Was this written by a 12-year old?

I just read one of the other threads that this was being re-released with scenes restored and extras on DVD. Something about he original being 4+ hours?!?!?
It has got to be better than the choppy original, I guess/hope or maybe it just prolongs the bad acting and boredom.
Thank goodness war movies have progressed so much since this turd came out in 1980.
Pvt. Ryan blows this away times 10.

The idea that Lee Marvin's character only progressed from a private during WW1 to a sergeant during WW2 isn't that farfetched, at least in the beginning. During the 1920 and 1930s the US military budget was drastically reduced to such a point that promotions were generally few and far between. Officers and enlisted men alike often found themselves at the same rank for years at a time. In fact the situation was so bad at the time that soldiers trained with pieces of wood to simulate rifles and machine guns, and trucks carried large signs saying "tank" during field exercises. Only in the late 1930s when it was obvious that the USA would become involved in the coming war did the situation turn around. This isn't to say that Lee Marvin wasn't too old... he was. But his age and rank might be more acceptable given some perspective.
As far as the large oven... neither Griff (Hamill) or the German was standing inside it at all. Recall the scene, and Griff burns his hand trying to open the door. The German is lying prone inside the oven (I suppose this signifies the German's lack of feeling... lying among the bones, his unblinking hateful stare, no reaction to the still-hot oven, etc etc) and Hamill stands outside the door, firing away. I didn't think his shooting the German over and over was as simple as "shooting the object of the Jews' torture." Hamill's character struggled with the idea of killing anyone whatever the circumstances, saying he "can't murder anyone." After seeing the bones and the ovens, he realized that there was justification in killing another human being, or "animal" as the sergeant called the enemy earlier in the film. Basically I think he snapped after realizing that human beings were responsible for the deliberate and methodical carnage he found in the camp, and thus he no longer viewed all killing as murder, as he did earlier.

I served with a guy who was promoted from private to sergeant with only six months to go, he was 52 years old and had been in the service for 28 years.

[deleted]

First of all, it is damn near impossible to get promoted in a peace time army. Dwight Eisenhower was a major for almost 12 years before WWII. Therefore, it is quite possible that Lee Marvin would have been a private in WWI and then a Sgt. in WWII. Next, they did not turn down people for service during WWII. If a man was physically able to do his job then he did it. In addition, many of the men that served in WWI trained many of the men that would fight in WWI. Lee Marvin, in a movie sense, had seen combat so the higher ups probably felt comfortable enough him leading "green" troops into combat despite his age.

As far as scenes go, it is hard to reproduce war scenes due to the exact nature of how complicated they are. It is a bit easier today but still not an exact science. Considering how their technology was more primitive back then, I think they did one hell of a job considering what they had to work with.

Enlisted men rarely make it passed Sargent, most stay as Pvt1st for the duration of their contract, in fact Master Sargent or Staff Sargent is really as high as it goes for enlisted.

You don't go to war a pvt and come back a major, only in exceptional circumstances would something like that happen and even then it is only temporary.

They weren't going for irony. They were making a statement about losing your innocence.

I liked both Spielburg's "Saving Private Ryan" and Fuller's "The Big Red One", but if you look at both films in which one does a better job in just telling the story and great acting (and I'll go out on a limb here by saying this): "The Big Red One" fares better in both areas yet if it'd be interesting to see Sam Fuller (if he was still alive) get the chance to watch "Saving Private Ryan" in person and how he would react to the movie.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Why do you have to put down Neanderthals? They actually had larger brains than Homo sapiens. Please, don't knock the pacifist Neanderthals, they wouldn't have allowed war in the first place!!!

peace.

If an Italian child looses his mother he will pull himself together within hours, attach said body to a cart, and then roam a war zone looking for enemy soldiers to befriend, in the hope that they will help him find a coffin and possibly even a burial site. He will at no time show any signs of trauma of serious withdrawal.

LMAO!

CIVILIZED:http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-washington

[deleted]

"Samuel Fuller is undoubtedly one of the greatest WRITER/directors of all time"

What an astonishing comment. This film wasn't really bad. Its heart was in the right place and Marvin made the best of his material, but where was the character development. The four soldiers were stereotypes, who fought in many of the major campaigns in WWII in the west and didn't seem to learn anything.

The action scenes were dreadful, even by the standards of the day. What were those French cavalry doing? Why didn't the Germans shoot them? How did they dig 6ft holes in two minutes, and why? Why not just retreat whle they had a chance. There was German fieldgun in a sandbagged position in a flat field within bazooka range of the edge of the wood! What was going on there?

And have you ever seen such healthy concentration camp survivors? And the whole thing with the German saergent constantly turning up, only to eventually be stabbed after the war was over, just like in the beginning was too hokey for words.

If you are going to make an anti-war film then the war has to be real or the message is lost. And what was the message, war is a bit dull, but if you do it long enough you will be able shoot people without remorse (like Mark Hammil)?

What some people obviously don't realise is that this movie is not about depicting WW2 combat as accurately and realistically as possible, but rather to show the absurdity of war. All these episodes that seem absurd, silly, laughable, are based on things that happened in war and of course are overdone to get the point across. None of the american soldiers in this film is glorious or heroic, nor do they seem overly sympathetic, telling us the stories of their lives so that we may all shed a tear for them. Nope, not here.
Spielberg may have delivered a very accurate depiction of WW2 combat (actually, not even that) but what his movie is eventually about is: yes, war is violent and brutal, but still a noble and glorious endeavor where our (the US) moral superiority will prevail over the evil enemy hordes(the germans).

The movie wasn't that bad though it could of been a lot better.

Lee Marvin didn't look like he was putting that much of an effort into acting his part. Mark Hamil shot the German Soldier 12 times before reloading his Garand......yet the shooter can only fire 8 rounds before having to reload.

Once again the audience had to put up with ahistorical vehicles being used in a WW2 film. Look, I know there arn't that many WW2 tanks around anymore to use in films, but atleast make an effort and try to replicate them. Look at what Spielberg did, he knew there was about only 10 Tigers left in the world that run, so he built his own, he found a T-34 chasis and built upon that. Why can't hollywood directors be as innovative as that?

Anyways those are my gripes.

Oh btw, regarding the Christmas truce.

Once word got back to each sides High Command about the soccer match and the exchanging of gifts, both sides forbid their troops from doing such things with the other side.