I think the only country that's legit happened to was Iraq,
Usually it's more about how traumatized the POWs captured by your country's soldiers were. Unbroken being the major cinematic example, and all the stories about Senator McCain refusing early release and being tortured for it and the guy who blinked reports of torture out in morse code while reading a hostage statement in Vietnam being the more "stuff of legends" examples.
American Sniper is the only one I've seen where it's about how some soldier who didn't experience anything above the typical background humm of war felt about the whole thing.
Probably because being a US military troop is the least dangerous it's ever been, so the major condition most troops will face isn't death or permanent injury, but instead PTSD from having faced combat or Survivor's guilt from having been suddenly shifted off the rare doomed mission or patrol that still claims casualties at the last second.
Most enlisted troops are just career workers in camo with a REALLY rigorous on the job fitness program. There's a reason the US is everyone's intel and logistics repository, and it's because for every dollar spent on actually fighting, ten get spent on building up so much intelligence that the deck is as stacked as it can be before the cards even come out of the box to be dealt.
I don't know about the others, but MAS*H seems to be heavily anti-war. Hawkeye obviously has deep contempt for the war and generals, and the more pro-war characters are decipted as insufferable pieces of shit.
Vietnam movies were usually either about POW experiences or about the absolute pointlessness of it all, which doesn't really line up with "bombing your country and then making movies about how sad it made them"
I have literally never seen a depiction of Vietnam that was positive or shy of direct condemnation of how terrible it all was.
Seriously, even Forrest Gump's innocent portrayal of it still managed to underline in bold that it was all pointless, needless, and cruel beyond reason.
As others have said there’s a bunch more, but the one that really grinds my gears is The Covenant
We really spent 20 years telling these terps they and their families would be safe, then just fucking left and made a MOVIE about that shitty bullshit underhanded move?
Put every single goddamn joint chief in front of congress and ask why this is a fictional tale
Honestly what gets me about evac failures and abandonments is the Berlin Airlift.
We had the logistics to mount a months long rescue operation that could get everyone fleeing out decades before these rushed withdrawals.
Everyone in Saigon and Kabul could have been gotten out, fuck we could have mounted a rolling evac bringing collaborators behind lines and transporting them in a trickle so that the last folks out are in a relatively empty air schedule. Expanding and contracting sphere, keep everyone who's in it willingly behind the line so long as they willingly continue to move with it.
Same with games like CoD. Fucking Activision has former CIA execs working for them. And how they use real events in the games and spin them around to make America look like the good guy.
Technically correct, but your comment makes it sound like the military is actively commissioning movies, which is not the case.
When Hollywood wants to make historical or war movies, they have few options:
Buy the equipment - one military ship or airplane can be more than the whole movie's budget.
Prop/CGI - may look bad and doesn't guaranty to be cheaper.
Get all the gear for free, loaned out from the military (including training and specialists) - but they get to edit and approve your script.
I wish there were more options for independent and critical movie makers.
The person you replied to said "subsidized", which implies what you just explained. The US military provides support to movies and TVs. However, it would be naive to think that the military still doesn't try to influence the production. It's been a long time since I have listened to it but there was a podcast mentioning "Zero Dark Thirty" having influence from the CIA; and the movie is about justifying torture to get results for "the greater good". This is in spite of the report commissioned during the Obama era that torture never yielded any significant results.
Uhhhh... you DO realize Republicans have been screeching about a new civil war for years, right?
There is a HUGE portion of this country that would ABSOLUTELY bomb their neighbors if they could get away with it. A civil war might not destroy everything, but that's only happening to the Palestinians. The US is too big to repeat that travesty.
That's exactly what they want you to think! Muahhahah
Seriously though... It's not REALLY the US that's doing these things... It's the global oligarchy... They just use American soldiers because we were the only ones left with any after WW2 and it stuck. The oligarchy has no allegiance to any country or people and would absolutely bomb the shit out of America if it profited them.
I think the point of these movies are to inform the public of the brutality of war, and how shitty our government can be. It's purpose is to shine a light on it, which I do think is pretty useful. Otherwise, most of us may not have known about it, and would have a very different/heavily filtered view of our government.
Who is "we" and what are "our" goals? Those definitions will answer your question quickly enough.
All movies that glorify military violence should be treated cautiously even if the overall message is anti-war. Take Apocalypse Now. What will some people remember? The helicopters, Wagner, napalm in the morning. That's not saying there's no value in such movies, though.
Their goals: shine a light on how fucked war is. I cannot actually remember watching a war movie that didn't make me deeply saddened by the brutality. Apocalypse now is a perfect example.