Are military movies hard to watch because they are poorly executed?

I have always love war movies. Growing up my dad and I would sit and watch them together. My dad was a former Marine and he would always point out what is wrong and why they changed ranks and awards. So once I joined the military I pretty much knew what to expect. Watching war movies now have a different perspective for me. My adrenaline raises and I feel like I am there. I run through scenarios as I see them on the screen and I have yelled at the TV at soldiers for doing stupid things. But then I realize its just a movie.

Ones like the latest, American Sniper, was great to watch because it was based on a real person and it made me feel proud to be an American Veteran. But I do look at military movies differently then before I became a soldier

I remember growing up in the 70s/early 80s when all the "action movies" loved to spin about the disgruntled Vietnam vet, seeking revenge and righting wrongs, but then the newscasts loved to spin any criminal activity involving a Vietnam vet as well. I have seen a growing trend of the same kind of thing of late with OIF/OEF vets. Gotta admit thought that the biggest tick off is when they do shitty stuff to the uniforms!! That's probably where those Stolen Valor ass-hats get the ideas I have seen posted on FB!

Honestly, before I watch any military movie I ask my battles if they thought it was any good. Not all movies get it wrong. Some good examples are Act of Valor, Lone Survivor and American Sniper.

I don't get too spun over inaccuracies as long as they are not too ridiculous. I get annoyed in some flicks where they make military personnel out like a bunch of hard nose robotic DB's with some sort of psychosis. Or they always have the gruf general who is just ranting and raving like a mad man.

I tech advised for a film. Having done that provided some insights for why certain things are done a certain way. Technical inaccuracies can be the result of two things. One is that the tech adviser may have to leave in inaccuracies by design because you cant speak to them because of the confines of opsec. Two the director will generally take a dramatic licence to certain areas to spice up the movie. You have to realize that the movie has one purpose. That is to be compelling to a mass audience and sell tickets, to recoup the investment made in developing a film. It is a delicate balance to make a story real but also compelling.

The problem is and this opened my eyes a bit, is that we have the curse of knowledge on what we did in our profession. The goal is to try to sum and give the audience the big picture of what it is like to be in the role that the character is trying to portray. In some cases this results in some items being left out and some embellishments left in place. The film only has an hour and a half to two hours to tell that story. In that time you have to develop the characters so the audience can empathize with them. At the same time you have have keep the film fluid with events and circumstances that keep the audience interest up and keep the story moving.

I guess what I look at is the picture of the story. Is it plausible and is accurate enough on the large scale to overshadow myopic insurances? If so then I feel the director did his/her job. If not then it will be bomb at the box offices and will probably have other issues with the direction that will not be so compelling to the non military audience.

Not saying that there are not some real gold wrapped turds out there. But I think for the most part from what I have seen is that 80% of the mil flicks I have seen do the job well for the most part.

While I thought Rihanna looked damn good in the NWUs.... I LOLed watching Battleship at all the things they got wrong. But then again, it IS just a movie and not a documentary.

Unless it's a "documentary", the lack of accuracy is no big deal. Movies are entertainment, not religious instruction.

For years the Hollywood crowd wasted millions making movies no one would go to see. They would re-tell the same story over and over again. The uniforms and times they took place would change, but in the end the story was always the same over worked story line.. Soldiers who disobey incompetent officers, sadistic sergeants, a main character who deserts because war crimes he participated in or witnessed and did nothing about. The main character may go home and kill himself. If they wanted to add a twist they would have him kills his whole family--- and then kill himself. That about sums up the story line of the average Hollywood masterpiece on war. Around 2002 Mel Gibson made "We Were Soldiers" After than even the liberal Hollywood types realized they couldn't afford to keep re-living their rebellious youth of the 60's. If they actually had a rebellious youth at all.

Although I agree, you all have to remember in order to portray a soldier of any rank as an actor, by law, something had to be wrong with the uniform. Either the awards, the rank, the patches, something. If it was all correct they would have to have been prior military.

I prefer not to watch fairly-realistic war movies but loved Battleship or Godzilla.

I can't stand watching movies where soldiers are out of uniform or the brass is on incorrectly. If the movies are going to show the military, it should be done respectively and in good taste IAW AR-670-1.