Saving Private Ryan?

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

Was that movie a true story?

I do believe the invasion of Normandy did actually happen, yes.

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Yeah witpqs, I was pretty disappointed in TRL too.

It seems that the people who suffered the most, made some of the best films about it. The Germans and Russians have some really grim, gritty, gut twisting stuff.

Anybody seen Joseph Vilsmaier’s Stalingrad?

Fantastic film. Makes Enemy at the Gates look like Police Academy 6.

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I didn't specify that, Leo. I hated the whole film, from start to finish; every single aspect of it was repugnant.

There are times I think I might be T's evil twin.

Other way around, Bob...[:D]

[CV Zuikaku]

Don't know why you guys hate Thin red line that much. It's a fantastic movie. I think it much better describes soldier's feelings befor, during and after combat. Saving private Ryan is more action than war movie. Too much totally Rambo-style scenes, some very unrealistic scenes (germans sending open topped Marders unescorted to fight in the city, they don't send patrols and recons, they don't care too much about taking cover). Not to mention that German soldiers (of some elite SS unit) in the movie seems to be totally retarded, dumb and unorganised (Napoleonic style charges, they don't eliminate MG nests, snipers and fire teams- they just run arround to be mowed down). I don't like when one side in any movie is portrayed more dumb and easy to kill then in reality, because then it is not a war movie any more, but action movie. Yes, I think TRL is much better movie, although it lack some of the spectacular special effects from SPR. And TRL is in the Pacific [;)]

[CV Zuikaku]

Young lions is also a great movie!

[Terminus]

Well, we'll have to disagree on that one. TRL was awful...

[Footslogger]

The Longest Day was great but, one veteran that stormed the beaches said, "Nobody went charging up that hill!" [8|]

[MrPlow9]

If somebody wants to do a movie, Saving Private Messier, about Canadians who landed at Normandy and then struggle against Poles conscripted into the German defense forces and posted at Juno Beach, nothing is stopping them.

Please don't count the Canadians out and disregard their commitment and effort to D-day. Although the conditions were "easier" than Omaha, the Canadians still faced heavy opposition on the beach and during the days following the landings.

Although not the most reputable source, a quick Google on Juno beach came up with this:

"By the end of D-Day, 15,000 Canadians had been successfully landed, and the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division had penetrated further into France than any other Allied force, despite having faced strong resistance at the water's edge and later counterattacks on the beachhead by elements of the German 21st and 12th SS Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) Panzer divisions on 7 June and 8 June.

Yes, as a Canadian I am a little biased, but I just don't like it when Canada's commitment and effort to the war get understated.

Cheers,
MrPlow

[Yamato hugger]

Not to mention the Canadians 2 biggest handicaps: 1) they took their hockey sticks away and gave them rifles, and 2) they were under "Monty". [:D]

[Footslogger]

I always thought that the British generals never really cared about the men under them.  And wasn't there a Canadian Division that was a D-Day first try? I think it was at Deippe. 

[Misconduct]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Not to mention the Canadians 2 biggest handicaps: 1) they took their hockey sticks away and gave them rifles, and 2) they were under "Monty". [:D]

I really hate the fact Monty gets any credit at all, first off I am about to blow some steam, but it was not Monty that kicked rommel out of africa to begin with, it was fact the huge allied armada that stopped rommel once his fuel and ammo ran short, only credits he deserves is for booting rommel back with the substantial resources he had available.

Secondly D-day gets ill credit for americans having the most casualties, which overshadow the canadians and british landings, if it wasn't for either britain or canada the landings I am sure would of been more terrible then it was. Thirdly it was lessons gained at Deippe that helped the landings be more succesful at D-day, infact it wasn't the canadians being inexperienced, as the leader himself roberts was entirely the blame for this.

Problem with movies like saving private ryan is they have little choice to produce "american" war movies because it appeals patriotic to the country, hence why saving private ryan was about an american soldier, twist it around to a canadian soldier it probably would of been less successful. Honestly this is horse hockey the canadians, british, french, polish and all 200 other countries that contributed to the defeat deserve credit for the big picture.

My only visit to Normandy I spent more time in french villages tributing the resistance fighters, and the Dieppe Raiders then spending most my time at Omaha. Don't think I am trying to be political, I just felt so many others get less credit then they deserve.

I recently just celebrated ANZAC day, tributing the aussie and new zealanders that fought in the war, I know its 2 days old (I think im in florida, usa)

[witpqs]

Misconduct, you are quite right of course. But let's cut the guys who made SPR some slack. They got to make the movie they chose to make, good for them. The American guys who went there and did that deserved the tribute.

Do the Canadians, Brits, etc. who went there and did that deserve the same? Damn straight. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with SPR. As a poster said earlier, if someone wants to go and make that movie (Canadian contributions), or that movie (UK contributions), etc. well that's just fine and certainly no one is stopping them. I feel perhaps that post got misinterpreted into some kind of disrespect, which it clearly wasn't (IMO).

I don't think the guys who made SPR wanted to make something else but were forced into making an American war movie because of market forces. Plenty of very fine movies have been made about the WWII experiences of people and nations other than American and I'm sure more will be made. Why the sour grapes about SPR being well-received?

Anybody going around saying the Americans did the whole deed in WWII certainly would be full of horse hockey pucks, and there probably are some out there. Still, ignorance of history on the part of some does not and should not diminish the rightful recognition that SPR made of American WWII vets and what they did.

I certainly agree that many out there get less credit than they deserve. I just don't see that giving recognition to one should be seen as somehow slighting another.

[Doggie]

SPR took all the movie and comic book cliches about world war II and bloodied them up.
There's the shell shocked officer that does the right thing in the end; the cowardly soldier that finds his courage; the sniper who takes a round through the scope; the sniveling nazi who pretends to be an innocent conscript; and the holy joe who does God's work with an '03 Springfield.

It's everything you've seen before in world war II movies, but filmed in a way that makes it look more realistic.

It's obvious that Spielberg was influenced by early sixties era television series like Combat and The Gallant Men. Just as Indiana Jones was a re-telling of fifties era serials.

In a new era, without the restraints of TV censorship, he could present the same stories in a much more vivid and graphic fashion. What couldn't be shown on TV in 1963 was good to go in 1998.

That which shall not be named was a disgrace, and an insult to everyone who fought in the Pacific.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: MrPlow9

If somebody wants to do a movie, Saving Private Messier, about Canadians who landed at Normandy and then struggle against Poles conscripted into the German defense forces and posted at Juno Beach, nothing is stopping them.

Please don't count the Canadians out and disregard their commitment and effort to D-day. Although the conditions were "easier" than Omaha, the Canadians still faced heavy opposition on the beach and during the days following the landings.

Although not the most reputable source, a quick Google on Juno beach came up with this:

"By the end of D-Day, 15,000 Canadians had been successfully landed, and the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division had penetrated further into France than any other Allied force, despite having faced strong resistance at the water's edge and later counterattacks on the beachhead by elements of the German 21st and 12th SS Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) Panzer divisions on 7 June and 8 June.

Yes, as a Canadian I am a little biased, but I just don't like it when Canada's commitment and effort to the war get understated.

Cheers,
MrPlow

You found a slight where none was intended or stated. My point was that you could make a movie about any number of combinations of nationalities involved in WWII, not just the "Americans and Germans" featured in Saving Private Ryan.

[John Lansford]

By 1944 the British were starting to scrape the bottom of their manpower barrel.  They realized that this was going to mean that the US, with nearly unlimited manpower reserves, was going to dominate the conduct of the war more and more as their infantry and armored divisions took over more of the fighting.  While some of the British beaches were hard fought, the presence of the "funnies" and better terrain meant they had a much larger foothold on the beach than the US did at Omaha and Utah.  In fact, Eisenhower thought at one point to evacuate the men off of Omaha and divert the rest of the men headed there to other beaches, but was persuaded to hang on and let the fighting continue there.  Had he pulled the men off of Omaha, Utah and the US airborne divisions would have been isolated and perhaps even threatened with destruction, but the British/Canadian forces would have gained additional punch from the followup divisions reinforcing them.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Doggie

SPR took all the movie and comic book cliches about world war II and bloodied them up.
There's the shell shocked officer that does the right thing in the end; the cowardly soldier that finds his courage; the sniper who takes a round through the scope; the sniveling nazi who pretends to be an innocent conscript; and the holy joe who does God's work with an '03 Springfield.

It's everything you've seen before in world war II movies, but filmed in a way that makes it look more realistic.

It's obvious that Spielberg was influenced by early sixties era television series like Combat and The Gallant Men. Just as Indiana Jones was a re-telling of fifties era serials.

In a new era, without the restraints of TV censorship, he could present the same stories in a much more vivid and graphic fashion. What couldn't be shown on TV in 1963 was good to go in 1998.

That which shall not be named was a disgrace, and an insult to everyone who fought in the Pacific.

The "movie which cannot be named" is proof that you can take an event which is in the blood and soul of every thinking American, an event deep-rooted in the very fiber of the "American Fighting Man", and still manage to alienate all of them at the box office.
One must wonder to what audience they may have been pandering to?
Indeed, this may have been the film version of the play Mel Brooks described in "The Producers".*

*No smiley faces nor joke is meant to be considered in my comment.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I didn't specify that, Leo. I hated the whole film, from start to finish; every single aspect of it was repugnant.

I don't know... the "Thin Red Line" was very fascinating movie... it had something different and special about itself...

#1
The cinematography is superb

#2
The actions scenes are top notch

#3
There is aspect that all other war (action) movies miss - inner thoughts / feelings of a character...


IMHO the "Thin Red Line" movie by Mallick is, for me, closer to what I felt when I read the book (and other similar books made after WWII - for example "Naked and the Dead") !

Leo I thought it was a horrible aspect of the movie. It seems very few manage to pull that off successfully. In TLR the 'thought' monologues were just too disjointed from the ongoing scene. I don't mean that the characters were thinking something unrelated, I mean that the audio + audio effects used for the thoughts were a failure. Instead of pulling you deeper into the scene and/or character they had the opposite effect and threw you out of the scene.

Most of the cinematography was good, but the only actual good part of the movie was the beautiful scenery. I hated TLR and thought it was worse that 'That Other Movie'.

Hey... the world would be pretty dull place if we all thought the same... many of you guys hate the guts of "The Thin Red Line" while I like it... [:D]

BTW, as I wrote before, the "The Thin Red Line" movie by Mallick is very very close to what I felt when I read the original book "The Thin Red Line" by James Jones and to what i felt when I read the "The Naked and the Dead" by Norman Mailer.


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: JWE

Yeah witpqs, I was pretty disappointed in TRL too.

It seems that the people who suffered the most, made some of the best films about it. The Germans and Russians have some really grim, gritty, gut twisting stuff.

Anybody seen Joseph Vilsmaier’s Stalingrad?

Fantastic film. Makes Enemy at the Gates look like Police Academy 6.

I watched the Stalingrad by Joseph Vilsmaier... very good hard movie... I can still picture that storage room full with everything they found ner the end...


BTW, one other WWII movie that is very strange is the Russian movie called "Ivanovo detstvo" or "Ivan's Childhood" (many tmes called "My Name is Ivan") by Andrei Tarkovsky... it has the same dream-like feel the "The Thin red Line" by Mallick...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_is_Ivan

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056111/


Have you guys seen it?



Leo "Apollo11"

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,
BTW, one other WWII movie that is very strange is the Russian movie called "Ivanovo detstvo" or "Ivan's Childhood" (many tmes called "My Name is Ivan") by Andrei Tarkovsky... it has the same dream-like feel the "The Thin red Line" by Mallick...
Have you guys seen it?
Leo "Apollo11"

I have not, Leo. But now you mention it, I will make the effort.

Thank you.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hey... the world would be pretty dull place if we all thought the same... many of you guys hate the guts of "The Thin Red Line" while I like it... [:D]

BTW, as I wrote before, the "The Thin Red Line" movie by Mallick is very very close to what I felt when I read the original book "The Thin Red Line" by James Jones and to what i felt when I read the "The Naked and the Dead" by Norman Mailer.


Leo "Apollo11"

Oh I agree! The written word is always chancy because it lacks tone of voice. Mine was purely discussion. When I saw TRL I was ready to leave part way through (stayed though), I hated it that much. I found the thought sequences particularly bad, so when you said you loved them I wanted to put up my observations for discussion.

I haven't read those two books, but your recommendation is putting them on my list.