Oh, come on. Hard Target was OK, but everybody knows that Bloodsport was Van Damme's finest work...

I will give HT it's due, though. The following line is priceless:

Generic Female Companion -- "What kind of name is Chance?"

Van Damme -- "My momma took one."

That there is some velvetta-textured goodness! Perfect delivery too. The man has talent.

Well, I won't comment on the pistol accuracy deal, or the "kill before capture" rant, but in my own career as a forward observer and forward air controller (circa 1984-1990), I frequently guided aircraft using "dumb" bombs to score direct hits on targets. I have no doubt that a seasoned pilot in a WWII-era plane could have done the same, and probably have done it even without an observer.

Besides, isn't it silly to rant about the inaccuracy of Hollywood explosions after, oh, 70-80 years of such fakery. I always loved the scene in Patton where he was taking on the Germans in North Africa because it was one of the few movie scenes I've seen where they actually showed artillery using "time" fuses (detonate approximately 20 meters off the deck).

(I'm not even getting into that whole "Marine" vs. "marine" spelling irritation.)

Gotta go with the Captain on Bloodsport. Timecop didn't totally suck, either. But the rest of his movies are notable mainly for the unintended comedy, and taking bets on how he'll work in a shot of himself doing the splits.

As for the movie, the "problems" the strategy page mentioned sound pretty weak to me. Those are right up there with the comic nerds poring over Spider-Man and posting all the continuity errors.

It's a Hollywood movie, it's a John Woo Hollywood movie, for Christsake! Expecting rigorous historical accuracy from it is like expecting unbiased reporting on the Middle East from the Guardian. It might be nice to dream about, but it isn't gonna happen.

The criticisms of the special effects could be fairly applied to just about any war movie ever made. Hollywood routinely uses kerosene and the like to simulate explosions - it's safer, cheaper, and looks a lot prettier on film than the real thing.

Most conventional explosives, (napalm aside, of course) have little visible effect. I recall being sorely disappointed the first time I saw a real grenade explode - nothing like those lovely fireballs I saw watching Combat or The Rat Patrol as a kid.

As for the other criticisms, again, fairly standard TV/Hollywood fare. Give 'em a little poetic license, willya? Did this same guy say AOTC sucked because the ships made those cool droning sounds when they're whipping around, and we could *hear* the explosions?

How many times did we see Mannix or Kojak plugging Bad Guys at 50 yards with a .38 snubby? There are some guys, mostly IPSC champs, that can hit three running guys at 20 meters with a .45, but there isn't anybody the can nail 'em with a 2" .38.

The movie, (which I haven't seen) may have sucked, but if that's the worst anyone can say about it, then it can't be all that bad.

Methinks he praises with faint damns.

C'mon, folks!

YES, there should be accuracy in movies. And, let's face it, the first twenty minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" are pretty scarily realistic. But that being said, I'm not sure every movie CAN, nor SHOULD, be that real.

I go to movies to be entertained. So long as we don't have the twenty-shot revolver, the hyper-hand-grenade which blows guys twenty feet in the air, and the survives-twenty-clips-at-20-feet routine so beloved of Sly and Ahnold, I'm happy. (Actually, even those sorts of things are okay in cartoonish violence movies a la "Commando" and "Rambo-II".)

I was VERY impressed by the previews, where you actually see Japanese tanks, and they're anatomically correct. I mean, I've NEVER seen a Chi-Ha Type 97 tank in any movie, even the old b&w WWII ones. Kudoes for that alone! If they can avoid the silliness in "Pearl Harbor" (like having fighter pilots fly B-25s), and the horrible acting of "Thin Red Line," I'll be happy.

Just a thought....

My problem is this was just too good an opportunity do so some entertaining history. Let John Woo make fantasy action flicks, and leave the history to those who care about it.

Actually, a later pistol scene was even more miraculous, as three shots down four or five Japanese soldiers.

I may be wrong on this, but the planes seemed to be flying way too low to be dropping bombs. I think Woo wanted to get them into the same shot as the explosion...plus, they looked like Wildcats or Hellcats instead of Dauntlesses or Helldivers.

1911 .45's are pretty damned accurate pistols, folks. I can put three rounds through the same hole in a target at 10 meters. I can't imagine you'd have much trouble dropping a three human-sized targets with three rounds at 20 meters. Course, the real inaccuracy lies in the fact that you always double-tap the trigger, juuuuust to make sure. :)

Want serious problems with John Woo? Rent the tasty little heist flick "Topkapi"

If you're going to steal big, at least file off the serial numbers and add improvements if you can. If not, don't.

BTW, Tom's right right right about the 1911s.

I have a lot of respect for Jim Dunnigan and Austin Bay, but I shoot pistols competitvely and they don't. They are not completely accurate with their comment on M1911 pistols.

Granted, not every Marine is Alvin York material.

Having white Marines killing minorities is more "hate the military" draft dodging Hollywood propaganda. The material is deliberately put in there by 60's hippies and draft dodgers to make the audience mistrust the military and thereby valadate their 60's avoidance of service..

The most seriously horrifying John Woo film was Hard Boiled. Wanna know why?

Because at the end of the film, there is a massive, blazing shootout at a hospital.

Included in the crossfire are cripples.

That's right--people in wheelchairs, on crutches, amputees--they all happen to be around when the shooting starts, and they get mowed down mercilessly, like it's just some big giant videogame. It's almost like the good guys and bad guys took a break from shooting one another, and decided "hey, let's just annihilate the gimps. After all, they can't run away."

Woo is going to Hell for that one. I know it.

At first I thought:" OK they would be ordered to kill the codetalkers, so that the Japanese wouldn't get the code, and sure, the Navahos would be saintly heroes who would risk their lives by getting into just such situations where they would get captured, but then I thought, what could they do even if they tortured one of them to get a complete Navaho dictionary, call in fake air strikes? With no accent? Using proper radio frequencies, callsigns and other communications security procedures?
And then I remembered how many Marines were captured on Saipan (none) and then I took a pass on the whole movie.
What a waste of celluloid.

Complaining that a John Woo film has unrealistic violence is like complaining that a hollywood musical is unrealistic because in real life people don't spntaneously breakout into song, a full orchestra behind them.

Also, as a practical matter, one should assume that ANY film allegedly based on historical events is in fact entirely fictional unless proven otherwise. Hollywood is a god awful place to expect accuracy in historical recreation.

Come on Pejman, get a grip. Hardboiled is pure fantasy - and the bad guys got what was coming to them for shooting the "cripples".

As for the .45 issue: they are a surprisingly accurate and powerful weapon. I used to own a 1911-A1 manufactured in WW2 by Remington Rand (the typewriter company yet). Moving targets at 20 yards are viable for a decent shot, even with the rather basic trigger and diminutive fixed sights.

I'd just like to add to Tom's comments about the .45. I can generally get a one inch group with a Taurus PT145 at ten yards. I doubt if I'd have much problem in getting a vital spot at twenty - although moving targets does complicate things a bit. And with a .45, you don't have to put a slug between the eyes to knock a man down.

It sounds like accuracy with M1911 .45s is to a large extent a training issue.

Before my first Red Sea deployment they took a bunch of guys from my ship over to the range to qualify on .45, M-14, and shotgun. For a lot of us this was the first time handling small arms since boot. At boot I got to fire one clip of .22 from a blocked down .45. Any way that day at the range I fired three or four clips into a sillouette at 10 meters. I got all but three or four rounds into the shady part of the target. Out of 20 squids that was about average, a few better, afew worse, most about the same.

My point is that a trained target shooter might be able to make some good hits at twenty meters, but the average Joe is likely to have some problems.

Fine, RPD. I'll just have to assume that the guy who dropped the three Japanese soldiers in the movie was well-trained. :)

See, it can be done!. 8-)