I thought it was good, I know the Army said it was accurate. I did read the book 2 years ago, and it does follow the book.
It just doesnt have the excitement of other great war movies. It had no suspense, even though we are all supposed to knopw how it ends, Ill agree, but there was no cinematic suspense.
The ating was ok, the Delta Force guys were the best characters in the movie. Sam Shepherd was too casual, too much of a Hollywood type to be the part of the General. Tom SIzemore looked bored.
The smaller parts that were polayed, they were ok, some good.
I think they should have found a betteer soundtrack, that helps a lot in building up emotion.
I get VERY emotional at movies, I always put myself in the place of the characters of the film. In plain english, that means I cry at movies, WAR movies, knowing what is probably happening next, screaming at the screen, "Dont pick up the ammo box, it is booby trapped!" kind of stuff.
2.5 stars. I still reccomend it, but it aint no oscar winner.
Remind me to find out what theater you go to. And not go there :)
So you are saying "Wait for cable"! OK
The combat scenes in Private Ryan were great. However, the thing that drives me crazy about all combat scenes is the volume. In real combat, guys basically can't talk to each other at all. There is just too much noise.
The other problems with Private Ryan were:
1. At the end, the tank would not have driven in to the town without infantry clearing the way. Tanks are very vulnerable in cities. and;
2. The explosives that they used for making anti-tank weapons could have much more effectively have been used to simply blow up the bridge.
You got nothing on me!
Dan
I don't consider this one a movie at all. It was as close to a documentary as you can get without actually shooting combat footage. This film wasn't made to entertain. If anyone is entertained by this, they are sick. This film was more of a tribute to a lot of great guys who did their finest to make the best of a poorly thought out operation. This movie was a tribute to 2 outstanding Americans who gave their lives to save another American and as a result were quietly awarded the MOH by the impeached one. This movie was about a young American by the name of Jamie Smith who bled out his life in a dunghole called Somalia. To consider this just another film to be rated 2 1/2 stars is a insult to the Americans who bravely fought and died there. I encourage anyone who has never faced enemy fire or who has never lost a friend to enemy fire to go see this movie. It pulls no punches and doesn't attempt to entertain you. This movie shows the true spirit of the American fighting man.
I think BHD was very real, and had set a new standard for realism - what was on the screen tracked fairly well to what happened.
All I could think of during the movie was #@# D&%$ Clinton and Les Aspin for not providing armor and gunship support.
An earlier report on this movie stated that Clinton provided more tanks at Waco than he did in Somalia. I'll ditto that one.
If we send our soldiers into battle, we must provide them with every possible tool to guarantee their success
President William Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C., 20500
October 25, 1993
President Clinton:
As a warrior who was disabled in the Vietnam War and as a father of a warrior killed in action in Somalia, I cannot accept your letter of condolence for the death of my son Ranger Corporal James E. Smith. To accept your letter would be contrary to all the beliefs I, my son and the Rangers hold so dear, including: loyalty, courage and tenacity. During the battle for Anzio, in World War II, an inept indecisive field commander sent the Rangers into battle where they were slaughtered. Fifty years later the Rangers again were ordered into battle, where they were surrounded and outgunned. But this time is was not the fault of the field commanders. No -- this time it was the fault of the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. Your failure to provide the requested combat support reveals a lack of loyalty to the troops under your command and an extreme shortage of moral courage.
I had the honor to meet the Rangers who fought along side my son and were with Jamie when he died. I heard of magnificent acts of courage and sacrifice. I had Rangers, with tears in their eyes, apologize for letting my son die or their failure to break through and rescue the trapped Rangers. The failure is not theirs, it is yours. Trucks and Humvees cannot replace the requested tanks, armored personnel carriers and Spectre gunships.
As a combat veteran I know that there are no certainties on the battlefield; however, as an Infantry Officer I will always speculate that significantly less casualties would have resulted if you, as Commander in Chief, provided the Rangers with the requested combat support -- equipment with which Rangers routinely train and for which approval should have been automatic. The Rangers were pinned down for twelve hours -- long hours when the Rangers were fighting for their lives and a Delta Force medic fought to save my son. Jamie bled to death because the requested armor support was not there to break through to the Rangers. Rangers pride themselves on the Ranger Creed. "Driving on to the Ranger objective", or "Surrender is not a Ranger word" are not hollow phrases to the men of the black beret. These soldiers understand the word tenacious and wanted to complete their mission. As Ranger after Ranger told me, they were hitting Aidid's forces and command structure hard. But, the United Nations was actually impeding Ranger missions by offering sanctuary to Aidid's supporters. Your willingness to allow this dangerous situation demonstrates a lack of resolve in supporting the men you sent into battle.
My son is no longer here to "Lead the Way"; however, I am.
Until you as President and Commander in Chief are either willing or able to formulate a clear foreign policy, establish specific objectives and, most important, support the men and women in uniform, I will "Lead the Way" in insuring that you no longer send America's finest to a needless death. When you are capable of meeting these criteria, then I will accept you letter of condolence.
Sincerely,
(signature)
James H. Smith Captain/Infantry (Retired)
Well, I did like it the first time, but it really was better the second time. I saw much less of the Hollywood acting in it as I saw at first, I dunno.
I didn't like it at all. I guess I will learn some day that Jerry Bruckheimer (sp) makes uniformly bad movies.
This movie had no discernable plot or any characters worthy of interest. It was just a big shoot-em-up. Definitely thumbs down.
Walt