Rewards repeated viewing

Rating: Null/10 (7 July 2004)

Some of the naff comments posted here make me wonder if people were watching the same movie, or what they were smoking or drinking when they did. Warts and all, this movie rewards repeated viewing. I just watched it again only to check on the presence of a certain military vehicle, which appears near the beginning (long story), and I ended up watching the whole thing again - and then reviewing certain scenes and shots. What I really appreciated this time around were classic cinematic techniques of visual storytelling, many of them noted in other comments. And it is without question, one of the best war movies made. Yes, it suffers dramatically because it stays close to the facts. Yes, it is confusing, and reading up on the story of Op Market Garden can help ease the confusion - but it is true to the larger facts and issues. On the cast: most of the Americans they got wrong - I have never, ever understood Ryan O'Neil's presence in the movies. Redford was Redford, same as he is in every picture. Gould - feh. Hackman, great actor, but wrong here. Caan I actually thought was fine (his Capt. Glass was actually a Canadian actor, Nicholas Campbell, latterly best known as coroner Dominic DaVinci on DaVinci's Inquest).
Most of the British they got right, some note-perfect others were OK, albeit some in a rather clichéd way, but better than most of the Yanks. And for the guy who said that John (Cliff Claven) Ratzenberger was uncredited as an American officer, well, he is credited. And for the guy who was commenting on the PIAT - the correct term is Projector, Infantry, Antitank - and while a seemingly odd weapon, what with the spring and spigot arrangement, when used as designed it could be quite effective. A Canadian called Smokey Smith was awarded the VC for using it quite lethally against German panzers in Italy. True, the panzerfaust and bazooka and their descendants (like the RPG-7) are more powerful and effective, but the PIAT had its day. Details of weapons and equipment were as good as it gets, given the limitations of movie making - no obvious clangers among the vehicles (OK, rollbars on Kubelwagens,and a lot of fudged German kit) - I'm sure there are purist quibbles. Sure nice to see the Bren carriers among the Shermans, Jeeps, M3 halftracks, QLs, etc., and the scout cars, Caine's Humber and the Dingo are spiffy. Those fighter bombers, yeh, they sure weren't Typhoons, so I guess we were supposed to pretend those Harvards were P-47s - they made me think more of Brewsters or pre-war Severskys.
The Auster was a nice touch (I grew up with RCAF DC-3s overhead all the time, so they weren't such big novelty to see - I miss them now. There was one at the airport recently - I heard its engines and knew right away what it was.) And yeh, it would been nice to see more of the Horsa gliders - especially since they were done so well (with models) in The Longest Day - but a little matte work is a much as Attenborough was going for in fudging the aviation stuff. Oh, and I like Addison's score, too, bombast and all.