Posted by Brent on March 02, 2000 at 12:28:25:
In Reply to: Re: SPR -vs- TRL posted by Champ on March 02, 2000 at 04:02:40:
As before, I stated I didn't like SPR, but I made some pretty broad general statements that I shouldn't have. Let me go into more detail. Of course this is just my opinion and I don't expect any of you to agree.
The first time I saw the movie in the theater I liked it. The second time I saw it in the theater I liked it a little less. The third time I saw it was on video, and by then I didnít like it at all. Since then my brother got it on DVD, and Iíve seen it about three times on DVD. With the DVD Iíve gone through certain scenes pausing it here and there, analyzing the uniforms, weapons, and tanks.
I agree with everyone that the first 25 minutes or so were well done. And I believe SPR was a ground-breaking film setting a standard for realism as far as most of the uniforms, equipment, weapons and sound, I especially thought the sounds were well done.
However there were many aspects of the film I did not believe were very realistic. As before mention by "Champ", the sequence where the squad members are blabbering on about Hank's background while on maneuvers behind enemy lines. There could have been German patrols anywhere within hearing distance. I have a friend who spent some time in an Army long-range recon platoon, and while on maneuvers they were very strict about keeping silent and minimizing all noise.
Also the counter-sniper scene where the sniper takes out the German sniper with the shot through the scope, while kinda "neat" and demonstrating the sniper's shooting skills, was way too cliche.
Next, the scene in the first town, where the squad stops to rest, and by accident the stone wall collapses perfectly to reveal German soldiers on the other side. That whole thing seemed too fake, I just thought it was dumb.
One of the worst scenes, as far as realism, was where they attack the dug-in machine gun at the radar station, across a completely open field and only the medic gets killed. It was demonstrated countless times in the First World War that you can not charge a dug-in machine gun across open ground. The attackers will get mowed down every time. Yet somehow Hanks and his heroic gang miraculously survive.
In the climatic last battle scene thereís some problems with the tactics of the Panzer Schutzenzug. In the opening of the battle, a Panzer VI Tiger tank leads the way down the street into the ambush. From what Iíve read the Panzergrenadiers should of lead the way, to locate any enemy infantry that would pose a threat to their tanks, and to avoid an ambush. Then thereís the part where molotov cocktails are thrown down onto a Marder III Ausf M in the street. A Marder III Ausf M (Sd. Kfz. 138) was a self-propelled gun that shouldnít have been in the street where it didnít have room to maneuver. And thereís the tank that takes out the sniper and the guys with the .30 cal. in the tower. Now I have looked at this tank a lot, Iíve paused the DVD on different angles, and tried to figure out what kind of tank it is. It looks like some kind of self-propelled gun similar to a Marder III Ausf H, but itís not. I havenít been able to identify this tank. Iím guessing itís a fake tank the prop guys made to resemble a Marder. If anyone knows what it is please let me know. And the last Panzer VI Tiger thatís crossing the bridge when it gets blown up by the P-51. The P-51 was a single seat fighter, not a fighter-bomber. The P-51 D was a fighter-bomber, but it can be clearly seen that the planes flying over the town are P-51s without bomb or rocket racks on the wings, not P-51 Ds. Plus there was no Forward Air Controller to call in the airstrike on the radio.
These are just some of my thoughts. I know many of you will think Iím splitting hairs. :^)
Post a Followup