually been to see it, and what he might have been doing if he had, because he certainly missed a lot - praising only Toby Jones of the actors. Toby Jones is indeed very good and has caught the Mainwaring character well and playing as a role in this story. Michael Gambon is little short of absolutely brilliant playing the part with even greater humour and daftness than Arnold Ridley (who I admired anyway) and also wearing a Military Medal ribbon about which nothing is ever said. There were things which kept me laughing out loud here, there, and everywhere through the film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 The fact that Michael Gambon in reality can no longer remember his lines adds extra poignancy to Godfrey. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Phil Bullock Posted February 10, 2016 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2016 Henley seems to think it has better audience potential Mike? Cheltenham has now woken up to the fact that there might be some interest and has 5 showings per day... Too late! We went to Malvern Phil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clearwater Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Gambon is little short of absolutely brilliant playing the part with even greater humour and daftness than Arnold Ridley (who I admired anyway) and also wearing a Military Medal ribbon about which nothing is ever said. There were things which kept me laughing out loud here, there, and everywhere through the film. I thought there was a whole episode in the original series where the story of Godfrey's medal is told? If I recall correctly, it's his sister who tells Mainwaring about it with Godfrey having been a conscientious objector who signed up to be a stretcher bearer. Godfrey had not wanted to wear the medal to a parade but gets talked into it. Mainwaring doesn't have the standard war service medals having only served in 1919. I possibly need to get out more! David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 11, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 11, 2016 The fact that Michael Gambon in reality can no longer remember his lines adds extra poignancy to Godfrey. One of the outtakes at the end also features Private Godfrey - and is absolutely hilarious but I'm not going to say anything about it as it would spoil the fun. And yes David - Godfrey's Military Medal was indeed mentioned in the tv series - I think in the way you have explained. An interesting little thing in the film is that the character played by Ian Lavender happens to be wearing - among many others - a Military Cross ribbon which would really rub things in for Mainwaring if you think about film and tv series in a sort of crossover way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 This will all no doubt be included on the DVD extras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 ... it's his sister who tells Mainwaring about it with Godfrey having been a conscientious objector who signed up to be a stretcher bearer ... I had remembered his great war role as an ambulance driver, but my recollection of the episode is pretty dim. EDIT you were quite right. Stretcher bearer it was. Google to the rescue. It's probably been more than 30 years since I saw that episode. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Don't forget you can still see the "making of" show which was broadcast on BBC2 a little while ago: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3j2rsd Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatB Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 That's a shame Phil (your second sentence that is - not the first of course). We went to the 13.30 performance and being Wednesday afternoon (which is wrinklies day anyway) it wasn't exactly busy but there were quite a few folk waiting to go in for the next showing and I presume they are wringing at least 3 showings a day out of it here. What I can't understand is some of the reviews I have read - one over the weekend (probably in the Telegraph on Friday but I'm not certain) left me today seriously wondering today if the reviewer had actually been to see it, and what he might have been doing if he had, because he certainly missed a lot - praising only Toby Jones of the actors. Toby Jones is indeed very good and has caught the Mainwaring character well and playing as a role in this story. Michael Gambon is little short of absolutely brilliant playing the part with even greater humour and daftness than Arnold Ridley (who I admired anyway) and also wearing a Military Medal ribbon about which nothing is ever said. There were things which kept me laughing out loud here, there, and everywhere through the film. I've seen numerous film reviews which have made it fairly obvious that the reviewer has seen the trailer and, maybe, a press release, added a generous sprinkling of prejudice and personal agenda, and wrapped it all up with a soupcon of snide "wit". Money in the bank with no need to sit through two hours of movie . I've seen other reviews, too, which have to have been paid for by the studios. Most recent examples being anything which described the utterly dire Crimson Peak as anything other than the worst movie it's possible to make when you're given $55m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockershovel Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 I went yesterday and I rather enjoyed it. Michael Gambon does indeed, steal the show rather. A lot of the original joke revolves around the militarily incompetent Mainwaring being placed in a position of false authority, and carried to varying extents by the more experienced 1914-18 veterans in the platoon (Mainwaring himself having been a late conscript and seen no action) I quite enjoyed the way the previously unseen Mrs Mainwaring was portrayed - it would have been easy to make her an inappropriately exaggerated caricature like Hyacinth Bucket, but the script team deftly avoided that pitfall. A friend who is involved in a 1940s-era reenactment group thought that the CZJ character owes quite a lot to the "Lola Pergola" character in the then-popular "Jane" cartoon strip, so another period reference there. I remember hearing Croft discussing "Dads Army" on the radio, some while ago. He stated, among other things, that various liberties were taken with military details for the sake of the overall scenario, and these rather accumulated over time. The original costume sketch for Cpl Jones showed him wearing an array of those large campaign medals, and generally looking much like an older version of RSM Bourne in "Zulu", but this was not used (after all, Jones served until 1918). Sgt Wilson's previous rank and medals would also have been anomalous, since he is eventually revealed to have been a Captain and was presumably discharged at that rank, and hence would still hold his commission Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianusa Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Thanks Mike....that's a great review which I really enjoyed reading. Hadnt realised you were such a film enthusiast Sadly I guess it will be something of a challenge for me to see it! Hopefully eventually there will be a DVD Vancouver is a brilliant place in which to live but occasionally one is reminded there are some disadvantages Best wishes John And always thought Van was a classy joint! Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.