the_bike Reviews

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

It's not history, although ambitious

[1/10 · 9 March 2004]

Spielberg set out to make a realistic depiction of the Omaha Beach landings to kick off his film, which is about a fictional mission of a squad to rescue one Pvt Ryan, of the airborne, dropped inland behind the beaches. One glaring idiocy of the film is why they would dispatch soldiers from the Omaha sector to rescue someone dropped

behind the Utah sector, especially when 4th Infantry Div soldiers are

already in contact with a large portion of the airborne troops. The answer is, of course, because that gives Spielberg his opportunity to display the Omaha landings rather than the Utah beach landings next door, which were too easy and lacked any bloody combat. If the only thing anyone knows about the V Corps landings at Omaha came from this film, then they would have been better off skipping the film, or at least the opening scenes of battle. Read a book and learn what happened at Omaha. You'll find that it wasn't anywhere near as bloody as Spielberg's film leads one to believe. Omaha Beach was considered bloody only because of comparison with landings at the other 4 beaches, which were virtually walkovers. The rest of the movie is not much to see, with many errors in the combat sequences, especially with respect to tactics that would have been used. Spielberg's film is badly flawed as history, and the story is downright unbelievable - why not radio the 101st and order Ryan off the line? Why send a few guys to walk thru the entire German 7th Army and search in a 400 square mile area for some guy named Ryan? The US Army wasn't always the most efficient, but they would never have sent off a squad on such a cockamamie mision.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

It's simply a powerful and compelling story

[29 February 2004]

The film is powerful because the story is powerful. That's true regardless of what else you might or might not believe about Jesus. I fail to understand why declaring Jewish leaders in Jerusalem as responsible for the death of Christ has anything to do with the Jewish religion or the ethnic people. Jesus, after all, was Jewish himself,

although he objected to the way the church was being administered, something all Jews today would certainly agree with. So why are they defending the rotten Jewish leaders who lived 2000 years ago? Knee jerk reaction, apparently, with the emphasis on jerk.

No Time for Sergeants (1958)

One of the very best comedies

[29 November 2003]

Movies like this are what they're taking about when they talk of classic comedies. This was the movie version of a Broadway stage hit that ran forever, and anyone who watches this film will readily understand why. Andy Griffith is absolutely perfect as Will Stockdale and Nick Adams, Sergeant King and Don Knotts fit their parts like a glove. They simply don't make many comedies that are as flat out funny as this one. They never did and still don't.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Not a valid portrayal of Neptune

[1/10 · 22 October 2003]

The problem with Saving Pvt Ryan is that is is basically a

fraudulent portrayal of the Omaha Beach landings. Every single detail may, for all I know, be authentic for the group portrayed, which I assume was Goranson's Company C, 2nd Rangers. But that company, with one notable exception, experienced the worst that Omaha Beach

dealt to the assault troops during the hours 0630-0800. Thus you get an extremely biased view of the typical experience of those landing at Omaha. For example, the entire 5th Ranger Battalion (Col Schneider) (6 companies) landed at 0740 with a cost of only 4 wounded. It all depended on where your landing craft touched down (or allowed it to touch down - Col Schneider was supposed to land right where Hanks was , Dog Green, but had the sense to order the craft eastward), and Capt Hanks landed

at the very worst spot on the entire 4 mile long landing area. And troops walked up the slopes, they didn't crawl up, inch by inch, etc. Nor where they under murderous fire ascending the slopes - very few casualties were taken during those actions. Total casualty rate for the first 14,000 or so troops that landed in the first assault waves (0630-0800)was not much over 10%, far different from what you see portrayed in Ryan. If you want to learn the history of Omaha Beach read the US Army after action reports or go the US Army Historical site. Don't bother with this movie or Ambrose's nonsensical book or The Longest Day. They are for made for entertainment purposes and only mention the disasters,etc. Beside, Ambose has been known as a plagiarist and creater of non-existent eyewitnesses.( It's worth noting that he was hired by Spielberg to "authenticate" the scenes. He's a very poor historian and not very knowledgeable about WWII. I found tons of errors in his books about D Day and Citizen Soldiers).

Anyone who sees Pvt Ryan comes away with zero knowledge of Operation Neptune at Omaha Beach. After the beach scenes,the rest of the story can be summed up in a single phrase : "Call the 101st on the radio, and tell them to pull Ryan from the line." That's all that the Army would have had to do to save Ryan.

Sending a squad thru enemy lines to search a 100 square mile area for a guy named Ryan, while fighting is occurring every 100 yards is about the most preposterous idea for a story I ever heard of. But then, that's Spielberg. Anything to get the customer excited. No matter how realistic the scenes may be (I wonder about why those Rangers are moving against a prepared position all bunched together - they would never have done that ) the total picture provided the viewer is totally unrealistic. One comes away from the movies knowing practically zilch about Omaha Beach. That's a damn shame. It was an interesting story, although nowhere near as gory as Spielberg's fantasy portrait, as is obvious from the casualties taken (approximately 2000 for the 24 hours of D Day by Forces "O" and "B" (60,000 troops)).

The Bridge at Remagen (1969)

Too bad they didn't follow the book

[5 October 2003]

I know Ken Hechler was a consultant on this film, but it's just a shame the film departed so far from his text (The Bridge at Remagen, 1955). His research was so exquisite that was, in my opinion, almost no need for a scriptwriter. Lt Hartman (who is supposed to be Lt. Timmerman) was the tired G.I. as portrayed by Segal. Timmermann wasn't that way at all. In fact, he went back in the army and fought in Korea.

I spoke with Dr. Hechler last week and he said he is in the draft stage for a book on Timmermann. And Ben Gazzara made an awfully old Sgt Angelo, the guy who lead the charge across the bridge (he wasn't first across because he stopped at the tower and captured the German machine gunner inside). Where the massacre of the American troops crossing the bridge came from is unknown. It didn't actually happen. Casualties crossing the bridge were few. In fact I'm not certain Timmermann's company took any casualties getting across. Sorry to see Hollywood distort history again. It never fails. They will never produce an accurate war film, in my opinion. No one would watch it. It would be too boring or dry. George Segal, however, accurate or not, is always good, and so are many of the others. Just don't believe that things happened as they did. After all, they changed the names of all of the participants, as in Pvt Ryan. That should tell you something. The only film that didn't, to my knowledge, was The Longest Day. In that film, if an actor said something, it can be found in the history books.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Pretty bad history

[1/10 · 1 September 2003]

I was hoping for an accurate war film for a change (take a look at the Battle of the Bulge for a really bad example). What Spielberg shows us in his Omaha Beach scenes makes me wonder

which Omaha Beach assault he is trying to portray. Those who know little about the battle (that's almost everyone who's in the theater) probably now have the idea that every other soldier who landed on the beach before noon was either blown to smithereens or badly wounded.

Believe me, the 1st and 29th Divisions would have been annihilated if it

were as bad as it's portrayed and would never have been able to scale the cliffs and rout the enemy by early afternoon, which they did. I wonder, for example, how wide most viewers think Omaha beach actually was. In the film it looks about a couple hundred yards. It was, in actuality, almost ten miles wide. The timing was also inaccurate - Hanks goes up the cliffs at what appears to be 8AM. Nobody made it before 11AM. Another historical error is the implication that the events at Omaha were similar to those on the other four assualt beaches (Juno, Sword, Gold and Utah). That's totally incorrect. Utah Beach, for example, the other US assault beach, took about a dozen casualties - many of those due to accidents during the landing rather than from enemy action. But the worst part of the movie was the completely idiotic script. Here we have the US Army sending a squad(a squad!!!) to march straight thru the entire German 7th Army (something two Divisions, with total air superiority couldn't do for weeks), waltz around an area of 300 square miles, and expect to find a guy named Ryan. If they wanted to do any of this nonsense, the Army would have sent them in on the gliders that flew into the area the very next morning. "Gliders, what gliders"? said Spielberg. That's what happens when you have a scriptwriter who doesn't know very much about his subject. A stupid, stupid film. What a waste of $100M or so.

Scary Movie (2000)

What a Mistake

[31 August 2003]

I made the mistake of believing Roger Ebert's review of this film and buying the dvd (it was cheap - a giveaway). I took three

tries for me to wade thru this garbage - only because I paid

for the dvd. I only saw one partially amusing bit - the table with the weapons and banana for Carmen to choose. The characters were

plain looking and plain acting. They were really embarrassing to watch. So little talent, in front of and behind the camera. Only the presence of 12 year olds can explain why sequels were ever made of this film. Then I remembered. Roger Ebert loves EVERY film he sees, or so it seems. It must be the buttered popcorn.

How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying (1967)

The second best of all time

[10/10 · 29 August 2003]

After Singin' in the Rain, I'd have to rate How To Succeed as the best musical I've ever seen. The dialog is superb, and I really don't see how the casting could have possibly been any better. I would

never pay to see any of its revivals - it would be a travesty for me, I'm sure. Morse and Lee are perfectly cast opposite one another and

Rudy Vallee owned the part of Mr.Bigley. Now that it's on DVD, it's time to toss out my VHS copy. One thing I can't understand is why this

film isn't on IMDB's top 100 musicals. I do note that the newer the

film, the more likely it is to make their lists - younger raters only know recent flicks is the reason, I'm sure.

Room at the Top (1958)

Sleazy pseudorealism

[29 August 2003]

This film's major problem is that it's plot is so ridiculous. Has anyone ever known people like this? I mean, walking around and living amongst us. The idea of a girl taking so long to suddenly (Aha!) realize that she loves someone is pure Hollywood. Two choices : either she's mistaken, or she's the world's greatest chowderhead. Filming in black and white is an obvious machination to get you to believe the story is realistic. Lawrence Harvey acted much like a wooden Indian might and Simone has all the sex appeal of a prostitute.

Singin' in the Rain (1952)

Best musical comedy

[10/10 · 29 August 2003]

This is without doubt the best musical comedy I have ever seen, and I think I've seen all of them that mattered. The dialog and plot is

exceptional for a musical. It would be excellent even without the music. The dance scenes are great, especially the "hoofer" routine with Kelly and O'Conner - it's the best dance number I've ever watched. And I don't care much for dancing. What's amazing is how well this

films holds up. It's as funny and intelligent today as it was back in the early fifties. And why not? People are the same now as then.

Casablanca (1942)

Ah, the burden of it all

[29 August 2003]

I always liked Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman (in the right film) but nevertheless I rate this film as one of the worst ever made. All you have to do is listen to the dialog and think about the plot and I'm sure you'll have to agree. Every situation in this film manipulates the audience to feel pathos for this starcrossed pair. I'm only

surprised they didn't invent a worldwide law that somehow would prohibit the two from being together. It's that absurd. It also would

have helped if the two principles had some chemistry between them. These two act like each word they say to the other is going to somehow determine life and death. The malarkey about Ingrid's husband (who apparently is the ONLY person who can save the world) being nonfunctional without her is probably the biggest nonsense the viewer must swallow. I laugh everytime I see portions of this film. It's unintentionally hilarious.

Seabiscuit (2003)

One of those rarities, a movie that is accurate

[25 July 2003]

Seabiscuit the movie departs from reality in a couple of places - for example the meeting between Charles Howard and Tom Smith didn't occur as shown, although it's true to the character of the two. The cinematography was quite good and to my knowledge the only effective filming of horse races in movies. The fact that the story really happened as portrayed needs to be emphasized because, quite frankly, otherwise it looks like something that Hollywood dreamed up. The book is a better source for all of the details of the story but the movie is effective as only film can be in bringing the viewer an actual image. A very fine book and a very good movie. The best movie I've come across in quite a few years. Saving Private Ryan tried to be realistic, but when the plot is considered, it's an inane film that portrays D-Day in a way quite contrary to the facts. Seabiscuit follows the facts probably about as well as the medium allows.

A Shot in the Dark (1964)

Best of the series

[14 July 2003]

I consider this the best of the Peter Sellers Clouseau series. The first scenes of The Pink Panther Strikes Again at the insane asylum are perhaps the best of all, but overall I find A Shot... to be far superior to that film. This is one film that can be rewatched several times. A really good comedy with a superb cast.

Man's Favorite Sport? (1964)

Pleasant fare

[14 July 2003]

I saw this movie years ago and was struck by how well it flows and how agreeable it was. One of the reviewers was complaining that it had similarities to an earlier film. While technically this

might be true, Paula Prentiss has no resemblance to Katherine Hepburn, (thank God) who I always found overly loud and rough and a long way from enticing or pleasant. I never understood why anyone thought Hepburn was a good or (especially) an attractive actress. Cary Grant was more handsome than Rock Hudson and perhaps an all around better comedic actor, but he would have been all wrong for this male lead. Actually, there are few if any new ideas for films : after all, humans

haven't changed in any basic way over the past several hundred years and there are only so many ways for men and women to interract, all of which have been portrayed in the movies multiple times. There just isn't much new under the sun. For whatever reason, I always thought this film was one of those

good things one runs across that are totally unexpected. Not a great

film, but then again, I can count the number of great films produced over the last half century on the fingers of one hand.