Saving Private Ryan

Discussions on WW2 and pre-WW2 related movies, games, military art and other fiction.
User avatar
Raf
Member
Posts: 183
Joined: 04 Apr 2002 15:23
Location: Belgium

Post by Raf » 16 May 2002 07:32

Well, I have the impression that I started a discussion between the American and the European forum members about how they interpret a movie. In Europe we are used to the American way of making film but we see a lot of our own stuff to. This European movies lay different accents and pinnpoint less on action and more on the relations between the characters.
Maybe this is an explanation for our difference of opinion.
And believe me, SPR is a great movie and I've seen him 6 times alraedy but let us not forget that not everybody has the same favour.

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Logan Hartke » 16 May 2002 07:46

Very true and a very good point. One must also remember that it is not that strange that European audiences don't like it as much as American audiences as the movie wasn't intended for them.

Logan Hartke

User avatar
Raf
Member
Posts: 183
Joined: 04 Apr 2002 15:23
Location: Belgium

Post by Raf » 16 May 2002 08:05

Maybe that is a reason but it was a great succes in Europe too and I think it earns it.

Logan, have you seen Stalingrad and Das Boot ?

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Logan Hartke » 16 May 2002 16:56

Raf wrote:Logan, have you seen Stalingrad and Das Boot ?

Some of Das Boot, but not Stalingrad. It sounds quite good, but I'm having trouble finding it around here.

Logan Hartke

Mike R
Member
Posts: 555
Joined: 04 Jun 2002 04:20
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Mike R » 18 Jun 2002 04:18

I'd personally rate Das Boot as one of the better war movies I have seen. I would also like to see Stalingrad. A friend of mine has it, but he moved before I got the chance to watch it. By any chance is it based on a book originally written in German by the same title?

Ken Jasper
In memoriam
Posts: 699
Joined: 03 Apr 2002 22:56
Location: Virginia

Post by Ken Jasper » 19 Jun 2002 04:05

Das Boot was great, but I found Stalingrad rather tedious.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Saving Private Ryan

Post by Roberto » 20 Jun 2002 12:17

Raf wrote:In the film Rangers land at the beaches of Normandy along with "normal" infantry divisions. As far as I know the only place Rangers landed at Normandy was at POINTE DU HOC. I think it was 2nd battalion. Can anyone help me out ? Were there others units of Rangers who landed the first day or is the film historical wrong ?


As wrong as can be, though mainly for other reasons:

http://2ndww.tripod.com/Kursk/myth.htm

Mike R
Member
Posts: 555
Joined: 04 Jun 2002 04:20
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Mike R » 20 Jun 2002 18:11

Great article! Does the movie U-571 remind anyone else of that same Hollywood myopia?
:lol:

-Mike

Tolga Alkan
Financial supporter
Posts: 1893
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 16:00
Location: Turkey

Post by Tolga Alkan » 20 Jun 2002 21:40

This film have many historical errors.For example:Actions for the bridge Rammelle,SS Tiger have lead to town with out any recons,this is not a historical tactic.

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002 03:51
Location: Malaysia

Post by Panzermahn » 01 Aug 2002 07:19

The only thing accurate about SPR is the first 10 minutes of landing in Omaha Beach and then American soldiers shoot surrendered German troops

User avatar
Aufklarung
Financial supporter
Posts: 5136
Joined: 17 Mar 2002 04:27
Location: Canada

Adrenaline rush.

Post by Aufklarung » 02 Aug 2002 20:30

SPR is just designed to get your heart going and satisfy the desire you had in the first place: To be entertained. Band of Brothers was much more accurate when comparing the two but they had to be as the characters were real people. Lottsa "Heroe"s and the "Ghastly" shit too. Still, I also agree Europeans and Americans see movies differently. There is less need for the thinking part of movies here. "They" bad "We" good. Period. Stalingrad was soooo bad. I looked forward to seeing it and was greatly disappointed when I did. Too meloncoly. Oh boo hoo. Das Boot on the other hand was fabulous. How could this be? I was led to believe there was a significant link in the calibre of these movies. Were they two different movies to europeans too? The Bridge I haven't seen yet so no comment. It's a rather old movie isn't it? German kids in '45 or something like that. U571 stank but had very good effects. Near Zero on the accuracy-o-tron, I'm afraid. In fact the US Navy againts the Steel Sharks was a laugh at Americas expence. Try "On a Midnight Clear"; accurate and good. Later

User avatar
Aufklarung
Financial supporter
Posts: 5136
Joined: 17 Mar 2002 04:27
Location: Canada

Adrenaline rush.

Post by Aufklarung » 02 Aug 2002 20:30

:D

User avatar
RCR_Raider
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 02 Aug 2002 17:13
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Post by RCR_Raider » 03 Aug 2002 14:13

Expecting Historical accuracy from Hollywood?

Films that come out of Hollywood are mostly propaganda, and usually are not historically accurate at all.

Some films actually "change history" to make it more American. U-571 is a classic example. The story of a U-boat captured by Commonwealth forces. (not in the movie though)

The movie uses Amercans, even though its very early in 1942. This is understandable however, while not historically accurate and sometimes just huge lies. Movies are made for 1 purpose. Money. The market has everything to do with it. The largest market for these films is the American one, and Americans want to see themselves in war movies.

For this reason, Enemy at the Gates, a great movie, bombed, simply because the heroes in the film were Red Commie Soviets, and not GI Joes.

James Patrick
Member
Posts: 456
Joined: 05 May 2002 16:14
Location: Saint Louis, Missouri, USA

Post by James Patrick » 05 Aug 2002 15:46

In my opinion, SPR has to be the most underated great war film. I can't believe how much it gets blasted by people as being a big-budget Hollywood summerflick. Most people don't know this, but SPR was a fairly inexpensive movie to make (no stars, 8mm film). Also for a movie that was supposed to be a popcorn-action flick it went into some pretty relevant issues men see in war (cowardice, attrocities, dumb orders that waste lives, etc.). I watched "The Longest Day" last night and it didn't really deal with any of these topics. People also criticize SPR as being American propoganda that shows the Americans as fearless heroes and the Germans as cold-blooded murderers. When you watch SPR the only people you see commit attrocities are American (same goes for cowardice). Not once do you see a German soldier do anything that is less than honorable, not even the SS (give Spielberg credit). You see German SS shoot wounded Americans paratroopers, but if you watch carefully you see American paratroopers doing the same thing to German SS in the previous scene. Spielberg purposely did this to show what hell street fighting was and how no quarter was given between the two sides. Moreover, If you watch when the German soldier shoots the wounded American one it almost looks as if it was done out of an act of mercy more than anything else. Same when the German soldier drives the bayonet through the American ranger. Before he did it he was purposely shown on his back about to have the same done to him (watch the film). On top of that he doesn't even shoot some soldier who was about to jump him after he came out of the room. People also complain about the last battle scene saying that it shows the Germans as being used as target practice for the Americans. I watched Stalingrad and saw the same thing being done in their street fighting scenes (maybe even worse). Same with Cross of Iron. That whole movie is bunch of 60-year old actors firing SMGs at the hip moving down the whole Soviet Army. SPR does get slammed for some of its inaccuracies (2nd SS in Normandy) but seeing how much detail went into the uniforms, equipment, sound effects of weapons, accurate dialouge, and training of actors, this is just an unfair slam by people trying to find any fault to downgrade the film. Give Speilberg credit, for a guy who makes films like ET and Indian Jones this film was pretty deep. Are European filmmakers any better? I might be wrong here but wasn't Enemy at the Gates made by a European director and crew and filmed by a European company. Compared to SPR, that film looked like Lethal Weapon 3. I'm suprised they didn't have Jude Law and Ed Harris have a 15-minute kung-fu fight at the end of the film. If you think SPR made Germans look bad, then you would have to think Enemy at the Gates made them look like the scum of all humanity.
Last edited by James Patrick on 05 Aug 2002 18:16, edited 1 time in total.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 05 Aug 2002 17:21

I agree James, but some people don't like it because it was made by American's, will be surprised at the internal and external Ameraphobes around. Is almost like a cult or something, from Pearl Harbor to SPR or any other movie you can think of, including Black Hawk Down. People tend to think everything must be fair to all sides, and that just is not the case. Although I think SPR was more fair to the German's considering it showed that American troops could also shoot men that had surrendered, not systematically but in the moment of rage.

SPR in my humble opinion was not about nationalities, or ideologies, but was about men, and men in combat. I have never been in combat so I can not say if it simulated this well or not, I do know it was shocking the first time I seen it, and left you with many questions, and concerns.

Return to “Movies, games & other fiction”