Reviews

I didn't like this one. People seem to fall for Spielberg's direction, which is very good with the exception of some big mistakes (see below). But the story is so bad.

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

First of all: how can the old man at the beach remember things, he never saw? I mean he did not participate in the landing, how on earth he can remember it so vividly?

Second: Question: In the end: the bridge is set with explosives, a tank is hit by a bomb from a fighter plane and a man is on that bridge directly in front of the tank. What happens to him? According to Spielberg / Rodat: Nothing! The tank is destroyed, the bridge is not, and there is not shrapnel at all - and the man is still in one piece!! Come on, you people, you call THIS realistic?!

Third: Monty-bashing is okay IMO (see MarketGarden), but how come that Hanks, who is just a Captain, is more aware of the general situation than higher ranking officers with all the information they are getting from other troops, planes etc.? I am referring to the scene on the beach, when Hanks is telling us about the importance of this particulare bridge. Which turns out to be very small, nothing pioneers could not build over night. It's not like crossing the Rhine! But Hanks claims, that this bridge is not only vital for the success of D-Day, but the entire war!! This is crap beyond imagination! Thank you Mr. Rodat, you made us all believe that every soldier in every thick of a fight can judge better than a General!

Four: The change of Hanks. He is trying to come out alive, he even tries to save his men's lifes. Wandering around in France he happens to hit a lonely German outpost with a machine gun. Question: What is the right decision? Correct! You run directly into the line of fire... Well, he could have said: "Men, do you want to walk around it, could be, say, a mile to avoid it...?!" Soldier: "No, my script says, I have to die here, so let's run into it!" Hanks: "Ah, you are right! And there will be also a German soldier who has to beg for his life, and I have to have mercy on him, so he will be able to run and fight us again later. Hmm, that shows pretty well the evilness of the Germans. Okay, so let's run!"

Five: The change of Hanks. So he has lost a man. Now he's going for it: "Let's call this bridge !The Alamo!. This is were we will fall back to." Soldier: "Hmm, I don't remember exactly: What happened to the defenders of that place in Mexico, uh, Texas...?" Hanks: "Uh, any OTHER questions...?"

Six: The final battle. Well though the SS was being an elite troop at the beginning of the war, it was watered down by 1944. But they were fanatics and/or thugs/killers/low-lifes/scum - you get the idea! - from about 16 countries at this time. There were even French, Norwegian, Swedish, Ukrainian soldiers - you name it - in the German army at this time. All in all we can consider them to be very dangerous. Maybe this particulare troop had some veterans from the eastern front. This is an armored infantry, bringing along tanks. And now enter Hanks an Co. They decide to shoot it out and - guess by yourself what happens....

Seven: The characters. Don't get me started on that...

Dear Mr. Spielberg, you are great, but you have to have more patience looking for good scripts. You did cinema history with the opening sequence, but the rest just sucks - due to the script.

Dear Mr. Rodat, maybe the original script was better than this mess, maybe I am doing you wrong. But on the other hand, your next script was "The patriot". The one with Gibson, not Seagal...well, you'll keep trying, huh?!

The movie was in the Top 10 (if I remember right), and now it's down on 58. But the users of IMDb comment on it enthusiastically. I guess the the ones who did not like it, did not comment?

Bad, bad writing, good directing, good Hanks 4/10 Macaulay J. Connor

SPOILER AHEAD The great, great Gary Larson even made a cartoon about it. A huge room is decorated for a convention, a banner reads "Welcome people who didn't like Dance with wolves - World con" and there a just 4 people in it.

Back then when the movie was shown on the big screen everybody was in awe, a cultural phenomenon. I liked it, but it had lengths and it was almost too beautiful to watch. Man, the big country is awesome...

I kept thinking to myself "please let it end, they will die in the end anyway, so make it quick!"

And I did not like the black and white view of the two Indian (native American) tribes. Come on, show some shades of gray! It's the idealization of the natives that bothers me, at least sometimes. It's so cliché.

But anyway, it's a nice story and it could have happened like shown in "Dance".

So I'll rate it: 8/10

Macaulay J. Connor

(SPOILERS IN THIS)

"Rosenstraße" is a movie about heroic women in German Nazi time. But it is way too long, it is not touching and sometimes even boring! There are too many clichés and not enough good acting.

The storytelling (storyline) is bad. Like in James Cameron´s Titanic an old woman remembers events of her live. Good, now we´ve got a point of view. Than there is another woman introduced who does the same. Confusing is that they both are recalling events of lifes of other people! Come on! This is a lack of knowledge of basic story telling...How can Riemann know about the fate of the little girl´s mother and her interrogation for example?

The scenes are shown in the wrong order and you rarely know when it took place. For example the scene when Riemann is proposing to Fabian. When did that happen? The scene looks like it is set in the Twenties...

Riemann´s character is of course a talented pianist, well, she is even a Baroness! Wow. Her brother comes back from the Eastern Front, he has received a "Ritterkreuz" which he is showing in some scenes. So he is a war hero and still a fine man who preserved his conscience. And he gained knowledge of massacres committed by Germans. He even made some photographs! And so it goes, cliché after cliché is piling up and this is why the movie does not work.

Basically von Trotta made a chick flick out of something what could have been a decent movie. And in the end it´s all very simple. Riemann finds a way to get Goebbels into bed and - ta da! - everyone is free. Which is not a historical fact but pure imagination despite the "true story" claim at the beginning. Like "Sass" it is vaguely BASED on a true event.

It is sad but true, this IS the typical German movie these days. It is bad! Macaulay J. Connor

...and his brain. For example: Why on earth isn´t he using a dictaphone? You know some sort of recording device!?

Spoilers: He can remember after all always to bring that camera and the pictures. Why not record your impressions on tape like "I parked a blue Chevy outside the Seven Eleven". Would be so much easier. Oh, my mistake. But some kind of wonder he can recall his car and where he parked. But he can not remember that Carrie-Ann is double-crossing him.

So if you don´t care for any logic in a movie and you are willingly fo fall for a gimmick namely telling something backwards this is the right movie for you.

Macaulay J. Connor still 1/10