It's called the Battle of Britain for a reason, Hollywood!

[lyore]

From Variety magazine, about the new Tom Cruise movie The Few -

"In 1940, expert German fighters had decimated the Royal Air Force to the point that there weren't enough pilots left to fly the Spitfire planes sitting idly in hangars," it said. "Unable to rouse the US into action, a desperate Winston Churchill hatched a covert effort to recruit civilian American pilots to join the RAF. Risking prison sentences in the then-neutral US, a ragtag bunch of pilots answered the call." The magazine also looked forward to "ferocious dogfights between the overmatched American pilots and the German ace fliers"

Wow. Isn't it lucky for the Brits that Tom Cruise came to save the day *gag*

For the record - according to the official records, there were 2986 guys who served in the RAF during the period known as the Battle of Britian. 9 were American. Which, if my calculations are correct, is about 0.003065% of the 'good guys'. Those American aces must have been really great - except for the minor detail that the real-life version of the Billy Fiske (TC's character) didn't shoot down a single plane. For that matter, they didn't even get the type of plane right.

I guess Winston Churchill really meant it when he said "Never was so much owed by so many to so few."

For a UK perspective of the new movie, try this article - http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/film/news/article55566.ece

My favourite bit - Hollywood's version of the Second World War has already shown Americans capturing the Enigma code machine in U571 (they didn't) and leading The Great Escape from a German prisoner of war camp (also not true). Pearl Harbor even suggested that the RAF only thwarted the Luftwaffe in the summer of 1940 because US pilots popped across the Atlantic to help out. Now Mr Cruise looks set to expand on that with his own version of what Churchill called our "finest hour"

That sound? Is me banging my head against the wall.

Comments

[lyore.livejournal.com]

Is he also a religious whacko and the pawn of powerful corporate interests more interested in feathering their pockets than the good of the country?

Well, not really. We have a few religious nutters (Tony Abbot comes to mind) but Howard isn't too bad on that point - or at least, if he is, he has the sense to keep his mouth shut. Except when he's busy putting his foot in it about Islam/Muslims. And we don't seem to have the same problem with... um... corporate influence... as you do, but that's probably because we have a no-donations-from-companies/people rule when we run our elections. And the fact that we don't have a big enough industry base over here anyway :)

But dear old Johnny has a tendency to blindly follow Bush wherever he leads, without (imo) considering the consequences. He also has only a passing acquaintance with the truth, especially around election time - try looking up 'Children Overboard' in connection with him, if you're interested. Basically, he's just a brilliant example of a slimy, smarmy, self-serving politician who keeps getting elected because a) he's damn good at lying his way out of trouble when it counts, and b) the opposition hasn't managed to put up a decent candidate for years.

And all that was JMHO, of course :)

[necromage.livejournal.com]

For everything you just said: so true.

Goddamn labour - find someone decent so the oldies vote for you, too!