Saving Private Ryan returning to cinemas.

Dades

beauf wrote: »

Even in our tiny island some people are always trying to make war, Rob or steal.

goldenhoarde wrote: »

Some of the guys walked away with full sets of uniforms. One lad had his van parked across the road empty when he arrived but full to the brim on the way home.

Bits of everything, if it wasn't nailed down he had it LOL

Indeed.

FireOne

p to the e wrote: »

Good comment.

Can I ask what you feel is cliched in Saving Private Ryan? Not being an ass, just curious. I think there are movies that make use of a lot of what was first seen in SPR so may feel cliched by this point.

SPR has a stunning opening which undoes the long history of Hollywood war movies sanitizing war in many respects, stripping away the clichés and making you feel like you are watching a whole new cinematic take on war.
But then the clichés are laid on with a trowel towards the end, the whole 'lets all hold them off this bridge together like Spartans' idea, with their home-made sticky bombbs and all. And Tom Hank's death scene with a few wise words before he slips away, is quite a contrast to the medic's death in the first half. Real Hollywood stuff.

branie2

I have the film on Blu-ray as well

vriesmays

Have you got Beach red?

branie2

No

Church on Tuesday

Dades wrote: »

Indeed.

TBF the props are only going to be chucked in the skip anyways.

TinCool

This is it

Very excited

LuckyLloyd

That was immense. The big screen truly does justice to a truly special piece of cinema.

This is it

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That was immense. The big screen truly does justice to a truly special piece of cinema.

Fantastic stuff, really enjoyed it.

Guy:Incognito

Really enjoyed that. So did my 14 year old.

Dave_The_Sheep

I remember it being louder, but that could just have been the screen I was in back then or the fact I was just a teenager at the time.

Still visually spectacular, absolutely brutal and harrowing, but still has it's compassionate moments. Very few black and white scenes or characters, just emphasises the shades of gray involved for everyone and how they deal with it.

Shred

It was an absolute privilege to see it on the big screen again and quite profound considering it was the D-Day anniversary too.

Tony EH

Heckler wrote: »

a couple of Germans being shot after surrendering,

They were Czechoslovakian.

Heckler wrote: »

To quote Stephen Ambrose, "The most important day of the 20th century. Everything before that, led up to D-Day. Everything since has been a consequence of D-Day".

Ambrose said an awful lot of bunkum and the above is no less an example of it.

Heckler wrote: »

I think even an Irish person can understand how if D-Day went badly things might not be the same here on our little Island.

Absolutely nothing would have happened "here on our little Island".

And there wasn't any way in the world that D-Day was going to fail. The Russians had bled the Wehrmacht dry by the Summer of 1944. Apart from Omaha, which is always the at the heart of D-Day brouhaha, the rest of the beaches were cake walks with very light resistance. The fact of the matter is that the Germans simply didn't have enough men or material to successful defend even one beach. Never mind all five.

In the end, D-Day was more about getting a western Allied foothold on European soil before the Russians ran through what was left of the German army east of Berlin, with the possibility of them rampaging all the way to France too.

Tony EH

Manic Moran wrote: »

I agree that SPR is overrated as a war movie, it is fairly clicheed. That does not mean, however, that the opening sequence isn’t some of the best war sequence put to celluloid. It was accurate enough that WW2 vets had bad reactions to it. Which probably should make it mandatory viewing for everyone.

Went to see it with my dad in 98. While I liked it, he said it was just another American war movie. Full of cliches and junk.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Fury is a weird one. As a war movie, it’s fair. As a tanker movie, it’s absolutely spot on. Ayer flew me to Pinewood/Longcross to have a chat before filming started, it’s interesting to compare the difference between what he intended, and what audiences perceived he intent to be. I had a friend who was a cop, he said that every one of his colleagues loved “end of watch” because Ayer “got it”. Ayer said it was his homage to cops. Similarly, Fury is Ayer’s homage to tankers. I don’t know a single tanker who doesn’t like it, and he got some of the mentality absolutely right. (The Hurt Locker is another one like that, making militarily inaccurate movie scenes, but getting the mental aspect right). The platoon on line supporting the infantry with every gun blazing is exactly why we became tankers. Our tank is our home, and another crewman, not just a vehicle. Almost every thing in Fury both in the movie and deleted from the original script is based on a real-world event, from the tank name to the crewman wearing a top hat. Obviously not everything would have happened to one crew, (Audie Murphy’s beating off a German unit from a disabled vehicle would be enough for one guy, normally) but the film is limited to audience attention over two hours. Similarly, technical inaccuracies were consciously retained for ease of viewing. It wasn’t as if he were unaware that Fury couldn’t fire white phosphorous rounds, I told him as much. But it was retained anyway because US tankers (75mm and 105mm tanks) did use white phosphorous on the enemy, and it was an experience he wanted to put in the movie. A little looseness with reality was a deliberate decision to aid the intent of the movie. If a realistic change could be made without affecting the movie, it was made. If it would, then it wasn’t. I left Pinewood with a new perspective on filmmaking i did not have beforehand.

Thought 'Fury' was largely rubbish myself. While the tankers and the tanks were fine. The story was absolute nonsense, especially that ending. So, so, silly. :rolleyes:

A definite case where Hollywood story telling destroyed what could have been a good movie.

pixelburp

A bit like how many try to imitate Michael Bay's style, but just can't recreate that heightened, grotesque beauty of his (and he can make arresting shots), the beach scene in SPR spawned many, MANY imitators that have mostly field to retain the important factors of geography and comprehension still needed in action scenes. They copy the superficial style of the "shaky cam" Spielberg pioneered with this film (I'm sure others did it first but Spielberg rammed it into the public discourse), without understanding the necessary grounding needed. Paul Greengrass accelerated this obsession with the pseudo documentarian even more, with even more nauseous results...

beauf

Tony EH wrote: »

...The fact of the matter is that the Germans simply didn't have enough men or material to successful defend even one beach. Never mind all five.

In the end, D-Day was more about getting a western Allied foothold on European soil before the Russians ran through what was left of the German army east of Berlin, with the possibility of them rampaging all the way to France too.

....And yet it took both the Western Allies and the Russians another year of hard fighting to end the war... Only enough to defend one beach?

beauf

pixelburp wrote: »

.... They copy the superficial style of the "shaky cam" Spielberg pioneered with this film (I'm sure others did it first but Spielberg rammed it into the public discourse), without understanding the necessary grounding needed. Paul Greengrass accelerated this obsession with the pseudo documentarian even more, with even more nauseous results...

That has ruined so many movies for me.

Tony EH

beauf wrote: »

....And yet it took both the Western Allies and the Russians another year of hard fighting to end the war... Only enough to defend one beach?

I read once that only one in five German MG nests were occupied. They simply hadn't the numbers to defend the area. A lot of the troops on the beaches were second line and low quality Ost truppen -> This is the significance of the shooting Czech "German" soldiers in 'Saving Private Ryan'. The Germans held their armour in reserve too. But, had they been closer to the beaches they would have been obliterated by the naval guns and thus made the Allied breakout easier than it was.

Only one beach had problems on the day and that was really only for the first wave. On the rest of the Beaches, the Allied troops basically walked ashore with fairly minimal resistance. But, even so, Omaha was never going to be a failure, despite some humming and hawing from one or two of the American leadership.

The Germans, though, would have needed at least another two or three full divisions of men to have a chance of repelling the Allied invasion and even then, without any realistic way to oppose the Allied control of the air, it would still have been a tall ask.

The fact that the Allies had absolute control of the air was of utmost importance. The Germans could only move by night as everything was strafed and bombed by Jabo's during the day. The Luftwaffe could only mount a few sorties on the 6th June too and were completely ineffectual. They simply hadn't the numbers or equipment.

The undeniable reality of the German situation was that they were done and the writing had been on the wall since Kursk.

As for, "it took a year", a lot of that was down to minor miracles that the German army managed to pull off, which nobody expected them to be able to do. Not even themselves. But it was obvious to everyone involved that it was only a matter of time before the inevitable end came. The Germans certainly pulled a lot of the bag in the final 11 months of the war, no doubt, and these successes can be placed at the feet of the likes of Gotthard Heinrici and other Generals of his ilk.

But there were was never any doubt on what the outcome would be.

beauf

Tony EH wrote: »

......
Only one beach had problems on the day and that was really only for the first wave. On the rest of the Beaches, the Allied troops basically walked ashore with fairly minimal resistance. . .

"...Allied casualties on the first day were at least 10,000, with 4,414 confirmed dead.[189] The Germans lost 1,000 men..."

"...
German casualties on D-Day have been estimated at 4,000 to 9,000 men. Allied casualties were put at at least 10,000, with 4,414 confirmed dead..."

Battle of Berlin April 1945...

"... According to Grigoriy Krivosheev's work based on declassified archival data, Soviet forces sustained 81,116 dead for the entire operation, which included the battles of Seelow Heights and the Halbe;[10] another 280,251 were reported wounded or sick during the operational period.[123][h] The operation also cost the Soviets about 1,997 tanks and SPGs.[11] Krivosheev noted: "All losses of arms and equipment are counted as irrecoverable losses, i.e. beyond economic repair or no longer serviceable".[124] Soviet estimates based on kill claims placed German losses at 458,080 killed and 479,298 captured,[125] but German research puts the number of dead at approximately 92,000 – 100,000.[12] ...."

Doesn't sound like the walk in the park you are painting...

Tony EH

None of that changes the fact that the outcome was never in doubt.

The German casualty rate was 125% of what they could field. Simply not enough manpower.

The Allies could easily absorb the losses. The Germans couldn't.

beauf

I'm sure for the people living in occupied territory and in camps and prisons. For all those that died in the last year of the war. The fighting was not light, or indeed insignificant.

German wasn't going to win. But there lots of different ways to lose and the outcome for Europe to be very different.

Tony EH

beauf wrote: »

I'm sure for the people living in occupied territory and in camps and prisons.

Nobody mentioned anything about this.

beauf wrote: »

For all those that died in the last year of the war. The fighting was not light, or indeed insignificant.

Nobody said it was. That's your own misinterpretation.

None of your post that changes the fact that D-Day was never going to be a failure and was going to have no affect on "our little Island" whatsoever, which is the point you jumped in on.

beauf

Tony EH wrote: »

... before the Russians ran through what was left of the German army east of Berlin, with the possibility of them rampaging all the way to France too.

Say we run with your idea the Russians got all the way to the French coast.

Would that have had have an impact on Ireland, Europe after the war all the way to the EU...

Tony EH

beauf wrote: »

Say we run with your idea the Russians got all the way to the French coast.

Would that have had have an impact on Ireland, Europe after the war all the way to the EU...

This was never going to happen.

beauf

Bet the French thought the same in 1940

Tony EH

beauf wrote: »

Bet the French thought the same in 1940

That wasn't the thrust of Helcker's post. Perhaps you should read it.

beauf

Even assuming the premise that D-Day made no difference to the outcome of the war. It had a huge impact politically and culturally in Europe and beyond ever since. And that certainly had an effect on Ireland.

Tony EH

beauf wrote: »

Even assuming the premise that D-Day made no difference to the outcome of the war.

Nobody said this.

beauf

Tony EH wrote: »

That wasn't the thrust of Helcker's post. Perhaps you should read it.

Perhaps I don't agree with that either.

Generally things are rarely simply. Usually it's a confluence of many things which might appear insignificant in isolation but work together to have an effect.