Claimed Reality Is Flawed But Film Is Still Worth It

Rating: 9/10 (22 July 2003)

As I am a thirty year military professional many people have asked my opinion of the film. This is it in a nutshell:
The Weapons:
The thing I noticed most right away was the terrible dilapidated condition of the weapons used. It was beyond what could be excused as normal field wear. Especially noticeable were the Garands. Very old, aged, wood for instance. For as much money as they spent on the film, they could have done better.
The Sniper:
The sniper weapon seemed to undergo transformations. The scope and rings seemed to change as they went along and the combinations just didn't make it. Most odd was the manual of arms used by the sniper character. Shooting right and then using his left hand to operate the bolt just seemed nuts. I have never seen any trained shooter operate like this.
The Uniforms:
The field jackets were a more faded color of OD than the originals. I know this is nit picking, but I had one of these when I was a kid - 82nd Airborne too - and the color was noticeably brighter. Also, everyone seemed to have the same crude hand stitching on their shoulder insignia.
The Battle Scenes:
Every one of the eye witnesses still alive has had a comment on how real the battle scenes looked. One guy did say there was not that much blood in real life (the sand absorbed it). Some others I have pushed for comment concede that my impressions were correct in that most of the comments are more meaning that it was more realistic that any movie done so far. But comparing it with the real stuff I have seen and with eyewitness accounts written at the time of the battle; and photos and film done at the time, one comes to the inescapable conclusion that the movie was actually much less "gory" than real life. For me, the best done casualty was when one man was hit in the small action against the machine gun nest.
The scene where the wall collapsed revealing a room full of stunned and unmoving Germans who were then hosed down by two GI's with Thompson's was over the top, credibility wise. Gimme a break. This film is still Hollywood enough that the valiant American soldiers are the only ones to suffer wounding and survive; the only ones to fight through suffering and adversity. All of the Germans die on the spot without further struggle or resistance; all fall to one-shot stops and there are no heroes, no gritty determination on the part of any of the Germans except for the guy with the bayonet. There were so many people killed and not one exhibited the characteristic bladder/bowel emptying phenomenon ... I guess Hollywood wasn't quite ready for (oops) that. How many movies have you seen *that* in... one that I can recall ... perhaps no more ... they did so good with the sound, too bad they couldn't recreate the stench.
The Characters:
This is what bugged me the most. I grew up in the years immediately following the war in the middle of scores of WWII combat vets. My dad, a disabled Navy vet, moved the family to one of those giant new GI housing projects surrounding one of three military bases in the area. I knew these men; Army, Air Corps, Navy, Marines. What they thought and how they talked had not changed since the war ended. VFW and DOD union gatherings held many opportunities to listen to endless talk and stories about the "war". These men had a clear and resolutely patriotic vision of what they did and why. They harbored real vehement hatreds of the recently past enemies. In this regard, this film did these men a great disservice; it made them look weak and cloying by comparison. The real men were the genuine article. Not fearless or supermen either, but their attitude was entirely different, their vocabulary was different, their demeanor was different. The guys in the hastily contrived unit the Hanks character took into the field were all supposed to be experienced Rangers. These were the real meat-eaters of the Army in WWII - the fore-runners of the Green Berets and, as such, were even less likely to act in the way the film showed. These groups were some real tough S.O.B.'s. To top it off, everyone's haircuts were not period. If you want to see something closer to the real deal, catch "They Were Expendable". To these performances, add lots of very creative profanity.
The Plot:
I could not buy the actions of the men within the context of their assigned mission. Then, the blatant disregard for orders and the open hostility toward superiors was very unrealistic (more Hollywood). I could have done a better plot in my sleep. The disobedience Ryan showed to the stated orders would not have happened. In real life he would have been ordered by the Cpt to get his gear and shove out and that would have been that.
What I did like:
The cinematography was superb. The sound was great. It was the most realistic depiction of the receiving end of gunfire I have heard on film to date. Still, this wasn't consistent throughout. The reality they did attempt with regard to battlefield casualties was better than what has probably been done to date. I think it is a good idea for young people to see this and discuss it in terms of the reality of it and what violence really means and what it actually does to people. Real war is much worse than Spielberg shows. I like the fact that in spite of what Spielberg's political agenda may have been, people are looking at this as a more positive tribute to those who sacrificed so much so that the rest of us could be free. That is its one redemption and what makes it worth seeing.