Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This film was incredible! Has anyone else seen it? Your thoughts?

I saw it!Great movie!I love steve MCQueen!He is so cute and such a great actor!Too bad these sort of movies only come around once in a while!jm

The original?

Wonderful film, always on at Christmas, and you can escape all the inlaws by watching it

i love the great escape.
i watch it everytime its on tv.
i love its ending.

Originally posted by Dusty
This film was incredible! Has anyone else seen it? Your thoughts?

Very good

ANyone know where I can find the soundtrack for the movie?I looked on Amzon but could not find it anywhere!jm

Amazing movie, amazing music, amazing history, and great perfomances, specially by mr cool in person, steve maqueen.

Quite a good movie.
I enjoyed it, not on the level of some other films, but still fun and stuff.
Although to its credit, it did spawn a long running TV series in spoof of it.
(Hogans Heroes)

Not only did I see it, I lived it.

Originally posted by Dusty
This film was incredible! Has anyone else seen it? Your thoughts?

watching it today is painfull. propaganda like dialogue...bad american actors playing Germans...Unauthentic costumes...i mean the lsit goes on. I'm sure for its day it was an astounding and powerfull piece of cinema, but today its dated and pathetic

Any movie from that time is alot better then movies today.You have to admit to that!I mean come on those are actors back then!What movie could you possibly like alot better then "The Great Escape"jm

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Any movie from that time is alot better then movies today.You have to admit to that!I mean come on those are actors back then!What movie could you possibly like alot better then "The Great Escape"jm


Are you fukcing kidding me? I dont agree with that junk that actors arent what they used to be. That the Golden age of Hollywood is the only age in where good quality acting is found. Though actors from that time were un arguably very fine actors I believe modern actors have more diversity and depth. Granted the actors from the "Golden age" had cleaner and more fluffy scripts, which in effect didnt give them much to work with. i still believe actors today are much more finely attuned in their art, However this is due to the ground work that the greats have set.

There are many great films from times long ago that are more well rounded and solid than many films today standing the test of time through the acting writing and directing, but i do not think the great escape is one of these films. Time has degraded the dialogue and production to nothing more than humorous.

I kid you not.How can you compare Ford with Boghart or with a now a day actor with Steve Mcqueen?The actors are so much better.Back then you had to learn how to dance act and sing.
Now you get into movies because of good looks and not of good talent.
Well maybe sometimes but not alot of times.I can't believe you can not see how it is now a days.JM

Clearly, the movies, the scripts , the directors and the actors were better yesterday than now. Compare an actual director or actor with hitchock, welles, ford, chaplin, bogart, olivier, guiness, maqueen, douglas, lancaster, tracy, grant, stewart, fonda, davis, both hepburns, bergman, and a long etc.

The movies were better, the stories were betters, the directors were better and the actors were better. Surely, there are great stuff today and very talented people, but not so many as in the golden age.

One of the main problems are the special effects and the blockbusters. The little films with great quality about human and realistic stories are snubbed for the blockbusters, stupid movies with a lot of digital effects and a lot of bad performances and terrible scripts. But most of the people today are only interested in explosions and fantastic creatures , not about real movies.

Propaganda like dialogue? bad american actors playing germans? Dude, are you sure that you watched the great scape?

That is what I been saying.jm

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I kid you not.How can you compare Ford with Boghart or with a now a day actor with Steve Mcqueen?The actors are so much better.Back then you had to learn how to dance act and sing.
Now you get into movies because of good looks and not of good talent.
Well maybe sometimes but not alot of times.I can't believe you can not see how it is now a days.JM

I wouldn't call Bogart nor McQueen diverse actors, great yes but not diverse. Ford is a very biased comparison to pitch in.

Ok maybe it was a mistake using him.I was just saying that those older actors know how to acted alot better then some of these newer actors.JM

Alot of them were classicly trained, and the majority of British actors had alot of work on the stage; it's almost incomparable.

Certainly I'd think that Robert De Niro in his day could hold his own with Bogart on screen, or even(although I despise the thought) Russel Crowe with Kirk Doulgas.

The only difference nowadays is that the films themselves are different, they aim for a wider audience, and have to accomodate all that suggests in their films. I think Ralph Fienns does a better job at what he does in The Constant Gardener, but I think James Garner does better at what he does in The Great Escape. It's almost incomparable.

Time for a remake attempt maybe, not been many 2nd world war movies out since private ryan

Originally posted by bakerboy
Clearly, the movies, the scripts , the directors and the actors were better yesterday than now. Compare an actual director or actor with hitchock, welles, ford, chaplin, bogart, olivier, guiness, maqueen, douglas, lancaster, tracy, grant, stewart, fonda, davis, both hepburns, bergman, and a long etc.

The movies were better, the stories were betters, the directors were better and the actors were better. Surely, there are great stuff today and very talented people, but not so many as in the golden age.

One of the main problems are the special effects and the blockbusters. The little films with great quality about human and realistic stories are snubbed for the blockbusters, stupid movies with a lot of digital effects and a lot of bad performances and terrible scripts. But most of the people today are only interested in explosions and fantastic creatures , not about real movies.

As a movie fan i have to all but disaree with you barkerboy. Moves of today are unarguably far more technically superior. this isnt to say that modern movies are better or not just that technology and craft has advanced allowing deirectors more range in their vision. Which by circumstance gives for a much more engrossing exprience as a film fan. I'm not sit here and fire off names of fine directors and actors of today,because that will just lead into an opinion of whos the better actors which would result in a stalmate of opinions, but believe me There are just as many noteworthy actors of today as there were from the Golden age.

Movies today i believe are much more relevant and raw as they ever were in the "golden age" Our desensitized society allows for more raw intense scripts and subject content. This aswell isnt to say that scripts are better than yesteryear, just that the movie going aduience has become more sophisticated. The resaon i believe that movies were produced on a much larger consistency basis as back in the day is because hollywood consisted of a much smaller group. Actors and filmakers belonged in a little club during the golden age, every well known movie from back during the 30'-60' always had one of the top runing actors, producers or directors of the day. this Allowed for aduiences to connect to more movies and give them more of chance.

There are far more movies being produced today than there were of yesterday. Unlike yesteryear there is more than just one type of market in the movie industry, there is pulp, independant, mainstream, studio, and sub indy. Of course there are going to be more undesirable movies being spun out for the simple fact that there are more movies being made.

As far as blockbusters go, love them or hate them, they are made only for one purpose aside from making money, and that is to simply entertain a mass audience of many different tastes. This is why blockbusters are in fact simple movies. Blockbuster movies dont hinder fine art house story and character driven movies from being made, so idont even see what the point of arguing blockbuster as compared to movies form the golden age is.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Time for a remake attempt maybe, not been many 2nd world war movies out since private ryan

No, it's not time for one.

ah yeah what a classic.I can remember watching that movie on cable when I was a kid.

very good points A DarkSide Jedi and Bakerboy.well said.

Thanks Parker!I was not talking a bout the special efforts Rages it is about the acting and story line and that stuff!Movies suck because of the acting and bad story lines these days.
Compare to old movies they are nothing compare to the black and white or colored in movies.jm

Your really disregarding alot of talent, alot of effort and alot of brilliant films by saying that "Movies such because of bad acting and story lines these days". It's just such a silly thing to make an ignorant comment like that, that its hardly worth debating.

You just have to look a little off the beaten track to find those classics in the making; but then thats your lot if you want to be lazy and compare medicore films like Spiderman or Troy against the old classics, instead of those more than deserving of the comparison.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Thanks Parker!I was not talking a bout the special efforts Rages it is about the acting and story line and that stuff!Movies suck because of the acting and bad story lines these days.
Compare to old movies they are nothing compare to the black and white or colored in movies.jm

I didnt criticise the acting,or the plot, Infact i applaud it. I simply said that the dialogue aswell as production has aged poorly. What modern movies are you comparing to movies from yeasteryear? Name me four movies that you believe are examples of great cinema from that time which outrank movies of today, and i will name you four movies that are equal and superior.

It is a fact that in any trade and craft that with time, quality and effort improves. Though there are more simple un intellectual movies today, They are made this way on purpose. Blockcusters are made only to entertain on the most simple basis of cinema. All you have to do is stay away from these types of movies and focus more on the types of movies you enjoy and you will find movies that offer fine dialogue and acting. Today there is a movie made for almost every interest group. Acknowledging this, do as Kane said, look off the beaten path

Four from those times?

"Stalog 17"
"It's a mad mad mad world"
"The Great Escape"
"What ever happen to Baby jane"

oK start comparing!jm

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Four from those times?

"Stalog 17"
"It's a mad mad mad world"
"The Great Escape"
"What ever happen to Baby jane"

oK start comparing!jm

Apoc-NOW
Master and commander
Se7en
Godfather
Blade runner
eternal sunshine of the spotless mind
Band of Brothers

I'll stop here for now

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Four from those times?

"Stalog 17"
"It's a mad mad mad world"
"The Great Escape"
"What ever happen to Baby jane"

oK start comparing!jm

The Shawshank Redemption
Saving Private Ryan
The Fountain
Goodfellas

There's my four.

How can yo compare those with my list?The acting is nothing compare to the ones on the list.I have no idea why you would so?jm

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
How can yo compare those with my list?The acting is nothing compare to the ones on the list.I have no idea why you would so?jm

Are you kidding me? You must not have seen those movies. However, i wasnt focusing just on acting as well as an overall movie experience.

Here are some more for you to sink your acting tooth on

City of God
Pulp fiction
Goodfellas
Schindlers list
Ray
Raging bull
Being john Malkovich
munich
Shine
Silence of the lambs
The pledge
A beautifull mind

This list comes with hardly thinking but all offer uniquely superb acting performances, One can not say whether a movie is better than another. Im not trying to argue that, Rather than saying that movies have advanced in the craft of which they are made, and by effect the acting Rivals movies of the past.

I am at a loss on how you say that the acting in Godfather is not comparable to yesteryear...it contatins some of cinema's best and most memorable acting.

A-POC now...Even more staggering that you dont recognize the acting performances.

Master and commander...Superb story telling, Production design, and Russel Crowe is one of cinema's best character actors today, which i beleive is one of the most intense actors to come out of hollywood

Se7en, Very inventive story telling, captivating dialogue with a dark and atmospheric overtone. No movie from yesteryear catptured such a dark atmosphere. This goes back to my point that the subject content has evolved as the movie audience's have become more sophisticated.

Band of brothers...This god damn movie series speaks for itself, i mean really, There has been no other war film as realistic and thoufully written as this.

Im stopping there because i see in no way how i have not misproven your opinions, especially with a second list in which acting was the focal point of the films.

Raging Bull really puts the nail in the coffin to your argument ADarkSideJedi.

Originally posted by Dusty
This film was incredible! Has anyone else seen it? Your thoughts?

More to the point who has not?

Yup it's a classic wartime escape film.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Apoc-NOW
Master and commander
Se7en
Godfather
Blade runner
eternal sunshine of the spotless mind
Band of Brothers

I'll stop here for now

It's all a matter of opinion and taste, I loved the great escape good movie and acting, it still stands the test of time especially since it takes place in the 40's it can't age. not like say dirty harry which back then was suppose to take place in modern day, so you watch it now and it's aged, the indiana jones movies never age either cause they take place in the 30's

with your list, master and commander sucked
se7en sucked
blade runner sucked
eternal sunshing of the spotless mind sucked

but thats my opinion see how easy.

Originally posted by darthmaul1
It's all a matter of opinion and taste, I loved the great escape good movie and acting, it still stands the test of time especially since it takes place in the 40's it can't age. not like say dirty harry which back then was suppose to take place in modern day, so you watch it now and it's aged, the indiana jones movies never age either cause they take place in the 30's

with your list, master and commander sucked
se7en sucked
blade runner sucked
eternal sunshing of the spotless mind sucked

but thats my opinion see how easy.

To bad i wasnt arguing your opinion

Besides doesn no one read what is ever written on these posts. I wasnt arguing that the acting was poor numbnuts. Only that acting of today is still just as impressive as it was during the golden age. See How easy it could have been to have avoided this short discussion had you payed attention

Ragesmorse, i couldnt be more desagree with you. Im not talking only about the blockbusters, im talking about all the cinema. Yeah, today there are great movies too, and great actors , and great directors. But one thing is sure, take a list of great movies, directors, actors, actresses, etc from the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s and now take a list from the 80s to ourdays. Take it for granted, the first list is longer thatn the second one, and not only longer, much longer. I mean, this means something.

Yeah, blade runner or ranging bull are great movies, but im talking about modern cinema, from the 90s to our days. I mean: citizen kane, gone with the wind, casablanca, double idemnity, the apartment, some like it hot, psycho, north by nothwest, the godfather, on the waterfront, and a long etc.

What im talking about is that in our days, the are masterpieces, but much less than in the old days. The cinema was better in the golden age.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Yeah, today there are great movies too, and great actors , and great directors. But one thing is sure, take a list of great movies, directors, actors, actresses, etc from the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s and now take a list from the 80s to ourdays. Take it for granted, the first list is longer thatn the second one, and not only longer, much longer. I mean, this means something.

Ok, your comparing 6 decades against 3? Take to the point that in the latter, film studios would produce 52 films on average, compared to the 11 on average films a studio makes a year and your argument is already flawed.



Apocalypse Now, Raging Bull, Eternal Sunshine, The Shawshank Redemption, Se7en, Goodfellas, Being John Malchovic, City of God, Pulp Fiction, Donnie Darko, Traffic; all of these films are equal or surpassing of those films you mentioned.

Cinema was golden then because it lived in a glamorised and naive world.

You also have to understand that back then the movies had no bad words in it no sex or anything like that in it.And because of that it was a good movie.
Not everyone could be an actor that was only if they could sing acted and dance.Now adays that rule does not apply.and to me that is why most now aday movies suck!jm

Originally posted by bakerboy
Ragesmorse, i couldnt be more desagree with you. Im not talking only about the blockbusters, im talking about all the cinema. Yeah, today there are great movies too, and great actors , and great directors. But one thing is sure, take a list of great movies, directors, actors, actresses, etc from the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s and now take a list from the 80s to ourdays. Take it for granted, the first list is longer thatn the second one, and not only longer, much longer. I mean, this means something.

Yeah, blade runner or ranging bull are great movies, but im talking about modern cinema, from the 90s to our days. I mean: citizen kane, gone with the wind, casablanca, double idemnity, the apartment, some like it hot, psycho, north by nothwest, the godfather, on the waterfront, and a long etc.

What im talking about is that in our days, the are masterpieces, but much less than in the old days. The cinema was better in the golden age.

Im sorry man, But i was only naming a very small handfull of movies. No one is disagreeing with the fact that moives of the golden age are not examples of great cinema. However, for you to disregard the movies that have been birthed from the innovation and fine crafting from the golden age is kind of ridiculous.
Just as much innovation in directing and acting is apart of cinema today. This is because Cinema is more apart of culture today. Thus more focus and attention has been contributed to the art.
Also, the golden age of cinema ended in the 60's So you cannot lump the 60's and 70's into the golden age. The late 60's brought on a new revolution in film making Which more or less influenced the types of films we have today. At best you have the 30's to the mid 60's for the golden age.
The one thing that shows how far movies have come since the golden age is knowing that there are filmakers today still revolutionizing filmaking and changing what inspires people to make films. From acting, to technology, to editing. Movies of today are in a seperate league from movies from yesteryear. This isnt to say there better, Just different, but still just as good on all fronts.
there are Acting performaces, editing techniques, camera angles and lighting effects of today that couldnt have even been attempted in the 50's.
Film has transformed and evolved. I dont want to get in a pissing contest about what movies are better, but for every one movie you can name from the golden age, One can be named from todays cinema

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
You also have to understand that back then the movies had no bad words in it no sex or anything like that in it.And because of that it was a good movie.
Not everyone could be an actor that was only if they could sing acted and dance.Now adays that rule does not apply.and to me that is why most now aday movies suck!jm

Real Actors are only people that can sing and dance then?

Originally posted by exanda kane
Ok, your comparing 6 decades against 3? Take to the point that in the latter, film studios would produce 52 films on average, compared to the 11 on average films a studio makes a year and your argument is already flawed.



Apocalypse Now, Raging Bull, Eternal Sunshine, The Shawshank Redemption, Se7en, Goodfellas, Being John Malchovic, City of God, Pulp Fiction, Donnie Darko, Traffic; all of these films are equal or surpassing of those films you mentioned.

Cinema was golden then because it lived in a glamorised and naive world.

Well, as you want. Lets compare the 40s, the 50s and the 60s against the 80s, the 90s and the 00s. Golden age still win. More quality in the past decades.

False. Casablanca, citizen kane, the apartment,sunset bulevard, on the waterfront, or double idemnity are much much better than all those films, except apocalypse now , goodfellas , pulp fiction and ranging bull, that are in the same range.

That last sentence from you is absurd and ridiculous. Quality is quality, nobody is talking about navies worlds or something like that. A great actor is a great actor and a great movie is a great movie now and then.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Im sorry man, But i was only naming a very small handfull of movies. No one is disagreeing with the fact that moives of the golden age are not examples of great cinema. However, for you to disregard the movies that have been birthed from the innovation and fine crafting from the golden age is kind of ridiculous.
Just as much innovation in directing and acting is apart of cinema today. This is because Cinema is more apart of culture today. Thus more focus and attention has been contributed to the art.
Also, the golden age of cinema ended in the 60's So you cannot lump the 60's and 70's into the golden age. The late 60's brought on a new revolution in film making Which more or less influenced the types of films we have today. At best you have the 30's to the mid 60's for the golden age.
The one thing that shows how far movies have come since the golden age is knowing that there are filmakers today still revolutionizing filmaking and changing what inspires people to make films. From acting, to technology, to editing. Movies of today are in a seperate league from movies from yesteryear. This isnt to say there better, Just different, but still just as good on all fronts.
there are Acting performaces, editing techniques, camera angles and lighting effects of today that couldnt have even been attempted in the 50's.
Film has transformed and evolved. I dont want to get in a pissing contest about what movies are better, but for every one movie you can name from the golden age, One can be named from todays cinema

One thing is to name a movie, another very diffent one is to pair the quality of those movies. I mean, a group with citizen kane or casablanca or sunset bulevard or all about eve couldnt ever be compared with a grupt with traffic or seven or being john malkovich, the comparation is very poor.

We arent talking about technique and those things, because it cant be compared. Only watch and leartn how to value the avances and innovations of every time. Films like king kong, the invisible man or citizen kane did mean a lot of innovation and revolution at their time, but its natural, today those efects looks old because the time is different. But people like chaplin, welles, hitchock , murnau and many and many more innovated in so many ways that couldnt be telled with in a right way and do justice to it.

We are talking about script, direction and acting. In those ways, the golden age was far superior. In those times, there were like 10 ranging bull or 10 apocalypse now in a decade, if not better. Those times were better without any doubt.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Real Actors are only people that can sing and dance then?

If you want to value the talent of an actor , try and watch some silent cinema. A way to express many feelings without any words, all in the expressions and gesture.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Well, as you want. Lets compare the 40s, the 50s and the 60s against the 80s, the 90s and the 00s. Golden age still win. More quality in the past decades.

That's simply not true, and I'd like to here some evidence and proof behind your reason before you come back with a retort, and that's me disregarding the fact that the 60s and for the most part of it, the 50s aren't even considered in the Golden Age of Cinema.



That's just silly. Judging by your reply you simply regard a film of quality as having lavish stars, budgets (for their time bar Pulp Fiction) and lots of promotion, plus being the brainchild of a Hollywood studio.

No one is denying Citizen Kane, On the Waterfront or Casablanca aren't great films, but to deny that quality still exists on equal terms is a gross mistruth. Cinema is very different nowadays, there are more diverse markets out there and output is spread thinly between them all; not every potential star, writer or director heads for Hollywood these days.

Back in the Golden Age of cinema, for every few great films, there were a good 300 bad ones.



Exactly, and that is testimony to my and Rages point; quality still exists and because it isn't staring right at you in the multiplex doesn't mean doesn't there isn't any. Look around. If you don't find quality your obviously a very lazy observationist.

Originally posted by bakerboy
If you want to value the talent of an actor , try and watch some silent cinema. A way to express many feelings without any words, all in the expressions and gesture.

Yet a silent film actor might not be very good at little acting or poor still in the Theatre. Does that mean that actor isn't great? No, of course not, but it doesn't mean they are diverse.

Christian Bale, as an example is both very, very good at what modern cinema would call little acting and yet he is also a renowned stage talent. Might he be a great silent era actor is the moment warranted it? Maybe not, but does that make him any less of a great actor? Of course not. He still has quality and that can't be doubted.

Originally posted by bakerboy
One thing is to name a movie, another very diffent one is to pair the quality of those movies. I mean, a group with citizen kane or casablanca or sunset bulevard or all about eve couldnt ever be compared with a grupt with traffic or seven or being john malkovich, the comparation is very poor.

We arent talking about technique and those things, because it cant be compared. Only watch and leartn how to value the avances and innovations of every time. Films like king kong, the invisible man or citizen kane did mean a lot of innovation and revolution at their time, but its natural, today those efects looks old because the time is different. But people like chaplin, welles, hitchock , murnau and many and many more innovated in so many ways that couldnt be telled with in a right way and do justice to it.

We are talking about script, direction and acting. In those ways, the golden age was far superior. In those times, there were like 10 ranging bull or 10 apocalypse now in a decade, if not better. Those times were better without any doubt.

You sir obviously seem to be mis understanding what i am trying to say.
Time and time again, I ahve ben trying to say to you. That you CANT compare film of today with film of yesteryear, Because the social relevences have changed. Things that were important yesterday, are humourous today. You obvisouly cannot understand my point of continuingly saying that Film and acting has advanced because the audience has become more sophisticated. Style is dictacted by limits.Acting today has become more raw and authentic than it ever has been. Acting in the 50's was acting, acting today, Is capturing reality in a scene. Im sorry but i hate to burst your bubble, but

Apoc-now, Raging Bull, Eternal sunshine, Se7en,Goodfellas,city of god, Pulp fiction, Trainspotting,silence of the lambs, Requiem for a dream, radio days, annie hall, SAving Private Ryan,Braveheart,Last of the Mohicans, A beautifull mind, The insider, Aemelie,Schindlers list,Shine,The PLedge, The Departed,The 25th hour,Dances with Wolves,Quills,Fight Club,The Pianist, Dead man Walking, As good as it gets, Good night and good luck, Munich, American beauty, Once upon a time in America, Monster, little miss sunshine, A good year,Children of men, Gattaca,...

All Fit into the catagory of being just as intellectually captivating and intriguiging to the targeted audience, As citizen Kane, Casablanca, and etc.. were during their time. These films Offer Gripping Acting performaces, Streamlined and seemingly seamless directing and editing. And these are just a bit of a mere taste of the movie that you are obvisouly missing out on of today, Take a look sir, behind the shiny movies, and you will find the movies of quality, begging to be found and embraced. And yes, The golden age was Golden Only because it was galmourised. It led way for the Celebrity worshiping that we are currently doing today. It was Golden BEcause Hollywood was it, That was the place to be, That was paradise at that time, The shining image of America. Almost like a france, flaunting their art and crafts in everyones faces. Wake up and watch some movies, and please try to realize, That wasnt a space filler between a song and dance

Originally posted by exanda kane
Yet a silent film actor might not be very good at little acting or poor still in the Theatre. Does that mean that actor isn't great? No, of course not, but it doesn't mean they are diverse.

Christian Bale, as an example is both very, very good at what modern cinema would call little acting and yet he is also a renowned stage talent. Might he be a great silent era actor is the moment warranted it? Maybe not, but does that make him any less of a great actor? Of course not. He still has quality and that can't be doubted.


Boy, Kane just shattered your entire argument there

Yeah.Oh I love that movie so much.I love MCQueen. He's so cool!And the story is amazing, too.