The MOVIE thread

[BhamToTexas]

My buddy mixed the music for 'Oppenheiimer' (he mixes all of Nolan's films) and he suggests - if you can find one near you - see it on 70mm IMAX (larger print than normal IMAX, which is already large).

‘Oppenheimer’ 70mm IMAX Print Is So Big, Theaters Need to Build Around It

Christopher Nolan's "Oppenheimer" is so big even Hollywood's Chinese Theatre can't contain it. IMAX is building a new booth for the release.

www.indiewire.com

Already bought tickets for the one here in Dallas. Can't wait!

 

[81usaf92]

Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning was very good. Worth seeing in theaters. Cruise and practical stunts never disappoint

 

[81usaf92]

This looks good.

Love his competence on a battlefield. Wellington said his presence on the field of battle was worth 30,000 troops.
Invading Russia, not too bright.
Young Napoleon, like young Elvis, and young Mao, was better than old Napoleon, Elvis, and Mao.

Ridley Scott doing historical films always gives me pause. The fact that it’s obvious that he is covering the end of the French Revolution to the Battle of Waterloo while making a nonsensical romance story under 3 hours also gives me flashbacks of Kingdom of Heaven.

Napoleon is probably the greatest general to ever have lived. His battle of Austerlitz rivals The Battle of Cannea for the greatest battlefield strategy of all time, and he pretty much kicked everyone’s rear until his invasions of Spain and Russia. I would probably say Caesar and Khalid are probably the only generals that rival his greatness based on battles fought and damage to the enemy’s ability to fight. But Napoleon’s 43 battles is nothing short of amazing.

Sabernomics best generals in history

 

[Bazza]

 

[jthomas666]

View attachment 35194

Lord, I love this movie.

Bogart's delivery of the line, "Are my eyes really brown?" kills me. Every. Single. Time.

A few months ago it was on TCM and a bunch of my friends and I did an online group watch. It was glorious.

 

[dtgreg]

Ridley Scott doing historical films always gives me pause. The fact that it’s obvious that he is covering the end of the French Revolution to the Battle of Waterloo while making a nonsensical romance story under 3 hours also gives me flashbacks of Kingdom of Heaven.

Napoleon is probably the greatest general to ever have lived. His battle of Austerlitz rivals The Battle of Cannea for the greatest battlefield strategy of all time, and he pretty much kicked everyone’s rear until his invasions of Spain and Russia. I would probably say Caesar and Khalid are probably the only generals that rival his greatness based on battles fought and damage to the enemy’s ability to fight. But Napoleon’s 43 battles is nothing short of amazing.

Sabernomics best generals in history

I'm looking forward to Ridley Scott's take on the Corsican. Napoleon broke the European world by conducting Total War. An amazing tactician; like Peter the Great's striving to modernize of Russia, he attempted to drag the Continent by force into the Enlightenment. Like Peter, he was so flawed that in the end he was defeated short of his goals but his legacy is monumental.

As an aside, I was robbed of an education by the Kluxxers here in Alabama by the defamation of Grant's abilities as a General. His tactics at Vicksburg and the Mississippi Campaign rival Napoleon's talents.

 

[81usaf92]

As an aside, I was robbed of an education by the Kluxxers here in Alabama by the defamation of Grant's abilities as a General. His tactics at Vicksburg and the Mississippi Campaign rival Napoleon's talents.

Grant is always labeled a butcher, but really when you start to look at it he sacrifices less of a percentage of troops per engagement than Lee. The Southern perspective tries to show Lee and Jackson as these second comings of Napoleon and Grant as a guy that just won because of numbers. I personally think that had Napoleon been given a glimpse into the Civil War then he would probably viewed Grant, Sherman, and Henry Thomas as the best generals of the war.

Lee was a good general but not a great one. He didn’t have the manpower to lose but still he was to preoccupied with these “heroic” charges that dwindled his forces down over time. It took someone who was competent to go against him to make him finally pay for it. I’ve been to Gettysburg and seen seminary and cemetery ridge…. It’s gotta be one of the dumbest military decisions of all time to send men through that open field. Yet we constantly hear “cold Harbor”

 

[OakMtn4Bama]

Grant is always labeled a butcher, but really when you start to look at it he sacrifices less of a percentage of troops per engagement than Lee. The Southern perspective tries to show Lee and Jackson as these second comings of Napoleon and Grant as a guy that just won because of numbers. I personally think that had Napoleon been given a glimpse into the Civil War then he would probably viewed Grant, Sherman, and Henry Thomas as the best generals of the war.

Lee was a good general but not a great one. He didn’t have the manpower to lose but still he was to preoccupied with these “heroic” charges that dwindled his forces down over time. It took someone who was competent to go against him to make him finally pay for it. I’ve been to Gettysburg and seen seminary and cemetery ridge…. It’s gotta be one of the dumbest military decisions of all time to send men through that open field. Yet we constantly hear “cold Harbor”

Read Tom Carhart's Lost Triumph: Lee's Real Plan at Gettysburg and Why it Failed

Seems very logical to me and explains much.

Carhart was a West Point grad and decorated with the 101 Airborne in Vietnam. Later a lawyer and was a historian for the US Military.

 

[OakMtn4Bama]

View attachment 35194

Could be the best movie of all time. If not, it is up there. (IMHO)

 

[81usaf92]

Read Tom Carhart's Lost Triumph: Lee's Real Plan at Gettysburg and Why it Failed

Seems very logical to me and explains much.

Carhart was a West Point grad and decorated with the 101 Airborne in Vietnam. Later a lawyer and was a historian for the US Military.

I personally feel too much is made about Gettysburg because even if Lee were to win he probably is fighting in Virginia the next year still. Lee was hoping for an Austerlitz type victory but the problem is that Vicksburg happens a day later regardless. I don’t see the union getting close to surrendering even with a disaster at Gettysburg. So in a nutshell I don’t think Lee did anything but draw the Union army out of Virginia for a few months.

The truth is that the South probably lost the war once they fired on Ft Sumter. But the closest they probably got to actual victory was Antietam. I just see the Southern military strategy as flawed. They were facing an enemy with far more men and economic advantages yet the strategy seems to still be about winning points on the map through heroic charges and stands instead of prolonging a war by taken the enemy deeper into the country and choosing the battlefield. I mean that’s how the Americans beat the British

 

[dtgreg]

Grant is always labeled a butcher, but really when you start to look at it he sacrifices less of a percentage of troops per engagement than Lee. The Southern perspective tries to show Lee and Jackson as these second comings of Napoleon and Grant as a guy that just won because of numbers. I personally think that had Napoleon been given a glimpse into the Civil War then he would probably viewed Grant, Sherman, and Henry Thomas as the best generals of the war.

Lee was a good general but not a great one. He didn’t have the manpower to lose but still he was to preoccupied with these “heroic” charges that dwindled his forces down over time. It took someone who was competent to go against him to make him finally pay for it. I’ve been to Gettysburg and seen seminary and cemetery ridge…. It’s gotta be one of the dumbest military decisions of all time to send men through that open field. Yet we constantly hear “cold Harbor”

Lee was desperate to fight and defeat the Union army. The South couldn't afford a war of attrition and Lee's greatest fear was he would be unable to engage the enemy in the field and defeat them decisively. He therefore was willing to give the Union the high ground and even an an outnumbering of troops.

Why he didn't just let the Union troops stay on the ridge and march East toward D.C. unmolested I don't know. I'm sure he had a good reason. Surely he would have drawn them out. Hopefully someone here can explain it.

 

[CoachJeff]

This looks good.

Love his competence on a battlefield. Wellington said his presence on the field of battle was worth 30,000 troops.
Invading Russia, not too bright.
Young Napoleon, like young Elvis, and young Mao, was better than old Napoleon, Elvis, and Mao.

I'm about 50 pages into a 800 page biography of Napoleon. I figured as a middle aged man it's my duty to know more about him. Hopefully I'm done with it before the movie comes out.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I'm about 50 pages into a 800 page biography of Napoleon. I figured as a middle aged man it's my duty to know more about him. Hopefully I'm done with it before the movie comes out.

There’s a movie on Napoleon from 1927 that’s supposed to be one of the greatest of all time.

I’ve found DVDs on Amazon and elsewhere, but they’re Region 2 and I don’t have a multi-region player.

I’m hoping that the 2023 movie will be successful and spark a Region 1 version of the 1927 iteration.

 

[Bazza]

 

[dtgreg]

I'm about 50 pages into a 800 page biography of Napoleon. I figured as a middle aged man it's my duty to know more about him. Hopefully I'm done with it before the movie comes out.

History is so daunting. Where to start? How can one possibly comprehend the vast scope of civilization?

As a child I decided I would forego everything outside the 20th century. Once you feel you have a decent grasp of the here-and-now, you become curious of how preceding events got you here. And down the rabbit hole you go.

Napoleon and his time are fascinating.

 

[Tidewater]

I'm about 50 pages into a 800 page biography of Napoleon. I figured as a middle aged man it's my duty to know more about him. Hopefully I'm done with it before the movie comes out.

I have read David Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon several times.1095 pages of text. Chandler is a Brit, but his work deals fairly with le Tondu.

 

[81usaf92]

History is so daunting. Where to start? How can one possibly comprehend the vast scope of civilization?

As a child I decided I would forego everything outside the 20th century. Once you feel you have a decent grasp of the here-and-now, you become curious of how preceding events got you here. And down the rabbit hole you go.

Napoleon and his time are fascinating.

Want to get into something complicated… try the Crimean War, the European wars with the Ottomans, and The Hague conventions. All had direct effects on how the alliances were formed for WW1.

Personally if I were to say the most interesting figure besides Napoleon for the 19th century it would either be Bismarck or Teddy Roosevelt.

 

[OakMtn4Bama]

I personally feel too much is made about Gettysburg because even if Lee were to win he probably is fighting in Virginia the next year still. Lee was hoping for an Austerlitz type victory but the problem is that Vicksburg happens a day later regardless. I don’t see the union getting close to surrendering even with a disaster at Gettysburg. So in a nutshell I don’t think Lee did anything but draw the Union army out of Virginia for a few months.

The truth is that the South probably lost the war once they fired on Ft Sumter. But the closest they probably got to actual victory was Antietam. I just see the Southern military strategy as flawed. They were facing an enemy with far more men and economic advantages yet the strategy seems to still be about winning points on the map through heroic charges and stands instead of prolonging a war by taken the enemy deeper into the country and choosing the battlefield. I mean that’s how the Americans beat the British

I agree with most of what you say. Ft. Sumter was the turning point. Lee badly needed a military victory on the field for a variety of reasons. Northern will to fight, bringing in foreign allies, etc. But primarily he knew that if it dragged on there was no chance to win. Carhart theorizes that because West Point grads of the time were immersed in the battles and theories of Napoleon, that Lee was implementing a similar strategy at Gettysburg. He hoped that Stuart could assault the rear while Pickett was to be a diversion to hold the attention on the front. Stuart was to roll them up from behind, Custer had something to say about it, however. Very well written and an interesting theory.

 

[dtgreg]

Want to get into something complicated… try the Crimean War, the European wars with the Ottomans, and The Hague conventions. All had direct effects on how the alliances were formed for WW1.

Personally if I were to say the most interesting figure besides Napoleon for the 19th century it would either be Bismarck or Teddy Roosevelt.

Man, I could have sworn it was written by Robert Massie, but when I was a kid I read a biography about Charles XII of Sweden and his battles with Peter the Great of Russia. Talk about a blockbuster movie possibility, at least the way the story was written.

 

[Bazza]