PDA

View Full Version : Saving Private Ryan



PzKpfw VI Tiger
06-28-2005, 03:24 PM
A stalwart Tom Hanks plays Captain Miller, a soldier's soldier, who takes a small band of troops behind enemy lines to retrieve a private whose three brothers have recently been killed in action. It's a public relations move for the Army, but it has historical precedent dating back to the Civil War. Some critics of the film have labeled the central characters stereotypes. If that is so, this movie gives stereotypes a good name: Tom Sizemore as the deft sergeant, Edward Burns as the hotheaded Private Reiben, Barry Pepper as the religious sniper, Adam Goldberg as the lone Jew, Vin Diesel as the oversize Private Caparzo, Giovanni Ribisi as the soulful medic, and Jeremy Davies, who as a meek corporal gives the film its most memorable performance.

Cast:

* Edward Burns
* Matt Damon
* Jeremy Davies
* Vin Diesel
* Dennis Farina
* Paul Giamatti
* Adam Goldberg
* Tom Hanks
* Barry Pepper
* Giovanni Ribisi
* Ted Danson
* Harve Presnell
* Nathan Fillion

This is a remarkable film. I really enjoied it and reccommend it to all World War 2 enthusiasts.

Sturmtruppen
06-28-2005, 04:13 PM
yeah!,i saw that film on dvd,it has good action,i liked it.

but most germans soldiers are stupids and cowards in the film :lol:

Tsolias
06-28-2005, 04:16 PM
Great war movie-unbielevable combat scenes-dont miss it!

Sturmtruppen
06-28-2005, 09:39 PM
when tom hanks is there,it has action,shoots and explotions 8)

FW-190 Pilot
06-29-2005, 06:21 PM
but you dont think the battle in the beginning scene is too long and its such a pain to watch it all?
otherwise, the rest of the movie is pretty good

South African Military
06-29-2005, 08:42 PM
but you dont think the battle in the beginning scene is too long and its such a pain to watch it all?
otherwise, the rest of the movie is pretty good

No I thought the first scene was very good, not boring. Quite a good reenactment.

Caliber
06-29-2005, 08:44 PM
have it- love it

Gen. Sandworm
06-29-2005, 08:59 PM
Hey made the poll. Please anytime you make a post about a movie try and make the poll with it. That way people that havent seen it can see if its good or not. Thanks

Cactus
06-30-2005, 09:14 PM
but you dont think the battle in the beginning scene is too long and its such a pain to watch it all?
otherwise, the rest of the movie is pretty good

No I thought the first scene was very good, not boring. Quite a good reenactment.

I concur, I really thought the opening scene was well done. I can't believe that lost an oscar or whatever to Shakespeare In Love. I believe that is what it lost too. :roll:

Commando Jordovski
07-13-2005, 08:36 AM
I think "Saving Private Ryan" could of been a better movie, it has a good story line and all but what really captured my interest was the start of the movie on the D-day invasion on Omaha beach.
I normally love to watch War movies at least twice. I saw "Saving Private Ryan" once and the only other time i watched a bit of it was the D-day landings.http://img312.imageshack.us/img312/1452/hammerandsickle3d1gg.gif (http://www.imageshack.us)

Firefly
07-13-2005, 09:05 AM
but you dont think the battle in the beginning scene is too long and its such a pain to watch it all?
otherwise, the rest of the movie is pretty good

No I thought the first scene was very good, not boring. Quite a good reenactment.

I concur, I really thought the opening scene was well done. I can't believe that lost an oscar or whatever to Shakespeare In Love. I believe that is what it lost too. :roll:

yeah but Shakespear in love was a good movie too!

SPR is ok, but a little too over the top US saves the world for me, not that the US didnt help save the world mind you, just a bit cheesey. Although the special effects are amazing I have to admit.

Tsolias
07-13-2005, 11:25 AM
I was really shocked after the Omaha beach scene.
I saw it in a big theater screen with all the dolbies on and had to run for a couple of drinks after that just to calm down from that scene :oops:

Kurt Panzer Meyer
08-08-2005, 04:27 AM
but you dont think the battle in the beginning scene is too long and its such a pain to watch it all?
otherwise, the rest of the movie is pretty good

I'd rather this much more than the somewhat sanitised Longest Day scene of the same theatre... for some reason, I really don't think that most of the combatants jumping into the water were yelling out joyous battle-cries.

The first scene, for me, makes the movie.

Hosenfield
08-08-2005, 04:34 AM
SPR is a good movie, overall. it honors american ww2 combat veterans

however, the plot itself is a bit contrived and predictable. With patrotic flag-waving and whatnot.

The combat scenes filmed however, are probably the best ever filmed.

the opening scene is very well filmed and intense.

The final scene near the bridge, while exciting to watch, always bothers me because it isn't very realistic.

Kurt Panzer Meyer
08-08-2005, 04:42 AM
SPR is a good movie, overall. it honors american ww2 combat veterans

however, the plot itself is a bit contrived and predictable. With patrotic flag-waving and whatnot.

The combat scenes filmed however, are probably the best ever filmed.

the opening scene is very well filmed and intense.

The final scene near the bridge, while exciting to watch, always bothers me because it isn't very realistic.

Yeah I agree on all aspects there. Actually, that final scene at the bridge is not very realistic as it never happened (apparently, anyhow). I had read when the film came out, that Ryan did indeed leave the area and di not stick around to fight.

adleos
08-08-2005, 04:50 AM
I had read when the film came out, that Ryan did indeed leave the area and di not stick around to fight.

But Spielberg wanted to make some money, you know. And so he had to shoot some ending-action :lol:

Kurt Panzer Meyer
08-09-2005, 04:24 PM
Indeed! :lol:

american sniper
08-09-2005, 05:49 PM
i dont know the guys name but he was the coward he sat there and let the german kill is comrad with a knife then stood there and let the german pass him that made me sick at that time i was hopping the germans would kill him for being such a coward

Hanz Lutz
08-10-2005, 05:46 PM
Yes i remember that scene ,german let him to go ,but in the end of movie american soldier shot that german .

Hosenfield
08-10-2005, 06:36 PM
the funny thing is, that upham gets 8! waffen-ss men to surrender, and if you look closely, one is an NCO with a Ritterkreuz!

Commando Jordovski
08-11-2005, 07:26 AM
Yes i remember that scene ,german let him to go ,but in the end of movie american soldier shot that german .

What about the scene where that guys been shot in the wrist/arm and he's bleeding heaps and you see the German sniper in the building's turret/tower
aiming for someone to come aid the hurt american.
When the American sniper spots and shoots the german you see this muzzle flash and half a second later it goes through the germans scope and pierces his eye.

Hanz Lutz
08-11-2005, 08:08 AM
Bad scene ,i remember that

Commando Jordovski
08-11-2005, 08:37 AM
clauss von Stauffeberg check your private messages mate 8)

Revolver
08-27-2005, 01:02 AM
I found the movie pretty overrated. It was pretty good and all, but wasn't all that it was hyped up to be. I mean the German soldiers were all clumsy, stupid, cold-hearted villians, and ran blindly around corners without checking what's on the other side. This movie is an over-glorification of the U.S. Army. Also what's the deal about sending men on OMAHA beach to go over to where the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions when they were dropped behind UTAH beach. Not very smart.

Commando Jordovski
08-27-2005, 11:39 AM
I found the movie pretty overrated. It was pretty good and all, but wasn't all that it was hyped up to be. I mean the German soldiers were all clumsy, stupid, cold-hearted villians, and ran blindly around corners without checking what's on the other side. This movie is an over-glorification of the U.S. Army. Also what's the deal about sending men on OMAHA beach to go over to where the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions when they were dropped behind UTAH beach. Not very smart.

German soldiers were as intelligent as the Americans but maybe a bit more undertrained as the Germans put more money into building walls and defences for the allied invasion then train their troops, but i know where your coming from, a normal civilised person wouldn't be stupid to just run round a enemy infested corner.

Hosenfield
08-27-2005, 11:45 AM
if you look closely, the troops in Spr are Waffen-SS panzergrenadiers from the elite 2nd SS division. Which wasn't even at the Meredet river historically, so this is false. France was the home of the dregs of the german army, with a very high portion being made of foreigners. The main german units that carried out the battle were armored, armored infantry, and paratrooper divisions.

I think Spielburg was trying to make up for all the americans that died in the first scene.

Firefly
08-27-2005, 11:46 AM
I found the movie pretty overrated. It was pretty good and all, but wasn't all that it was hyped up to be. I mean the German soldiers were all clumsy, stupid, cold-hearted villians, and ran blindly around corners without checking what's on the other side. This movie is an over-glorification of the U.S. Army. Also what's the deal about sending men on OMAHA beach to go over to where the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions when they were dropped behind UTAH beach. Not very smart.

Yes, but remember Hollywood wanted the Omaham beach scenes in the Movie, so there you go.

Its all about making money, not necessarily about historical context, although this movie does it a bit better than most.

Firefly
08-27-2005, 01:03 PM
the plot itself is a bit contrived and predictable. With patrotic flag-waving and whatnot.


Its a movie guy's...Its not a documentary. Patriotic flag waving..thats the second time I have read that from you. Relax Hosenfield..its a movie nothing more. JEEEZ

I agree very much with your sentiments Mike and have stated this. However where does the flag waving end. Movies have a greater impact on conceptions today more than any other media. People tend to belive what they see. Take the other movie discussed here U571, a total misconstruction of the facts that takes something away from the real men that did the real deeds.

Still as Ive said, Holywood is there to make money and no-one is going to watch a totally historical movie that is a s dry as dust.

So in essence I totally agree with you.

ww2fanatic1944
08-30-2005, 11:46 AM
i thought that SPR had some of the most amazing battle scenes ever made in cinematic history. i liked how it ended, with the main character dieing, and the americans basically losing the battle until the planes came. this made it more realalistic and showed that the US arent just super soldiers who kick everyones ***...

the movie had a couple minor, minor faults, like how captain miller could go into his own little world on the beach, and just sit there not hearing anyone or anything and still managed not to get shot. then in the last battle scene it looks like at the beginning of it the americans have about 15 soldiers, but throughout the battle they lose at least 30....

but other then that i thought that it was an amazing movie and that unlike most modern war films about the US in ww2, it didnt glorify the war, and was historically accurate.

all of the ww2 verterans say that SPR is what ww2 was really like, and the vietnam veterans say that the movie platoon is what vietnam was really like.

Sturmtruppen
08-30-2005, 11:48 AM
you are right mate!,the battle scenes are incredible!

pdf27
08-30-2005, 12:43 PM
I agree 100%...The British soldiers deserve the credit on that one, again typical Hollywood.
Churchill: The Hollywood Years (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0006ZXN3A/026-4275073-4102032)?

Commando Jordovski
08-30-2005, 09:02 PM
No ones voted "No" for Saving Private Ryan , i liked the movie "Enemy at the Gates much more" and could watch it many more time then "Saving Private Ryan."

Tsolias
09-05-2005, 04:47 PM
For all of us that loved SPR here's a nice site:
http://www.sproe.com/index.html

Prometheus
10-28-2005, 09:59 PM
but you dont think the battle in the beginning scene is too long and its such a pain to watch it all?

That was a quote from the very beginning (a long time ago), but I felt it was in need of addressing.

The length and all the aspects that made it "such a pain to watch" really were necessary.

chase
11-17-2005, 08:45 PM
I loved the fighting in the movie. But the storyline was kindof corny.

Not as bad as Windtalkers :lol: sheesh! The Japos didn't suck that bad!

Twitch1
11-22-2005, 03:07 PM
Ryan was good due to excellent script, direction and production with special effects paramount. It was a good dramatization of hitting the beach that has rarely been attempted.

Tsolias
11-22-2005, 05:24 PM
Not as bad as Windtalkers :lol: sheesh! The Japos didn't suck that bad!

Now thats a really bad film!

chase
11-23-2005, 01:43 PM
SPR was good, but I liked Band of Brothers better.


No ones voted "No" for Saving Private Ryan , i liked the movie "Enemy at the Gates much more" and could watch it many more time then "Saving Private Ryan."

Enemy at the Gates had great combat, but when it got into the whole love story....

Gutkowski
11-29-2005, 08:36 PM
I could watch this 100 times and still not be board with it,I just feel sad to see what my grandfathers went through in the war ,every man friend or foe fought with great valor ,and all deserve to be recognized for what they did in the wars

strangely_brown
12-02-2005, 04:27 PM
Technically brilliant, but another typical Speilberg uber-over-patriotic at the expense of any possible facts starring Hanks who seems to be attracted by that kind of stuff. Real pity cause the effects are great.

Bangor Fire 35
12-03-2005, 12:22 AM
I felt this movie was more of a show off to kids who will sneak in and watch it more of a action film than histroic.

FluffyBunnyGB
12-03-2005, 01:49 PM
Whilst I'm ambivalent about the film in its generality, the opening invasion scene is very powerful, although the film then declines a bit into scmaltz here & there.

I went to see it with a friend of mine who's dad had been a landing craft driver (? coxwain?) on D Day, and she was in tears after a few minutes.

I believe the invasion scene has been shown to some vandals & hooligans in Yorkshire who were making pensioners lives difficult with their noise and bad behaviour. Apparently, after they saw what the old fellas had been through, they have become almost model citizens.

Without SPR, there would almost certainly been no BoB, so I'm prepared to forgive the bits of SPR I didn't like for all the bits of BoB I loved.

Hiddenrug
12-03-2005, 10:47 PM
The 1st scene was absuloutly unbelievable considering that actually happend

PLT.SGT.BAKER
12-06-2005, 08:13 PM
I loved this movie i even preordered it, i saw the movie somewhere i forgot :lol:

cpl condor
12-20-2005, 05:55 PM
It's only a high grade tech movie. Is good but the sense remain
the same. 8)

AM_R.A.D.6th
12-29-2005, 12:48 PM
The final scene near the bridge, while exciting to watch, always bothers me because it isn't very realistic.

Agreed on that.

Two of the best war scenes ever filmed were the opening scene at Omaha of course, and the oft overlooked Rangers trying to take out the German MG42 machine gun nest. Other instances like the final scene were somewhat out of touch with reality. Anyone remember the one goofy scene where the Americans took out the German personal carrier in that field with the tall grass? Did you notice how the German soldiers all did the ragdoll death drop like in John Wayne movies, i actually laughed out loud in the theater during that scene.

PLT.SGT.BAKER
12-30-2005, 10:35 AM
i don't know but i thought the scene where a U.S. soldier confronts a german and they both try to shoot and the german throws the helmet at the U.S. soldier and then both whip out the pistols, was kinda funny i don't know why :?

PzKpfw VI Tiger
12-30-2005, 12:12 PM
i don't know but i thought the scene where a U.S. soldier confronts a german and they both try to shoot and the german throws the helmet at the U.S. soldier and then both whip out the pistols, was kinda ufnny i don't know why :?

This?

http://myspace-883.vo.llnwd.net/00349/38/82/349002883_l.gif

:lol: :lol: I loved that part

PLT.SGT.BAKER
12-30-2005, 12:57 PM
This?

http://myspace-883.vo.llnwd.net/00349/38/82/349002883_l.gif

:lol: :lol: I loved that part
yeah that was it! :lol:

Jon725
01-01-2006, 06:44 PM
i loved this movie, and always will.

this movie did not claim to be authentic in its story, it was just trying to present a historical part of american history to the american people. it did absolutely that.

of course the movie has to have an american bias, what are yougoing to do? show 5,000+ american soldier casualties and run away with millions of dollars? Alot of wwii vets saw this movie, and dont you think it would be a slap to face for them NOT to see their country's flag?

anyway, im not patriotic, but this was a really good movie, and its kind of sad... and funny to see people try to criticize it for wrong reasons. also keep in mind tom hanks and steven spielberg helped produce, ect.
Band of Brothers

Hiddenrug
01-01-2006, 09:44 PM
What about the scene where that guys been shot in the wrist/arm and he's bleeding heaps and you see the German sniper in the building's turret/tower
aiming for someone to come aid the hurt american.
When the American sniper spots and shoots the german you see this muzzle flash and half a second later it goes through the germans scope and pierces his eye.

Wade says" It looks like a lung shot"

AM_R.A.D.6th
01-02-2006, 07:21 AM
i loved this movie, and always will.
and its kind of sad... and funny to see people try to criticize it for wrong reasons.

Not one single person cast a vote in the 'NO' category. If you 'read' the posts you will see the movie was liked but some people have small issues with realistic accuracy in SOME parts of the movie.

For instance, did you notice when an American was shot and died it took minutes of agonizing pain and writhing on the ground first but when a German got shot he immediately rag dolled dead to the ground.

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-02-2006, 09:58 AM
Not one single person cast a vote in the 'NO' category. If you 'read' the posts you will see the movie was liked but some people have small issues with realistic accuracy in SOME parts of the movie.

For instance, did you notice when an American was shot and died it took minutes of agonizing pain and writhing on the ground first but when a German got shot he immediately rag dolled dead to the ground.

yes thats true.

Hiddenrug
01-02-2006, 05:39 PM
Not exactley. The part in Neuville just after Caparzo got shot and theres that bar full of Germans, After they all get shot some of them are still alive. You can he them groaning!

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-03-2006, 08:14 PM
Not exactley. The part in Neuville just after Caparzo got shot and theres that bar full of Germans, After they all get shot some of them are still alive. You can he them groaning!

Yes but you only hear one moaning.

Hiddenrug
01-03-2006, 11:11 PM
But when the squad is in Ramelle and they drop the Molotov Cocktails from the window the Germans are screaming and rolling around.

You wouldn't moan if you were dead! :lol: :lol:

Hanz Lutz
01-04-2006, 04:34 AM
But when the squad is in Ramelle and they drop the Molotov Cocktails from the window the Germans are screaming and rolling around.

You wouldn't moan if you were dead! :lol: :lol:

Heheh on the end when Tom Hanks fired with pistol on tank,i am thinking it's stupid he will destroyd tank with pistol and bummmmm.......i am told what i am said :lol: but it was a American fighter. :lol: :lol:

Hiddenrug
01-04-2006, 05:51 AM
I thought that aswell :lol: the look on his face is priceless :shock: :shock:

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-04-2006, 09:13 AM
The look on his face, and then sees a 51 flying overhead.

Hiddenrug
01-04-2006, 07:13 PM
yeah that look in holy s*** i did that :shock:

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-04-2006, 08:53 PM
When i first saw that I was like woah wtf he killed a tank with a .45!!! :shock: :lol:

LargeBrew
01-04-2006, 11:13 PM
He was probably wondering why it wasn't a Typhoon or at least a P47, he didn't seem bothered that some Tigers had got south of Caane either.

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-04-2006, 11:15 PM
well he was shot in the right lung, and suffered from shell shock.

Hiddenrug
01-05-2006, 03:03 AM
I would too if i was in his position :lol: :wink: :)

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-05-2006, 01:43 PM
(Off topic) Do you think Matt will really look like old ryan in the future?!?

Hanz Lutz
01-05-2006, 04:21 PM
(Off topic) Do you think Matt will really look like old ryan in the future?!?

Who knows that? :?

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-05-2006, 06:16 PM
I'm just saying because maybe the crew used an age enhancement device on Matt and thats how he looked in the future.

LargeBrew
01-05-2006, 08:32 PM
I was at a conference ( oddly enough in Chicago) in 04 and saw a demo of a software package used by the FBI for long term missing or wanted persons the tech doing the demo said that it was being used by the movie industry for make up and casting. A couple of my colleagues had a go and it was spooky watching the faces change from 30's to 80's.

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-05-2006, 08:39 PM
If only I could have a machine that can age enhance , and see all actors,song artists look old.

Hiddenrug
01-05-2006, 09:00 PM
In the credits it has an older name

Hiddenrug
01-05-2006, 09:00 PM
In the credits it has another guys name :roll:

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-05-2006, 09:37 PM
someone posted that they didnt like the movie!!! :shock: :cry:

Hiddenrug
01-05-2006, 11:41 PM
THEY DID WHAT :evil: :evil: :evil: :shock: :shock: :evil: well i oughta :lol: :lol:

Hanz Lutz
01-06-2006, 06:15 AM
Off topic guys everyone have own opinion,and watch or mod's will delete our post's. :lol: :lol:

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-08-2006, 03:45 PM
(off topic) Or i can hire a professional grizzly bear who wears a tutu and rides around in a little car:lol: :lol: :lol:

Gutkowski
01-08-2006, 04:18 PM
Its called the Last act of Defiance
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/gutkowski/spr50.jpg :lol:

Gutkowski
01-08-2006, 04:21 PM
one more thing ,what were the large stacks on the backs of the Tanks for ??
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/gutkowski/saving9.jpg

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-08-2006, 04:33 PM
one more thing ,what were the large stacks on the backs of the Tanks for ??
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/gutkowski/saving9.jpg

They are called DD tanks, the stacks are for so the tank can drive in water, the stacks prevent water going into the engine and flooding it.

Gutkowski
01-08-2006, 04:57 PM
But I thought all of the DD Tanks did not make it to shore for D-Day?

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-08-2006, 05:01 PM
Not true, at least 5 tanks made it out of the 30 something. Because all the other tanks came out of the boats to far away from shore and most drowned, those in the tanks bailed floated to surface from life jackets, only to be killed by machine gun fire.

Gutkowski
01-09-2006, 09:29 PM
I saw a show on the discovery channel on the DD tanks ,they went down with the unmanned sub and found most of the tanks ,It was pretty sad to see that most of the men went down with the tanks

Hiddenrug
01-09-2006, 09:53 PM
With the part where they take the MG spot. wouldn't have been smart to go around it and attack from the rear? 8)

WaistGunner
01-23-2006, 02:06 PM
The first time I saw Saving Private Ryan I thought it was great. But then after I saw it a couple more times I guess it just didn't have what it takes to hold me in. I loved the sniper, by far my favorite character..

Gutkowski
01-23-2006, 02:31 PM
The first time I saw Saving Private Ryan I thought it was great. But then after I saw it a couple more times I guess it just didn't have what it takes to hold me in. I loved the sniper, by far my favorite character..


Jackson
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/gutkowski/jackson-02-large.jpg

PLT.SGT.BAKER
01-26-2006, 10:56 PM
Speilberg used real amputies for the scene where soliders had limbs missing. And not to mention The main characters, all had to live in harsh conditions, ate real rations, and trained for the movie. And to learn the hand signals, in the part where they are in the war torn town, and the two soldiers are in the church tower.

jnd2089
02-22-2006, 04:23 PM
Superb film! 10/10!!

1st-SC_SURGEON
06-05-2006, 05:53 AM
Yeah its a ok movie, esp the battle in the bombed out french town, ultra realistic in parts although The germans when advancing in crouched position behind the half track wouldnt normally do that i dont think. They would keep their distance and go in in a V formation.

I hate the fact than Sgt Hovarth spends the opening shots looking at the camera, and when the landing craft doors go down the guy that gets shot in the head, closes his eyes, and then suddenly opens them again!
And again when the 30 mil cannon is blowing them to bits as they chuck nades into the tiger its all to apparent they are dummies on the tank.
I could go on..
Its a good film BUT could of been much better IMO

Erik
06-05-2006, 10:08 AM
It's an alright movie, but it has it's fair share or corny lines among other faults.

WikiP has a pretty good list of "Historical inaccuracies" and "Criticism", but overall it's a pretty good fictional war movie.

1st-SC_SURGEON
06-05-2006, 11:35 AM
Yeah m8 a few faults but none the less a great film, especially the first time u watch it.




Isnt speilberg making one about okinawa in the pacific called Flags of our Fathers?

something like that anyway

Outerheaven
06-05-2006, 06:22 PM
Yeah I'll agree that it's a good movie. Sorry for more complaining about the historic accuracy of the movie, but Cpt Miller's company was from the 2nd Ranger Battalion. Funny thing is the 2nd Rangers never landed on Omaha. That was the 5th Rangers.

Lancer44
06-06-2006, 12:51 AM
I like SPR and have disc. I also agree with most of you regarding little imperfections.
Mid last year I read an article praising Speilberg's team for historical authenticity of uniforms, weapons etc.
All this could not be achieved without re-enactors.
I don't agree wit authenticity claim in several points, but they are minor details, like German awards, boots etc. All this can be treated as whinging.

But one point not. Before D-Day US, British and Canadian quartermasters issued to troops several millions of condoms.
On barrel of any small bore weapon in LSTs was a condom. I may risk saying that every Sten, Bren, Thompson, Garand and BAR landing on the beaches had a condom on its barrel!
Magazines for SMGs in condoms, magazines for Colts 1911 in condoms.
Wallets, lighters, personal photos - all packed into condoms.

Spielberg did not dare to show how troops really looked.
If makers of "Thin Red Line" did not hesitated showing US infantry looking for gold teeth, than where is the border of authenticity?

What do you think about it?

Lancer44

Gen. Sandworm
06-06-2006, 10:13 AM
Yeah I'll agree that it's a good movie. Sorry for more complaining about the historic accuracy of the movie, but Cpt Miller's company was from the 2nd Ranger Battalion. Funny thing is the 2nd Rangers never landed on Omaha. That was the 5th Rangers.

Remember its a movie not a documentary. Yea there are some things they had to wing. I watched the movie the 2nd time in the theather with my sister(nurse) and see commented that doesnt even look like real blood. I think some people are missing the point. Point of the movie is to show some of the hardships these people had to go thru. Of course with a plot twist of Pvt Ryan. They did a pretty good job at being as accurate as possible but sometimes they miss things. Omaha beach was the worst coz the American launched the DD tanks way to far out. I think 2 made it ashore. So what they crammed into 20 min in the movie was more like 8-10 hours. So again its a movie and a good movie for those that dont know alot about ww2.

Outerheaven
06-07-2006, 09:46 PM
I like SPR and have disc. I also agree with most of you regarding little imperfections.
Mid last year I read an article praising Speilberg's team for historical authenticity of uniforms, weapons etc.
All this could not be achieved without re-enactors.
I don't agree wit authenticity claim in several points, but they are minor details, like German awards, boots etc. All this can be treated as whinging.

But one point not. Before D-Day US, British and Canadian quartermasters issued to troops several millions of condoms.
On barrel of any small bore weapon in LSTs was a condom. I may risk saying that every Sten, Bren, Thompson, Garand and BAR landing on the beaches had a condom on its barrel!
Magazines for SMGs in condoms, magazines for Colts 1911 in condoms.
Wallets, lighters, personal photos - all packed into condoms.

Spielberg did not dare to show how troops really looked.
If makers of "Thin Red Line" did not hesitated showing US infantry looking for gold teeth, than where is the border of authenticity?

What do you think about it?

Lancer44
I don't see the point in putting condoms on the barrel of your weapon? To keep out water and dirt?

Lancer44
06-12-2006, 09:59 PM
I don't see the point in putting condoms on the barrel of your weapon? To keep out water and dirt?

Hi Outerheaven,

Yes, to protect barrel from water and dirt. This method is commonly used also today - Iraq, Afghanistan.
The beaty of it is that to shoot you don't need to take condom off. Just shoot without any problems - first shot will blow it off.

Cheers,

Lancer44

cpl condor
06-13-2006, 03:39 PM
only in the pictures can make a mistake like these.

war heroes
08-19-2006, 09:25 PM
Yea saving private ryan was a good movie at least when you watch it the first few times. lots of mistakes is what let the movie down in the end i think. you dont notice them at first but then when you notice them every time you watch it you cant help but look for them so that takes it away from the picture and movie itself.

Digger
09-27-2006, 05:43 AM
I saw the movie at the theatre and the battle sounds were horrific, forcing a few of the audience to leave. Okay a few inaccuracies, but that's common with most war movies.

The only thing that really struck me as strange was the complete lack of airpower until the last battle scenes. Allied air power infested the battle area and I just found it strange these guys wandering around the countryside without spotting one aircraft.

Other than that a great movie.

Regards to all
Digger

Nickdfresh
09-30-2006, 09:21 AM
Yeah I'll agree that it's a good movie. Sorry for more complaining about the historic accuracy of the movie, but Cpt Miller's company was from the 2nd Ranger Battalion. Funny thing is the 2nd Rangers never landed on Omaha. That was the 5th Rangers.


I think another D-Day related inaccuracy is that the film portrays the soldiers on the beach as solely overcoming the obstacles and German defenses with no help. This may well have been true on some sectors. But at least three destroyers of the U.S. and Royal Navies nearly grounded themselves after moving as close to shore as possible. They provided direct fire support by pumping shells into the bunkers, often marked and targeted by G.I.'s smoke grenades. This is what ultimatley broke the German defense chain of interlocking fire, and allowed the American Army to advance on Omaha.

Nickdfresh
09-30-2006, 02:56 PM
In addition, and I do love this film actually, some of the dialogue is nauseatingly sappy and overly sentimental. I think Lancer pointed out another American War film that came out at almost exactly the same time, the oft overlooked "Thin Red Line." The TRL was actually based on a War novel by the same guy that wrote "From Here to Eternity," a WWII vet and novelist named James Jones, who actually served in the Pacific War and an infantryman I believe. The film is actually a sequel to "From Here to Eternity," and both are a worthy view for anyone interested in the pre-and-early-WWII era U.S. Army. I actually think that "The Thin Red Line" is a superior film in many respects.

Nickdfresh
09-30-2006, 03:01 PM
Hi Outerheaven,

Yes, to protect barrel from water and dirt. This method is commonly used also today - Iraq, Afghanistan.
The beaty of it is that to shoot you don't need to take condom off. Just shoot without any problems - first shot will blow it off.

Cheers,

Lancer44

This point was actually made in "The Big Red One," a 1979 under-budgeted film that was very good story wise. In part of the film, members of the 1stID put rubbers on the end of their M-1s, and lament that they were not using them in Paris or London! But suffers from obvious glaring errors of it's own (such as using Israeli "Easy-Eight" Shermans as Panzers).

Firefly
09-30-2006, 05:25 PM
This point was actually made in "The Big Red One," a 1979 under-budgeted film that was very good story wise. In part of the film, members of the 1stID put rubbers on the end of their M-1s, and lament that they were not using them in Paris or London! But suffers from obvious glaring errors of it's own (such as using Israeli "Easy-Eight" Shermans as Panzers).

Off topic, but I have the same feeling about the battle of the Bulge movie where I think they used M-48's to simulate the King Tiger. At least modern movies have tried to use historical equipment in the main, possibly started with the Tigers in Kelly's heroes?

Maybe we should start a thread on the subject of authentic war equipment in movies?

Nickdfresh
10-02-2006, 12:32 PM
Actually, I think this would be a great idea. I know those Tiger's may actually have been T-34 chaises that were altered to look like Tigers.

angform
01-14-2007, 08:36 PM
great movie, great combats scenes

Wolfgang Von Gottberg
01-17-2007, 04:21 PM
I thought the film was excellent. I believe the Normandy Invasion scene was the best. I must say that I was lucky to not have been sent there.

Dixon
03-18-2007, 09:17 PM
I liked that scene as well but I like the Rammel Scene the best.

Sapper
04-02-2007, 12:08 AM
I saw some of the actual M1 helmets used in the movie and to my surprise they had Vietnam-era liners in them...leather chinstraps riveted on for realism In the opening beach sequence after Miller gets back to reality and puts his helmet back on, you can catch a quick glimpse of the webbing in his helmet.

It is good that they did not use original liners though.

Chevan
04-02-2007, 12:54 AM
The one of thing that amazing me in this film is the as the Spielberg realised the sound and visual effect of motion of Tiger. The sound was a great and it was showed even land shaked. I'm doubt the endeed very slow motion of 56-tonn Tiger on the street could cause the shake of land, but in film it was showed so realistic.

ww2admin
04-02-2007, 10:05 AM
They still show SPR on TV and it just keeps getting better and better.

FW-190 Pilot
04-02-2007, 01:20 PM
yeah, i agree some of the scene is great, but there is too much conversation that isnt related to the war. it makes me think i am watching the windtalkers.

shoogs
04-10-2007, 06:55 PM
how many people out there thinks this film is slightly UNtrue, why send a group of people out to save 1 troop, well as i was reading the book of 'band of brothers', i came across a small part about the very same thing, it was said that some of them came across a small group of troops doing just that, so how many times has this really happend.. just a thought. :cool: :cool:

Panzerknacker
04-10-2007, 08:40 PM
Moved.

Flammpanzer
04-15-2007, 05:23 AM
I found the movie pretty overrated. It was pretty good and all, but wasn't all that it was hyped up to be. I mean the German soldiers were all clumsy, stupid, cold-hearted villians, and ran blindly around corners without checking what's on the other side. This movie is an over-glorification of the U.S. Army.

yes, agree with that. I saw the movie in 1998 in New York, it impressed me a lot, the battle scenes are indeed done very well and realistic, but the film at all is not. some scenes are just riciculous, like the end.

as I posted somewhere else: if all americans killed so many germans with that little own losses, the war would have ended just 5 days after the invasion. nice popcorn-cimena with great effects, but I am SURE reality looked a bit different.

jens

AllHailCesar
04-15-2007, 06:34 AM
The sad truth of the matter is......... movies such as this are made for the entertainment of masses.......for the sole purpose of generating $$$$$$$$!
I enjoy documentaries that include reenactments. You don't see much of that on the big screen.

bwing55543
07-02-2007, 07:32 PM
There are some inaccuracies made for the sake of the movie:

1. It really took the Rangers about 2 hours to get up the cliffs, whereas the movie Rangers got up there in about 20 minutes.
2. The first thing the Germans would've done was blow up possible sniper's nests. Pvt. Jackson managed to snipe for a while before getting blown up towards the end of the battle.
3. Pvt. Jackson fired off 7 or 8 shots without reloading. His rifle, the M1903 Springfield, can only hold 5 shots at a time.

SS-Master
07-30-2007, 11:16 AM
There are some inaccuracies made for the sake of the movie:

1. It really took the Rangers about 2 hours to get up the cliffs, whereas the movie Rangers got up there in about 20 minutes.
2. The first thing the Germans would've done was blow up possible sniper's nests. Pvt. Jackson managed to snipe for a while before getting blown up towards the end of the battle.
3. Pvt. Jackson fired off 7 or 8 shots without reloading. His rifle, the M1903 Springfield, can only hold 5 shots at a time.
Possibly but you can't make the movie 2 hours longer just to make it more accurate.
You're right at the other points.
About the movie: the best part of the movie is the landing in Normandy in my opinion.
It's like a modern version of The longest day, wich is one of my favourite WW2 movie too.

Chuck Walker
07-30-2007, 09:30 PM
ya i luv that movie its great because of all the explosions and battle scenes!:twisted:

bwing55543
08-01-2007, 08:44 PM
Possibly but you can't make the movie 2 hours longer just to make it more accurate.
You're right at the other points.
About the movie: the best part of the movie is the landing in Normandy in my opinion.
It's like a modern version of The longest day, wich is one of my favourite WW2 movie too.

I agree on all points. As it is, the movie was nearly 3 hours long. Making a 2hour D-Day invasion would've been ludacrious.

I also agree that the D-Day invasion was my favorite part.

astupiddvdcase
08-12-2007, 06:52 AM
Movies really good .. alot of inaccuracies... and germans were so stupid in the movie. 5-10 germans running around in the open getting shot. LOL :confused:

bwing55543
08-12-2007, 12:55 PM
Movies really good .. alot of inaccuracies... and germans were so stupid in the movie. 5-10 germans running around in the open getting shot. LOL :confused:

A. Some inaccuracies were done for the sake of the movie.
B. If they were so stupid, how did they kill the majority of the Americans at Ramelle?

Gracie
01-07-2008, 09:13 PM
I liked it a lot, it's one of my husband's favorites.

Koen
01-20-2008, 04:48 AM
my 5 cents opinion:

I've seen most WWII movies in my collection tens-hundreds times all over again...except SPR...why?

Too much pattriotisme...the US soldier saves the world...the US soldier is the only one in this war...etc etc...

Secondly...thousands and thousands soldiers are fighting but we always encounter that same German soldier...and ofcourse he's mean...and to give an extra effect he's tall and very impressive...

Third...for me there are 2 good action scenes...the landing and the bridgefight...inbetween there's a long pauze where some soldiers walk around in the beautiful French countryside...and babble about home...
There's nothing wrong with putting sentiment in a warmovie but here it's too much...

It could/should've been a much better movie when the patriottisme was less, when the feeling was more about a warmovie.

comradesinarms
02-14-2008, 11:06 AM
There are some inaccuracies made for the sake of the movie:

1. It really took the Rangers about 2 hours to get up the cliffs, whereas the movie Rangers got up there in about 20 minutes.
2. The first thing the Germans would've done was blow up possible sniper's nests. Pvt. Jackson managed to snipe for a while before getting blown up towards the end of the battle.
3. Pvt. Jackson fired off 7 or 8 shots without reloading. His rifle, the M1903 Springfield, can only hold 5 shots at a time.


Thats because the rangers landed after the seoncd wave, they were diverted from point du hoc!
it was a fail safe, if the rangers at point du hoc succeeded in getting up the cliffs they would land there and rienforce them.
But, they couldn't radio for rienforcements so the command decided to send them to omaha!
the first wave was massacred in about 1 hour (if that) and the rangers got on the beach with the second wave of the first infantry division and managed to secure dog green sector within 30 minutes! but only dog green sector, the rest of the beach wasn't secured for 8 hours! :cool::rolleyes::)

And someone else said about ho they talked about home too much! im sorry mate but thats waht they all talked about, they've been through helll and want to go home! and these moments are in the film to create the feeling that you know the character and cann realate to them and their feelings! this film isn't a john wayne film where its fighting for 90% of it, its done properly with emotions and feelings and soppy bits lol!

and the german soldier that you aparently see loads of times! you see him twice mate! TWICE! lol its part of the story, he killed the man that set him free (i believe it is called irony!)

overall i think this film is brilliantly made, yeh some of the combat is a bit unrealistic but like ive just sed its still a movie, but the omaha beach landing was renacted realistically ( so realistically it was told that veterans had flashbacks and heart attacks from watching it)

there rant over :)

Panther F
02-14-2008, 02:28 PM
my 5 cents opinion:

I've seen most WWII movies in my collection tens-hundreds times all over again...except SPR...why?

Too much pattriotisme...the US soldier saves the world...the US soldier is the only one in this war...etc etc...

Secondly...thousands and thousands soldiers are fighting but we always encounter that same German soldier...and ofcourse he's mean...and to give an extra effect he's tall and very impressive...

Third...for me there are 2 good action scenes...the landing and the bridgefight...inbetween there's a long pauze where some soldiers walk around in the beautiful French countryside...and babble about home...
There's nothing wrong with putting sentiment in a warmovie but here it's too much...

It could/should've been a much better movie when the patriottisme was less, when the feeling was more about a warmovie.


That's the way American movies are made. Patriotism (spelled correctly) is what movie buffs want to see. Not a war documentry. It's an American made film for American audiences. And BTW, Private Ryan was the American soldier in this film they were trying to save. So, that's primarily what you're going to see the most of, U.S. soldiers.

overlord644
02-15-2008, 03:08 PM
There are some inaccuracies made for the sake of the movie:

1. It really took the Rangers about 2 hours to get up the cliffs, whereas the movie Rangers got up there in about 20 minutes.
2. The first thing the Germans would've done was blow up possible sniper's nests. Pvt. Jackson managed to snipe for a while before getting blown up towards the end of the battle.
3. Pvt. Jackson fired off 7 or 8 shots without reloading. His rifle, the M1903 Springfield, can only hold 5 shots at a time.

The germans probably wouldn't have blown the church steeple if they thought they could use it for themselves after steamrolling the towns light defences,

i thought that the lack of a preliminary shelling was far more outrageous, the germans were bad, not stupid!

overlord644
02-15-2008, 03:17 PM
my 5 cents opinion:

I've seen most WWII movies in my collection tens-hundreds times all over again...except SPR...why?

Too much pattriotisme...the US soldier saves the world...the US soldier is the only one in this war...etc etc...

Secondly...thousands and thousands soldiers are fighting but we always encounter that same German soldier...and ofcourse he's mean...and to give an extra effect he's tall and very impressive...

Third...for me there are 2 good action scenes...the landing and the bridgefight...inbetween there's a long pauze where some soldiers walk around in the beautiful French countryside...and babble about home...
There's nothing wrong with putting sentiment in a warmovie but here it's too much...

It could/should've been a much better movie when the patriottisme was less, when the feeling was more about a warmovie.

im not even that big a fan of the movie, but one thing that should be pointed out is that the reason you didn't see any British or Canadians (a common criticism of most American ww2 movies) is because they were MILES AWAY!

its unlikely that americans would have run into the British in their very brief travels.

And as for the german soldier, i didn't think he was being portrayed as mean or inhuman, in fact it was quite the opposite, the man they captured was just as terrified as the Americans were

HAWKEYE
04-10-2008, 04:47 PM
Too much pattriotisme...the US soldier saves the world...the US soldier is the only one in this war...etc etc...


Ok, how were they to show all about the Brits and the French and the Canadians and Aussies and Kiwis helping? It was about an American squad going to save an American soldier in the American sector, moving from one American sector of Normandy to another American sector of Normandy, without crossing over Gold, Juno, or Sword sectors to get there? I'm so tired of this complaint about the movie....."It only showed Americans... and how they won the war....". No it was not like that at all...

Gotta go for now, my American tax accountant called...I hope you are not offended I didn't see a British one instead......

Nickdfresh
04-10-2008, 05:07 PM
How about a better, less corny script? :)

Jagdpanther
05-12-2008, 01:22 AM
I found the movie quite good but not the best world war two movie

gumalangi
05-13-2008, 09:35 AM
I like saving private ryan,. very touchy and beautiful movie,.

however you go to bookstore if you looking for a historical facts

namvet
05-28-2008, 09:11 AM
wife and I saw at the theatre. there were people getting up and walking out during the 1st 25 mins. they all stopped eating to. it was a horific scene. is a shot like this really possible????



http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q153/JPD1963/videos/?action=view&current=0f9c1451.flv

HAWKEYE
05-28-2008, 01:57 PM
There are several schools of thought on that. The Mythbusters tried to replicate the shot but never could, they say it's not possible, but Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock did it in Vietnam for real....so maybe it's like the bumblebee....scientists have proven that a bumblebee can't fly, given it's size and wing span but it keeps on doing it anyway.

Drake
05-28-2008, 02:24 PM
It's definatly possible, just highly unlikely, even for a sniper. There are rarely certainties in experimental physics (of which this experiment would be a subsection), just probabilities.

bwing55543
05-30-2008, 08:44 PM
I'm not really sure of Pvt. Jackson was really going for the German's eye. He most probably was going for a headshot, and it happened to go through the German's scope and into his eye. As it is, I don't think the Springfield's scope can even zoom in close enough for the user to clearly see the German's eyes.

HAWKEYE
05-31-2008, 10:53 AM
I'm not really sure of Pvt. Jackson was really going for the German's eye. He most probably was going for a headshot, and it happened to go through the German's scope and into his eye. As it is, I don't think the Springfield's scope can even zoom in close enough for the user to clearly see the German's eyes.

That was a movie, they were trying to show how good a shot Jackson was.

This is the real thing:

In one incredible incident an enemy sniper was killed after a prolonged game of "cat and mouse" between Carlos, with his spotter, and the NVA sniper. The fatal round, fired at 500 yards by Hathcock, passed directly through the NVA sniper's rifle scope, striking him in the eye.

flamethrowerguy
07-06-2008, 10:04 PM
It's possible by random I guess. But it fits a Hollywood movie perfectly. Man, I just imagine me trying to hit something with a pistol from a distance of 30 feet...

SS Ouche-Vittes
07-17-2008, 08:48 PM
i agree it was too corny. I don't find it heroic that they stayed behind rather than just taking Ryan and go home and then they all get killed except for Ryan and that guy with the BAR.

aly j
10-07-2008, 07:37 AM
but you dont think the battle in the beginning scene is too long and its such a pain to watch it all?
otherwise, the rest of the movie is pretty good

Im with you on this one , i like the film but beginning too long.I think i fast forward some of the beginning. cheers

HMS Deersound
12-11-2008, 07:00 AM
In SPR does the US sniper fire from his left shoulder at all times? In reality would US Army training have forced a soldier to fire from his right so as to reload a weapon like the Springfield efficiently? Also this was an era where schools discouraged (harshly)writing with the left ???

A WW2 British Army vet told me this was how they were trained in basic training (only fire from the right) due to the Lee Enfield, however there is a photo of British troops in a trench at Caen with one bloke firing from his left - confused ?????

Flashman
01-07-2009, 07:48 AM
It's an incredible film ; and the opening alone get's it in any discussion of war movies. However, I too find the film incredibly corny and silly at times. The letter at the beginning. The mission to rescue him - which of course didn't happen in real life. The guy was brought home, for propaganda, but they didn't wastefully send a bunch of guys to get him. Great war film? Yeah. But by no means the best (although I know many people disagree with me).

I prefer The Longest Day.

Keystone Two-Eight
01-07-2009, 10:43 AM
I had read when the film came out, that Ryan did indeed leave the area and di not stick around to fight.

It was a work of fiction, based on the Sullivan brothers.Are you implying it actually happened?


Yes i remember that scene ,german let him to go ,but in the end of movie american soldier shot that german .

No, the German that Upham smoked at the end was "Steamboat Willie', the guy from the Machine gun nest, not the soldier that killed Mellish.See below for picture comparisons.
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f208/corbinbernsen/german-comp-steamboat.jpghttp://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f208/corbinbernsen/german-comp-waffen-ss.jpg the latter of the two being an SS officer as per the SPR online dictionary (http://www.sproe.com/index.html)


(Off topic) Do you think Matt will really look like old ryan in the future?!?

Old Ryan is actually another actor named Harrison Young (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0949599/)

HAWKEYE
01-08-2009, 12:24 AM
Originally Posted by KEYSTONE TWO-EIGHT:

It was a work of fiction, based on the Sullivan brothers.Are you implying it actually happened?

Actually it was based on the Niland brothers, not the Sullivans, the Sullivans were the reason brothers/relatives were no longer posted together on ships in the NAVY.

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

Keystone Two-Eight
01-08-2009, 12:23 PM
Actually it was based on the Niland brothers, not the Sullivans, the Sullivans were the reason brothers/relatives were no longer posted together on ships in the NAVY.

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

Thanks hawkeye! your name suits you! I had never heard of them before!

mtclimber
07-01-2012, 12:48 AM
It seems that some non-American people have some misconceptions, hell almost an inferiority complex, about how Americans view our role in WW2. For the most part, particularly those who are students of history, we don't believe that the US single handedly won the war. If anything, from viewing this and other message boards, many non Americans downplay the US's role. Sure we came in 2 years later than the UK. But when we did arrive we came in full steam.
I don't see how anyone can view SPR and come away with the idea that Americans believe we won the war on our own. The squad in the movie suffered 75% casualties, and would have been wiped out if not for the very timely arrival of the P51's. I wonder if some go into this and other movies expecting that, and see things that just aren't there in order to confirm a self-fulfilling point of view.
And as for complaints that other Allied forces weren't featured, well no one complains about American soldiers not being featured in Stalingrad, oh wait, it's because they weren't there!! SPR is a movie focusing on one small rifle squad dealing only with other US troops over a span of a few days, not about super-soldiers marching into Berlin and slitting Hitler's throat.

JR*
07-02-2012, 04:16 AM
Just came across this thread. For me, "Saving Private Ryan" is a very good war movie. It looks right, and works hard at looking right. There are some goofs and improbabilities, but these things happen. The plot may have been a bit sentimental but, after all, this is a drama, not a documentary. I notice that some have problems with the opening scene. I actually found this very impressive as a well-sustained battle scene, notwithstanding that one or two little goofs crept in at this point. I would have few reservations in recommending SPR to somebody who wanted to see a good, reasonably authentic war movie; a lot more than I could say for many other WW2 movies. Best regards, JR.

downwithpeace
07-04-2012, 04:40 PM
I notice that some have problems with the opening scene. I actually found this very impressive as a well-sustained battle scene, notwithstanding that one or two little goofs crept in at this point.

Anything to do with the actual location? ;)
There was a joke about that, don't remember it but the basic idea of it was Wexford Coast wasn't chosen because of the Normandy similarities but because Wexford villages were still in 1944.

It's a good all around WW2 action film, the story is loosely based on brothers serving in WW2 but in the real story two of the brothers survived.

danielkroner
11-21-2012, 11:36 AM
Interestingly, for much of the younger generation this was our first "war movie". Definitely something that sticks with you for a long time.