Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds
  • The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

Overly appreciated movies?

rjb1

Practically Family
Messages
561
Location
Nashville
Louis Mayer probably wouldn't care for the facts that make "Saving Private Ryan" an overly appreciated movie. I'm a great fan of war movies but the total ignoring of logic and time-sequence makes me dislike SPR.
The idea of a lone infantry squad going out to find one particular 101st guy, when the Division was scattered for miles in all directions after the night drop, and then finding him, is just preposterous. It just couldn't/wouldn't/didn't happen that way.
In case anyone is interested in the "real" Private Ryan story, here goes:
First, he was a Sergeant, not a private - Sgt. Frederick "Fritz" Niland (501st Parachute Infantry Regiment) He did jump on D-Day and was "lost" for about a week. He rejoined his unit on his own and then it came to light that two of his brothers were killed on D-Day and D+1. He and the unit Chaplain discovered that in mid-June. His older brother had been shot down over Burma sometime earlier (May 1944) and was assumed lost.
The Chaplain put in the proper papers to get him transferred to a non-combat position. Unlike the movie, real Army paperwork takes time so it wasn't until September 1944 that his transfer papers came through and he was sent back to be an MP in New York.
To the extent that Pvt. Ryan/Sgt. Niland was "saved", it was by an Army Chaplain filling out paperwork, not by Tom Hanks and a band of misfits charging through the hedgerows.

It's so hard to accept the impossible premise of SPR that even though the individual battle scenes are good, I just can't "buy" the movie as a whole.
(The oldest brother who was shot down actually survived the war as a POW and returned home in 1945.)
 

Two Types

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,456
Location
London, UK
I'm a great fan of war movies but the total ignoring of logic and time-sequence makes me dislike SPR.
The idea of a lone infantry squad going out to find one particular 101st guy, when the Division was scattered for miles in all directions after the night drop, and then finding him, is just preposterous. It just couldn't/wouldn't/didn't happen that way.

I remember when I first saw the film: I was thoroughly enjoying it until the scene where Hanks meets Ted Danson (supposedly in Carentan?). They discuss how slow the battle for Normandy is going due to 'Monty being held up at Caen'.

It's a couple of days after D-Day, they are cut off and fighting for their lives, they don't know where the rest of their unit is or when relief is going to come. And yet they know all about the situation 40 or so miles away - when they don't know what's happening in the next field.

It struck me that line was thrown in as a deliberate dig against the British (any film that has Stephen Ambrose listed as an advisor/consultant runs the risk of that!).
 

Seb Lucas

I'll Lock Up
Messages
7,562
Location
Australia
Spielberg is the quintessential Hollywood dream merchant. If you have problems with realism and accuracy in his films (or anything out of Hollywood) you would be better served by viewing documentaries. C'est la vie.

No, I think the problem is his frequent lack of nuance, his bombastic style and his over reliance on shmaltz. Not all Hollywood (and since the 1950's, what has that really meant?) rely on these ingredients.
 
Last edited:

Gregg Axley

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,125
Location
Tennessee
BTW folks Mayer never actually made the statement I posted above. j/k = joke ;)
Yeah but President Lincoln posted almost the same thing on Facebook, so it makes Mayer's statement believable. ;)
I've never seen Saving Private Ryan, because I'm not a war movie fan.
But then again, the wife and I aren't Tom Hank's fans.
I know, Mr. Apple Pie, Mr. Anytown USA actor...we just aren't.
 

Feraud

Bartender
Messages
17,190
Location
Hardlucksville, NY
No, I think the problem is his frequent lack of nuance, his bombastic style and his over reliance on shmaltz. Not all Hollywood (and since the 1950's, what has that really meant?) rely on these ingredients.
Agreed. It certainly feels like he is creating films on autopilot. Spielberg ruined War Horse with all the schmaltz.
I thought SPR was just o.k. Nothing I'd rush to recommend to folks.
 

LizzieMaine

Bartender
Messages
33,766
Location
Where The Tourists Meet The Sea
On the other hand, though, at least Spielberg doesn't think he's George Lucas.

As far as schmaltz and corn and the like are concerned, I don't have a problem with them if they're *sincere.* Spielberg's stuff comes across to me as extremely insincere -- manufactured and focus-grouped and Q-tested to provoke a response. It's the same thing that bugs me about most MGM pictures from the Era -- there's no *there* there. Bleah.
 
Last edited:

Formeruser012523

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,466
Location
null
I was really hit hard by SPR. Probably just because my grandfather was in the D-Day invasion. He made it all the way to Berlin with nothing but a wounded elbow. Other than that, I don't have many details. To me it's one of those, like Schindler's List, that I remember vividly & will never have to watch again.

Speilberg's hardly a genius, but as far as film making, Hollywood will remember him for the so-called "risks" he's taken by making movies like these.
 

DNO

One Too Many
Messages
1,815
Location
Toronto, Canada
I might just be stirring up a little debate here:

Saving Private Ryan

Now, don't get me wrong, I think it's a great film. But i just feel that its reputation is a little too over the top.

I can't fault the opening sequences but after that it all gets a bit too 'action movie'. The final battle sequences are just too much for me. I recall a review from a British veteran of the fighting in Normandy. After watching the film he said something along the lines of 'The thing about street fighting is that you never go into the street.' He also commented on the overuse of ammunition.
And there's the 'let's use TNT filled socks to disable the tank' scene - just run out into the street and stick these things to a tank. What about trying the bazooka from an upstairs window?

I could go on, but i would be interested to know other people's thoughts.

I have to agree with you Two Types. Saving Private Ryan is a decent film but it’s not a masterpiece. Once the opening sequence is finished, the film becomes a pretty standard issue war movie. Actually it could almost be an episode of the 1960’s Vic Morrow vehicle, Combat. (I liked Combat, too!) As far as authenticity, every war movie has problems and challenges. I suspect that until they develop some kind of smell-vision and start using dangerously high sound levels an accurate depiction of battle will be very difficult to achieve. This film's depiction the landing was admirable but the rest of the film just sort of drifted.
 

Chasseur

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,494
Location
Hawaii
I remember when I first saw the film: I was thoroughly enjoying it until the scene where Hanks meets Ted Danson (supposedly in Carentan?). They discuss how slow the battle for Normandy is going due to 'Monty being held up at Caen'.

It's a couple of days after D-Day, they are cut off and fighting for their lives, they don't know where the rest of their unit is or when relief is going to come. And yet they know all about the situation 40 or so miles away - when they don't know what's happening in the next field.

It struck me that line was thrown in as a deliberate dig against the British (any film that has Stephen Ambrose listed as an advisor/consultant runs the risk of that!).

Not sure its specifically a dig on the British, but when you do a WWII film (or book for that matter) for the military history buffs in the US its got to check most of the boxes:
(1) Make fun of Monty and say he's overrated, or perhaps a dig at Ike "for being a politician and not a fighting general".
(2) Worship Patton or Rommell or Gudarian
(3) Have a nice mix of GIs ranging from Brooklyn to the South and parts and people in between, with some tensions
(4) Talk about invincible German soldiers and preferably have: Tiger tanks, 88s, etc. and must have afore mentioned GIs reference specific awesome German hardware like 88s, Tiger Tanks, collectible Luger pistols, etc.
(5) Some references to cowardly French, Italian etc. and hapless Soviets
(6) The list goes on... for a complete list see Stephen Ambrose, Rick Atkinson, and most WWII films made in the 1960s and 70s...

These are things guaranteed to get a fun or good reaction from American WWII buffs watching the film or reading the books so its like "fan service" in Japanese animation.
 

Worf

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,207
Location
Troy, New York, USA
As for the overuse of ammo it seems that it's always been the American way of fighting considering that US forces tended to be better supplied.

Well as the Nazi's were fond of saying "our tanks were 10 times better than the American ones... Pity they always had 11." As a former participant in many a "mad minute" I can understand this statement but sometimes "spray and pray" is the only way.

Worf
 
Messages
17,220
Location
New York City
All from memory, but it seems that Colin Powell's broad strategy for the first Gulf War was the use of "overwhelming force." Tactical this, nuanced that, strategic opening, blah, blah, blah - I alway knew I would like him when his plan was to basically throw everything we have at them because we have so much more (and better) stuff than they do. It seems, from the two prior posts, that he was just carrying on a great American tradition.
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
109,303
Messages
3,078,334
Members
54,244
Latest member
seeldoger47
Top