|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Errol Flynn (Reply to this comment)
by George_Chabot,  in Movies
Very true, Travelgall. The British Commonwealth's military contribution since WWI has not been adequately recognized on this side of the Atlantic. I just read a book by a fellow named McBride, an American, who enlisted in the Canadian forces in 1914 to go to France and do his bit with the infantry. Fascinating read, but unlisted on this site so I can't give a review.
|
Dec 14 '04
3:33 pm PST
|
|
Errol Flynn (Reply to this comment)
by travelgall
To be honest, I've nothing against Flynn as an individual, with the exception of his penchant for (very) young girls. Just got an objection to a fictionalised account that ignores fact so blatantly. The poor boys who fought in Burma are forgotten enough anyway, I don't see why their contribution was further maligned by this dumb film. "When you go home , tell them of us and say: 'For your tomorrow we gave our today". Inscription on the Kohima Memorial.
http://www.mod.uk/aboutus/history/kohima60/kohima2.htm
http://www.mod.uk/aboutus/history/kohima60/kohima5.htm
Another good book is "Defeat into Victory" By Field Marshal Viscount William Slim regarding the battles in Burma and India.
|
Dec 13 '04
3:14 am PST
|
|
Re: Gee, George (Reply to this comment)
by George_Chabot, in Movies
Thanks, travelgall, for your heartfelt comments. I found a blurb on Errol Flynn's physical problems and emailed it to Macresarf. The gist of it was he tried to join up early with both the British and American forces but was turned down by both due to heart problems and other ailments. He was very ill despite his robust appearance. So all I'm saying is, he wasn't the traitor to the crown the British think he is. Thanks for your readership!
|
Dec 11 '04
4:46 am PST
|
|
Gee, George (Reply to this comment)
by travelgall
Sorry George, but I'm going to go off on one...
I'd also like to add my comments that echo others, in that this film is universally despised by any British ex-serviceman and military historian. It's a steaming pile of horse manure historically and ignores completely the British role in destroying the Japaneese in Burma. In fact but for a degree of US transport support that was temporarily switched from supporting the Chineese forces, and the afore mentioned Merrill's Marauders whom were little more than batallion strength (600 men) the whole of the 4 years of war on this front was entirely British, Indian and other British Commonwealth units. This theatre of war probably killed more Japanese millitary men than any other theatre of war, and certainly tied up more Japanese divisions than the small scale (in manpower terms) defences on the Pacific islands. Now of course this isn't saying that the battles of Iwo Jima or okinawa were any easier than the battles of Imphal or Kohima (because they weren't), nor is this arguing that American troops were any less brave, or had it any easier than their British, Indian and Australian allies. But a film that tells lies about the British Commonwealth contribution to the destruction of Imperial Japan is not really a film worth bothering about in my opinion. The film is an insult.
And as for "Vinegar" Joe Stillwell, I hope his death was a particularly unpleasant one. The man wasn't merely incompetent, for that he can be forgiven. He deliberately murdered the British and American troops under his command, saving his wrath for the British Chindits in particular whom he seemed to hate more than the Japanese. I suggest the book "Wingate and the Chindits" by David Rooney (amazon) if you want to read about the breathtaking arrogance and waste of life that summed up Stillwell's command.
And calm...
|
Dec 10 '04
7:09 am PST
|
|
Re: Gee, George (Reply to this comment)
by George_Chabot, in Movies
As a history buff, you probably know more about CBI than I do. I do know the British (and other Euros) were eager to hold onto their colonies but the time for that was well over, in my book.
NOTE to Macresarf, et al: By WWII Errol Flynn (a Tasmanian) had been in the USA a good long time. As I recall he tried to enlist in the US forces and was turned down for some medical reason, maybe malaria - can't remember. And such a magnificent physical specimen - you can't never tell, eh Macresarf? ;->
|
Nov 27 '04
1:01 pm PST
|
|
Re: Howdy (Reply to this comment)
by George_Chabot, in Movies
Thanks, Mac! You will undoubtedly enjoy this one. Errol Flynn was the top, imho.
|
Nov 27 '04
12:57 pm PST
|
|
Gee, George (Reply to this comment)
by colonialpara
I saw this movie as a kid in the 60s and liked it. Years later, I found it on VHS and bought it and when I did, I thought it eas completely true!
Silly me, what did I know?
Another masterful review of a real WW II classic.
Cheers,
Paul
|
Nov 26 '04
1:55 pm PST
|
|
Howdy (Reply to this comment)
by mcmaster
George, I have not seen this one yet. Nice review, I'll have to go find this one now. I usually enjoy those old school war films. They seem to be more authentic as they were made during or shortly after the war. Take care...
Mac
|
Nov 26 '04
1:15 pm PST
|
|
Re: That's funny... (Reply to this comment)
by George_Chabot, in Movies
Hi Cripper,
I'm sure you'll like Objective Burma! Also check out Merrill's Marauders, another fine depiction of the Burma part of WWII.
|
Nov 26 '04
6:06 am PST
|
|
Re: Indeed! (Reply to this comment)
by George_Chabot, in Movies
Thanks, ole buddy, for always adding something interesting in the comments section. It's always gratifying to know there is someone else who likes these old war films as much as I do!
Best regards!
|
Nov 26 '04
6:05 am PST
|
|
That's funny... (Reply to this comment)
by cripper
...I just walked into Blockbuster a couple hours ago and saw this film on the shelf and had a look at it. I guess after reading this review, I should go watch it.
Thanks for the review.
cripper
|
Nov 25 '04
10:09 pm PST
|
|
Indeed! (Reply to this comment)
by macresarf1
I agree with you, George, that OBJECTIVE BURMA is fine war/propaganda/adventure film of the kind that Raoul Walsh was a master of.
Being a propaganda picture and, as you suggest, a document (in a sense) of its time, the references to the Japanese are simply how most Americans spoke in those war years.
The bigger problem with the film, from what we now call a "politically correct" viewpoint, which I'm sure you know, but worth mentioning, is that the contribution of British forces, who really were responsible for most of the Burma Theater, was scarcely referred.
Given the fact that Flynn, unlike many of Hollywood's British Colony, never attempted in real life to join up with Commonwealth military units, made him and OBJECTIVE BURMA personas non gratas in the British Empire for years after the war.
Fine review.
Regards.
[Macresarf1]
|
Nov 25 '04
12:41 pm PST
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.