Has "saving private ryan" stood the test of time? - Saving Private Ryan Reviews

Imagine... Imagine a World War II story in which a squad of American GI's are sent on a rescue mission behind German lines to retrieve someone higher headquarters has determined to be valuable to the morale of homefront war effort, a mission they resent because they figure, is one really worth a whole squad? Imagine a story in which the squad, after braving the hazards of the enemy, reaches this person and discovers, much to their chagrin, that he would rather stay where he is. No folks, the story I just described is not "Saving Private Ryan" but is actually an episode of the TV series "Combat!" titled ?Missing in Action?, written by James S. Henerson and Sidney Marshall from a story by Birne Lay, Jr., which was broadcast on November 13, 1962 (and is now available on DVD). Granted, in this story the object of the squads mission is to save a bomber pilot rather than a paratrooper, but the basic themes are the same. Am I accusing "Saving Private Ryan" screenwriter Robert Rodat ("The Patriot") of palgerizing "Combat!"? No. But what I am getting at is that as time has passed and the horror and realism of the opening Omaha Beach sequence and final town battle has dulled a bit, the flaws of the derivative melodramatic script are becoming obvious. Consider: Why is the squad in "Saving Private Ryan" stereotypical characters? The New Yorker, the farmboy, the tough street guy, the mid western "new guy", the southerner. The differences of the characters should have come from their individual personalites, not stereotypes of where they are from. Captain Miller, combat experienced and very wise, goes against character to attack a machine-gun nest he could have easily bypassed. When one really thinks about it, this whole scene exists solely for melodramatic purposes and has no basis of reality. In fact, it's one of the most ridiculous scenes in this or any other film. It serves only to create some sort of Hollywood conflict among the squad, provide some exposition about Miller's backround, and provide an unbeliveable reason why the medic is killed. Why is that German machine gun there? The radar site in the backround looks inoperable. Why are they guarding it? Where are the support riflemen? Why are these two gunners alone out in the middle of nowhere? In one of the biggest blunders a combat leader can make, why does Miller leave clerk turned rifleman Cpl Upham to watch the equipment and instead take his unarmed medic on a frontal assault against a very dangerous MG-42 position? The reason? It was Rodat's clumsy way of creating a tragic situation. In reality, if Miller was really insistant on attacking that position, he still would have left the valuable medic behind and took Upham with him. That way when the action is over, the medic could tend to the wounded. Furthermore, Miller still had a long way to go until he completed his mission and it's almost certain he would need his medic later. After a savage struggle over a bayonet in the midst of the din of exploding shells, grenades, and earsplitting gunfire, I'm to believe that the victorious soldier is going to take the time to *slowly* knife his opponant? After a crazed, adrenaline fueled fight like that? I highly doubt it. Chances are the bayonet would have been plunged quickly into his adversary with no thought at all. Furthermore, any soldier would have raced to rejoin the battle and find cover, not leisurely walk down a staircase while cleaning his bayonet for dramatic effect. Several years ago I read that Spielberg improvised that scene to demonstrate how war brings the out the primordal man. The problem is that point was made in the intense first 20 minutes of the film so the scene is really rather redundant as well as melodramatic and unbelievable. A silverhaired paratrooper lieutenant in a war that was fought by GI's who were 25 years old and those over 35 were relagated to non combat duties? Although a fine actor, why was Ted Danson cast in this film? And I won't even comment on the fact that even Tom Hanks was too old for his role! No, in the opinion of this filmphile, "Saving Private Ryan" has not stood the test of time, especially when compared to the much better written and cast "Band of Brothers". With each viewing, it's flaws become clear. "Saving Private Ryan" is a cliche, sometimes unbelievable, uneven World War II story with the occassional great moment framed by some of the most realistic combat scenes ever filmed in Hollywood. A pity.