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.
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?
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.
great movie, great combats scenes
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.
I liked that scene as well but I like the Rammel Scene the best.
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.
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.
They still show SPR on TV and it just keeps getting better and better.
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.
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. 
Moved.
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
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.
There are some inaccuracies made for the sake of the movie:
- It really took the Rangers about 2 hours to get up the cliffs, whereas the movie Rangers got up there in about 20 minutes.
- 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.
- 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.
ya i luv that movie its great because of all the explosions and battle scenes!:twisted:
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.
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 