Saving Private Ryan - Page 4




 
--
 
December 27th, 2004  
Charge 7
 
 
And then of course there is "The Longest Day" as well. Certainly gives everyone credit.
January 29th, 2005  
Warwick
 
The Longest Day is an oldy but a goody.
I own the 50th anniversary edition, still in black and white. Wish I had the colour version aswell.
January 29th, 2005  
D_Plus_One
 
As for not growing up with inaccuaracies about the invasion - it's Juno, not Juneau.
--
January 30th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
OOOPS AN eRROR oMg.
January 30th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Good save D_Plus_one. You kept millions of American school kids from growing up thinking the invasion took place in Alaska. :P
January 30th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
Good save D_Plus_one. You kept millions of American school kids from growing up thinking the invasion took place in Alaska. :P
That Stung, it really stung :P
January 31st, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
Good save D_Plus_one. You kept millions of American school kids from growing up thinking the invasion took place in Alaska. :P
That Stung, it really stung :P
hahahahaha!

brilliant!

i was thinking the other day that alot of the older war movies (esp a bridge too far) would do well to be remade with the same sort of budget/effects that saving private ryan/band of brothers got
February 4th, 2005  
easyaction
 
Saving Private Ryan is certainly a film to start discussions - even arguments!
Why is that? It should be regarded as a well made drama, ( which it is), but it fails to satisfy many - why is that?
Is it trying to be history? It certainly gives that impression, whatever Spielberg claims to the contrary. As has already been stated in this forum some of the US forces on D-Day were landed by RN personnel - some are still alive today. Spielberg, I believe, has claimed there were no Brits on Omaha. To my understanding some British personnel were landed on the beach.
I have read criticisms about factual irregularities in the film.
But, does it matter if this is simply Hollywood entertainment?
Well I don't think this film is intended simply as fictional drama.
It does lay claim to a factual foundation.
So - if Tom Hanks shouldn't be sheltering under fire on Omaha beach and wondering how the Brits are getting on, why does he discuss overall tactics with another US officer later in the film.
In the middle of his own small war he discusses the failed tactics of Montgomery.
I suspect this one short unnecessary part of the film is what gets some Brits going!
Whether Tom Hanks character liked it or not Monty wasn't just a foreign officer down the road.
By Allied agreement he was Overall Land Commander. In real terms he was in control of all land sea and air forces going into Normandy.
This only changed when Bradley assumed command of his own army and it ended when Eisenhower arrived to take command as Supreme Commander.
For all his faults, (and he had them), Monty was mostly right about Normandy. Any daring advance early on risked swift punishment from the enemy.
Penetration inland was important - capturing vital places was important.
But securing five beaches, joining them together, defending this 50 mile stretch of territory was more important.
Once this was done - and with movement inland - and with more resources being landed by sea than the Germans could supply for their army by road - then Overlord was almost certain to succeed. And with the passage of time success in Normandy was guaranteed - it was just a matter of time.
So let Private Ryan be what Spielberg claimed it was.
Personally I would rather he made a film about ordinary G.I.'s - the regular infantrymen. Being by turns bored, wet, hungry, scared and wanting to go home!
February 4th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by armchairal
It should be regarded as a well made drama, ( which it is), but it fails to satisfy many - why is that?
Is it trying to be history?
It is trying to be history as much as Shakespere's Henry V does.
February 5th, 2005  
Zucchini
 
It will be interesting to see how Spielberg and Clint Eastwood handle Flags of Our Fathers, which is currently being made.

FoOF's is the story of John Bradley, a corpsman who participated in the 2nd flag raising on top of Mt. Suribachi - he's one of the men in the famous photo.

The story of the battle for Iwo Jima had little to do with the flag raisings on Mt. Surbachi, and Bradley told his family almost nothing of his war experiences. And I fear those two things will be what the movie will be about - the silent hero (genuine) and a flag raising not really done immediately after the summitt had been taken.

My Uncle was a Major who landed at Omaha about 6 hours after the first wave (I'm out of WWII combat relatives), and I think he would have liked Ryan.