I don't even remember when they depicted Americans that way. as far as I recall, all the soldiers were just regular people who would rather not be fighting, but seem suspiciously like russian extras who were dubbed over by American zoomers.
I think the pilots in the first act were portrayed as sadistic when they were looping back to strafe the dead bodies
The Sacrifice just depicted them as misguided and detached from the reality of their actions.
The main American guy is a pilot that is doing bombing runs and he's not presented as comically evil, just totally ignorant of why he's even there.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
lmao
Fury is a 2014 American war film written, directed, and co-produced by David Ayer. It stars Brad Pitt with Shia LaBeouf, Logan Lerman, Michael Peña, and Jon Bernthal as members of an American tank crew fighting in Nazi Germany during the final weeks of the European theater of World War II. Ayer was influenced by the service of military veterans in his family and by reading books such as Belton Y. Cooper's Death Traps, a 1998 memoir that underscores the high casualty rates suffered by American tank crews in combat against their better-equipped German counterparts.
The Battle at Lake Changjin (Chinese: 长津湖) is a 2021 Chinese war film co-directed and co-produced by Chen Kaige, Tsui Hark and Dante Lam, written by Lan Xiaolong and Huang Jianxin, and starring Wu Jing and Jackson Yee. It was commissioned by the Central Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party as part of the Party's 100th anniversary celebrations. The film depicts the story of the North Korea-allied Chinese People's Volunteer Army, forcing U.S. forces to withdraw in a fictionalized retelling of the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir during the Korean War.
One is a 'fictionalized piece of commie propaganda', and the other is 'inspired by true stories'
Which is funny because Cooper was an absolute hack and the Sherman had the highest survivability rate if any tank that saw actual combat in the war. History is writen by victors, unless the defeated are a bunch of Nazis, and apparently they get to write about what "actually" happend.
It should be noted that the high survivability rate of Shermans was not because they were better, but because there were so many of them.
That's not how survivability calculations work. It's calculated by comparing tanks lost to tank crew casualties. Like how cars are absolutely safer today since automobile fatalities have remained more or less unchaged fir the past 50 years despite the number of cars and drivers on the roads tripling in that time. Every man had his own escape hatch, and the tanks were purpose built for reliability and safety. You couldn't just take a tank from Normandy and put it on a liberty ship back to Detroit to get it serviced. They had to be robust and easy to maintain in the field, while keeeping the expirienced crew safe, since a seasoned tank crew is worth more than 10 tanks with no one to operate them.
German panzers had high kill rates for two reasons: they were on the defensive by the time the Sherman made it's way to Europe, so panzers got to initiate most encounters, giving them a massive advantage, and the kill rates mostly come from the Germans, who lied through their teeth anout how many Allied planes and tanks they destroyed throughout the war for propaganda purposes. And how can you verify the tank commander's claim of three enemy tanks destroyed with all crew eliminated when the site is now behind enemy lines? And why would Goebbles even care to verify when he could use those preposterous claims to claim the German war effort was doing just fine?
To be fair, it was a pretty well designed tank and crew survivability as well as ergonomics was a big factor, meaning Sherman crews had a pretty good rate of survival (the implementation of wet ammo storage is also a big one for that)
It wasn't bad, but the main advantage was its suitability for mass production.
American tank crews in combat against their better-equipped German counterparts
If the Germans were better equipped than the Americans in the final weeks of the war (after getting btfo) then does that mean the Americans were supplying INFERIOR EQUIPMENT to the Soviets? So much for "the Soviets couldn't win without lend lease," it was actually holding them back
Some information:
The film depicts the story of the North Korea-allied Chinese People's Volunteer Army, forcing U.S. forces to withdraw in a fictionalized retelling of the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir during the Korean War.
The Battle at Lake Changjin is the most expensive film ever produced in China, with a budget of $200 million. The film grossed $913 million at the worldwide box office, making it the second-highest-grossing film of 2021, the highest-grossing Chinese film of all time, the highest-grossing non-English film, and the second highest-grossing film in a single market.
And some good Anglos:
Reviewing for Forbes, Scott Mendelson said "It’s arguably no more jingoistic, at least until the final montage, than (offhand) Pearl Harbor or We Were Soldiers." He further described the film as spectacular with its "copious mass battle sequences and intricate action set pieces" against what was a "pretty dry war picture" and a "generic war actioner" when compared with The Eight Hundred.
Reviewing in The Independent, Louis Chilton wrote that, while it was fair to describe the film as propaganda, the same criticism should be directed at similar American films such as American Sniper or Captain Marvel.
This one, the first of the two is excellent. It's a great story and has fun characterization between the two brothers. I really liked the guys being dudes, rough housing and bantering. That's in every war movie so it was fun to see the Chinese national pride version of that trope.
The other thing the movie did really well was portrays the fearsome and inviolable power of airstrikes against light armed infantry. The American military is made of titanic, metal monstrosities that deal death with impunity. The soldiers the story centers on just have to hunker down and take it. You never see that version of American military power on screen in western films.
Finally, the sequence where MacArthur rolls up to the Korean peninsula with the fleet and the camera pans over all the battleships, swoops around and lands on the reflection in his aviators is absolutely
This scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1o0JlNhFvg
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
That reminds me, I've still gotta watch the sequel: Water Gate Bridge.
The sequel sucks really hard. It's near unwatchable and has none of the charm or storytelling of the original. There are some cool "many people on screen at the same time" battle sequences so maybe it's not totally worthless, but it is far far worse than the original. The story and characterization is absolutely not there.
I know, I felt the same way. I liked the original and figured the second would be similar. Unfortunately they did revisionism and started talking nonsense
Have you seen Battleship Island? I thought it was pretty decent.
Yeah, I think you'll dig it. It's an interesting bit of history that gets overlooked.
Also, if y'all haven't watched The Wandering Earth, you're missing out.
