Nah, sorry, cannot second this one.
The topic clearly says "
good war movies", not "war movies", and even Harvey Keitel is part of the cast, it's one the worst war movies I've ever seen.
If a movie is seen as good or bad is also kind of personal taste. But when it comes to war movies with the plot placed within real history, it's a delicate topic to be handled very carefully, especially when fiction is mixed with facts. And that's exactly what this movie makes it so bad. It completely ignores facts to produce some complete fictive action spectacle glued together from some few picked and ripped apart historical facts.
Particulary the US american film industry loves to reproduce the plots so to remind again and again of their not to be valued enough part in WW II's european war theater. But presenting all US soldiers only as the smart heroic good guys, and all Germans always only as the shifty bad guys, it's not only way too simplified to look at those things, but it subtle whitewashes german history, and that's not good. Nazi Germany was not some kind of a "Darth Vader and his imperial storm troopers evil empire", some bad guys you can use for telling fantastic fairy tales about good against evil for children. It had by far some complete other quality. And it's not that simple.
When you've seen that movie U-571 only, without knowing any historical facts about its topic, you have at first a wrong idea how the real situation in the Atlantic Ocean in WW II was. But the worst part is, it hijacks the capture of an Enigma for the US Navy, which is not only a total downright lie, but an affront, a kick in the teeth of the Royal Navy and her seamen. The US Navy was almost completely uninvolved in this. It was pretty much the Royal Navy alone need to be honored for that success.
So, yes, the USA did more than a lot in WW II. And nobody in Europe will ever forget this, and everybody will be forever grateful for that - Thanks! - even without Hollywood.
But they did not everything, and not everything all alone. It's only fair not to forget the major part in WW II against nazi Germany was played by others. Thanks!
Point is, alas many people gain their historical knowledgde by movies only. And since the US film industry is by far the largest there is, so are most movies about or playing during WW II come from the USA, telling the point of view from US side. Per se there is nothing wrong with that. But an audience better never forget, cinema ain't no documentary. Those movies are neither made for teaching history, nor telling the truth. They are produced for entertainment. And to make money. When an audience forgets that and gathers their historical knowledge by movies only, or believe in them too strong, then they can get a distorted model of what really happened in their heads.
Example: There are movies about D-Day. The best ones are mentioned here in this thread. Not a single one of that movies claim, that operation was primarily an US operation. But since a movie's plot is mostly told by following a few characters, and those movies are primarily US origin, the plot is told primarily from the US american point of view. So there can be the impression the British were just a side show. If you don't know any true history of that operation, but seen those movies only, you get the impression, the majority if not all soldiers invaded the nothern coast of France have been US american soldiers only, and yes, some british were also part of that anyhow. But that's not true. There have been at least the same amount of British and Canadian soldiers that day. And later also Poles, French, Norwegians and soldiers by several other countries were involved to free Europe from nazi Germany. But since that is too complex for entertaining, such "details" are simply neglected for a movie's plot.
That's OK as long as it's not watched uncritically as some documentary, and the true historical facts are known.
That's exactly why Goebbels enlarged Germany's film industry during WW II and was keen to accelerate the invention of TV [Germany had the first (few, experimental) TV sets at the end of WW II], because he knew, people believe what they see in movies.
Passively listening to others talking combined with watching moving pictures demands consciously controlled watching to not settle directly unfiltered into memory. When it's entertainment nobody wants to watch critically. One wants to be passively entertained. One wants to have fun. That's no problem per se. But you always be better aware of what exactly you are watching. At least afterwards do a small critical review, not only repeat the catch lines and sententious sayings, and if there was enough titties and action, but also about the plot. And in case of historical, particular war movies do some few investigations, what the real facts are, what's partially true and what's ficition.
