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?
I liked it a lot, it’s one of my husband’s favorites.
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.
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! 
: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
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.
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!
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
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…
How about a better, less corny script?
I found the movie quite good but not the best world war two movie
I like saving private ryan,. very touchy and beautiful movie,.
however you go to bookstore if you looking for a historical facts
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¤t=0f9c1451.flv
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
Im with you on this one , i like the film but beginning too long.I think i fast forward some of the beginning. cheers
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 ???