Replies

Okay, I just have to post again. I have not read either of the books the film was based on and I can still tell you what's wrong with your critique. The movie was a dramatization, not a documentary. Filmmakers make choices in presenting a historical subject. In the movie Patton the general is shown saying things at different times and places than he really made them, and there were actually two, not one soldiers he slapped. But does that detract from the film? Not really, since it showed the man and his achievements in their proper light.

But this is HISTORY. What you're saying is that Oliver Stone did nothing wrong with his "JFK" or "Alexander." Someone compared this to LOTR, but LOTR is fiction. A lot of people, and most kids, get all their history from the movies. I agree the ending with the film footage was terrific, only two people out of about 150 left before that ended. But history is history.

As far as the women go, there WAS a woman at the center of the underground. Her name was Claire Phillips (nicknamed "Highpockets") and she took great risks for the prisoners and was ultimately captured and tortured by the Japanese. Why not stick to THAT story? Sorry. Historical fiction is OK by me, but not fictional history. The movie was OK but could have been much better.

No, I did not say what Oliver Stone did was okay. In fact, Oliver Stone is one of the few people in Hollywood I personally boycott. He manipulates facts to try and show a different outcome to a historical incident. The makers of the Great Raid changed no more, and probably less, than what they did back in the day with films like Thirty Seconds over Tokyo or Charge of the Light Brigade.

The movie theater is not a history classroom. The Great Raid was an excellent film and perhaps the last of its kind, since it didn't do well. Expect more movies like Platoon and Three Kings, since I guess people won't support a film that shows the U.S. military in a good light.