OT: Saving Private Ryan

[GaryChildress]

I can't figure out what was so great about the movie. It was realistic at first (until it turned into a Rambo flick of a dozen infantrymen versus the entire German army at the end) but the initial realism wasn't applied toward any worthwhile end that I could tell. Is war hell, something to be avoided? Well Spielberg might of tried to pursue that avenue at first but it sort of degenerates into a nasty apologetic of sorts.

The movie tries to make a justification of war attrocities, the shooting of enemy prisoners (same logic could be applied equally to the shooting of American prisoners). Spielberg has to be the biggest weenie of them all. Like he wouldn't be the first one to turn tail and run in a battle. Naturally he tries to cover his own tracks with the war correspondent character who, of course, "comes to his senses" and shoots an enemy prisoner in the end to redeem his cowardly self. Moral of the story, you just have to kill an unarmed helpless soldier once in a while to get everyone else's attention. Great message!

Hell in the Pacific was a better movie.



Gary

[marky]

lol

they were only up against 2 tanks and maybe a platoon of infantry

smaller forces can defend a position like that

but yea ur right

i $^%%$^ hated that upham bastard

no balls i woulda shot him myself[:@]

[Drex]

I don't think atrocities had anything to do with the movie other than showed it occurred on both sides. rather it showed common men who behaved differently under the same conditions of duress and that some of those who lived through it only did so because of the sacrifice of others. I thought it was a very moving movie especially with the prologue and epilogue at the cemetery.

[marky]

yeah the end at the cemetary was the best

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: Drex

I thought it was a very moving movie especially with the prologue and epilogue at the cemetery.

Those were definitely well done. I thought the vet in the prologue/epilogue was Capt. whatshisname (Tom Hanks) at first. The depiction of the Omaha Beach landing deserves a mention too - arguably the best-done battle scene I've seen in a movie.

[Gen.Hoepner]

Every time i watch SPR i turn off the TV after the first 30 minutes. The D-Day scenes are just GREAT! The rest is BS imho.

Same for PH or Enemy at the gates.

When i think about the means they have today i just get p****d off to see how they use those millions...a bunch of crappy movies... and what gets me even more *****d is that every single war movie is "seen" always by the same side...the winners[:(]...or when it's on the losers' side ( like Das Boot-which is great, or Stalingrad) it always shows the worst years.....never the 1939-1941 period....

Do not even talk about the italian movies about our war....you're lucky you cannot probably see them ( 'cause i doubt they're translated)

[Terminus]

Well, strictly speaking, Pearl Harbor and Enemy at the Gates aren't war films, so you can't really condemn them as such.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Drex

I don't think atrocities had anything to do with the movie other than showed it occurred on both sides. rather it showed common men who behaved differently under the same conditions of duress and that some of those who lived through it only did so because of the sacrifice of others. I thought it was a very moving movie especially with the prologue and epilogue at the cemetery.

I'll go with the cemetary scene as a good scene. Still it left a bad taste in my stomach with the shooting of the German prisoner in the end (that he should even show up again in the movie should be a one in a million shot in reality). I think Spielberg tries to gain too much sympathy for the position of the one shooting the prisoner--like we're supposed to look at that German as particularly worthy of being shot after cold bloodedly driving the knife into one of the protagonists who had earlier let him go on condition that he surrender to the first Allied unit he encountered. Why does Spielberg go to the trouble to villify in order to create a worthy victim. An attrocity is a nasty thing no matter who does it.

The movie seems sort of gratuitous. Sure we all appreciate the veterans of WW2 who fought a war for a good cause (for the most part). But why try to justify war crimes? I don't see that as something our day and age needs to worry about--the justification of them. I would be more inclined to think that the villification of war itself is a more timely topic than the villification of civility in war. Had the movie been made back in the 40's, sure it would have been a timely one for those facing the war. But today? [8|]

[Gen.Hoepner]

Yes, ok...but can you imagine those starting scenes of PH....in a WAR movie?? with those means?? It would be awesome!

Same for Enemy at the gates...when you see the ju-87D ( i think it was that) that flies over the Volga River and you see the ruins of stalingrad to the horizont...that scene is just...it's just war!

Ok, the rest is love,kisses,sex and whatever...

[LoBaron]

saving private ryan has the typical hollywood style hero story. this alone makes it a bad (unrealistic) movie.

my top 5 war (anti-war) movies are still:

US:
born on the 4th of july

thin red line

german:
das boot ("the boat" though much is lost by the english translation) - IMO one of the best movies ever - at least the directors cut.

der untergang

stalingrad

[Gen.Hoepner]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Drex

I don't think atrocities had anything to do with the movie other than showed it occurred on both sides. rather it showed common men who behaved differently under the same conditions of duress and that some of those who lived through it only did so because of the sacrifice of others. I thought it was a very moving movie especially with the prologue and epilogue at the cemetery.

I'll go with the cemetary scene as a good scene. Still it left a bad taste in my stomach with the shooting of the German prisoner in the end (that he should even show up again in the movie should be a one in a million shot in reality). I think Spielberg tries to gain too much sympathy for the position of the one shooting the prisoner--like we're supposed to look at that German as particularly worthy of being shot after cold bloodedly driving the knife into one of the protagonists who had earlier let him go on condition that he surrender to the first Allied unit he encountered. Why does Spielberg go to the trouble to villify in order to create a worthy victim. An attrocity is a nasty thing no matter who does it.

The movie seems sort of gratuitous. Sure we all appreciate the veterans of WW2 who fought a war for a good cause (for the most part). But why try to justify war crimes? I don't see that as something our day and age needs to worry about--the justification of them. I would be more inclined to think that the villification of war itself is a more timely topic than the villification of civility in war. Had the movie been made back in the 40's, sure it would have been a timely one for those facing the war. But today? [8|]

What amazes me is that you can see this kind of.....let's say "morale" or "ethic" only in the WW2 movies...and usually only one-sided.
It's like when you read Livius or Polybius....the Cartaginians are ugly, barbarian-child-killers,pagans and they deserve to die, while the Romans are clean, morally untouchable like virgins and always good....
Do we really still need this sort of propaganda after 60 years?

[Terminus]

I thought Thin Red Line was bloody awful...[:@]

[Miller]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Drex

I don't think atrocities had anything to do with the movie other than showed it occurred on both sides. rather it showed common men who behaved differently under the same conditions of duress and that some of those who lived through it only did so because of the sacrifice of others. I thought it was a very moving movie especially with the prologue and epilogue at the cemetery.

I'll go with the cemetary scene as a good scene. Still it left a bad taste in my stomach with the shooting of the German prisoner in the end (that he should even show up again in the movie should be a one in a million shot in reality). I think Spielberg tries to gain too much sympathy for the position of the one shooting the prisoner--like we're supposed to look at that German as particularly worthy of being shot after cold bloodedly driving the knife into one of the protagonists who had earlier let him go on condition that he surrender to the first Allied unit he encountered. Why does Spielberg go to the trouble to villify in order to create a worthy victim. An attrocity is a nasty thing no matter who does it.

The movie seems sort of gratuitous. Sure we all appreciate the veterans of WW2 who fought a war for a good cause (for the most part). But why try to justify war crimes? I don't see that as something our day and age needs to worry about--the justification of them. I would be more inclined to think that the villification of war itself is a more timely topic than the villification of civility in war. Had the movie been made back in the 40's, sure it would have been a timely one for those facing the war. But today? [8|]

The German shot at the end is not in the knife fight, that German had a much bigger build, the crewcut hair causes the confusion....

Opening scene is good but the final battle is a let down in that the Americans enjoy a 20:1 kill ratio over the attacking Germans[8|]

[Gen.Hoepner]

Guys...when and if i will ever win the lottery there will be two things on my TOP LIST:

1- Make WITP II- World edition[:D]
2- Make a war movie totally different...something like "Life of Galland" or "Life of Skortzeni ( sp??)"[8D]...or something like " the Blau Division ( div 250) or the Scandinavian volounteers....i read some AWESOME books about these stories...the plot would be just great!

[LoBaron]

well i guess its a matter of taste.
but its a movie that shows some truths about war:
it doesnt matter if you are good, bad, black, white, strong, weak, brave or a coward. if your luck runs out youre dead.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner


What amazes me is that you can see this kind of.....let's say "morale" or "ethic" only in the WW2 movies...and usually only one-sided.
It's like when you read Livius or Polybius....the Cartaginians are ugly, barbarian-child-killers,pagans and they deserve to die, while the Romans are clean, morally untouchable like virgins and always good....
Do we really still need this sort of propaganda after 60 years?

I don't think so either. I didn't like Pearl Harbor either BTW--just wasn't a movie for our day and age I didn't think. [8|]

[Gen.Hoepner]

I too think TRL isn't really a war movie. For me a war movie is something different. Something that makes my heart pump more blood into the vains...TRD is too slow...to few combat scenes and none of them shows me what i want to see about the battle of Guadalcanal...

Well...not a ww2 movie but i think Once we were soldiers ...that is on my top list

[Terminus]

We Were Soldiers and Blackhawk Down are among my favorites as well...

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

I too think TRL isn't really a war movie. For me a war movie is something different.

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

I too think TRL isn't really a war movie. For me a war movie is something different.

Agreed.

Stalingrad, Das Boot, Longest Day and Platoon are among my favorites. ALso, while not really a war movie, you have to like the Ride of the Valkyries scene in Apocalypse Now.