m0rphy
Joined Jul 2001
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews69
m0rphy's rating
About half an hour into watching this film I decided instead to count the Hollywood cliches instead of trying to believe in the plot.For those lucky enough not to have seen this film they were in no particular order: 1.Persistent lazy Hollywood producers allowing non-Americans to speak English to each other, e.g. German soldiers.At least Joseph E Levine insisted in his film "The Longest Day" (1962) that the French spoke French, German spoke German etc, and this was 18 years before the subject film was made!For those not able to understand these languages sub titles are always available.This lazy habit immediately destroys a film's credibility and convinces you all you are seeing is acting.It seems if you are going to portray an historic event you might at least film it in a credible way.
2.Untrained soldiers skilled in obstetrics in the middle of a battle field!
3.You see a concentration camp boy victim apparantly unable to walk and is laid down on the commandant's bed.Almost immediately he is seen to walk out under his own steam and then eating looking almost healthy when he refused food before.Then he cannot walk again and finally expires while riding piggy back on the sergeant!
4.The usual 1940 and 50s method of soldiers dying on screen i.e. a sudden hand up to "the wound" and then keeling over.
5.Usual portrayal of skilled German soldiers as stupid and unable to defend themselves.
6.Omaha Beach on a shoestring budget on D-Day - the platoon wins the beach battle by itself!
7.A superannuated sergeant (far too old for active service in WWII) going around Europe without any officer in charge of him and his platoon and when he asks for help from Brigade is told, "you're on your own".
8.A female resistance guerilla infiltrates into a lunatic asylum and proceeds to cut the throats of trained German soldiers.All medical staff were vetted and under German orders and would not have been able to secrete her into this type of establishment.
9.Little or no character development, so one feels no sympathy for the characters portrayed.
10.An insurance actuary would not accept when assessing the odds on survival, that the principal characters would all come through unscathed at the end of the film after risking their lives at Sicily (1943), D- Day (1944) and sundry other combat engagements. Well those are my top ten cliches. I don't want to bore readers with others.There should be a law in Hollywood at making films as excrutiating as this.I awarded it 2/10.
2.Untrained soldiers skilled in obstetrics in the middle of a battle field!
3.You see a concentration camp boy victim apparantly unable to walk and is laid down on the commandant's bed.Almost immediately he is seen to walk out under his own steam and then eating looking almost healthy when he refused food before.Then he cannot walk again and finally expires while riding piggy back on the sergeant!
4.The usual 1940 and 50s method of soldiers dying on screen i.e. a sudden hand up to "the wound" and then keeling over.
5.Usual portrayal of skilled German soldiers as stupid and unable to defend themselves.
6.Omaha Beach on a shoestring budget on D-Day - the platoon wins the beach battle by itself!
7.A superannuated sergeant (far too old for active service in WWII) going around Europe without any officer in charge of him and his platoon and when he asks for help from Brigade is told, "you're on your own".
8.A female resistance guerilla infiltrates into a lunatic asylum and proceeds to cut the throats of trained German soldiers.All medical staff were vetted and under German orders and would not have been able to secrete her into this type of establishment.
9.Little or no character development, so one feels no sympathy for the characters portrayed.
10.An insurance actuary would not accept when assessing the odds on survival, that the principal characters would all come through unscathed at the end of the film after risking their lives at Sicily (1943), D- Day (1944) and sundry other combat engagements. Well those are my top ten cliches. I don't want to bore readers with others.There should be a law in Hollywood at making films as excrutiating as this.I awarded it 2/10.
I tuned into this film tonight after its opening titles had elapsed so was not sure of its title.For a while I thought I was watching its earlier incarnation as per my title.Even the walkways of the marina were similar confusing me and of course the primary plot was the same.I do not like films which stretch one's credulity too far unless it is out and out fantasy fiction.
1.You have to believe out of all the people in the world these two correspond by internet chatroom to each other but actually live virtually next door to each other - one coincidence too far!
2.A woman customer breaks down in tears when reminiscing in Meg Ryan's bookshop about reading "Anne of Green Gables" in the days when Meg's mother was its owner!!
3.Tom Hanks gave many clues of his real identity after she was "stood up" at the initial restaurant rendezvous as her internet chat room pal, yet Meg Ryan consistently did not "suss" who he really was until the last scene.
4.Their respective present partners showed no compatibility to each other and it made we wonder what they saw in each other in the first place to actually marry them.In a way I was more interested in their fate as we all knew MR and TH would end up together almost from the off.
5.Despite knowing Meg Ryan's love of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" Tom Hanks seemed particularly inept on several occasions even knowing the faintest plot or motivation of the central characters of this book.(I would have at least done a bit of homework first before sending off my latest transmission)
This and other irritating events disturbed my sense of logic throughout the film.Yet it is rare for something to be either wholly good or bad and there were a few bright flourishes which amused me.One was the rather pretentious prose used by Meg Ryan's partner when he types a phrase to her on his old fashioned electric typewriter while in her presence.Incidentally by 1998 were not people generally using word processors? And why is it that all film actors in scenes involving typing can do 120 w.p.m.? I thought the plot was just too "pat" for my liking and the finale was telegraphed a 100 miles away.
Notwithstanding my criticism, I did enjoy most of it but certainly not as much as the original in my title.Generally I find sequels a let down as Hollywood producers just cannot resist repeating a successful formula, although I do concede the two principal actors do have chemistry together on screen so I understand why it was produced.I rated it 6/10 compared to the present values of 6.7 for SIS and 6.2 for this film.
1.You have to believe out of all the people in the world these two correspond by internet chatroom to each other but actually live virtually next door to each other - one coincidence too far!
2.A woman customer breaks down in tears when reminiscing in Meg Ryan's bookshop about reading "Anne of Green Gables" in the days when Meg's mother was its owner!!
3.Tom Hanks gave many clues of his real identity after she was "stood up" at the initial restaurant rendezvous as her internet chat room pal, yet Meg Ryan consistently did not "suss" who he really was until the last scene.
4.Their respective present partners showed no compatibility to each other and it made we wonder what they saw in each other in the first place to actually marry them.In a way I was more interested in their fate as we all knew MR and TH would end up together almost from the off.
5.Despite knowing Meg Ryan's love of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" Tom Hanks seemed particularly inept on several occasions even knowing the faintest plot or motivation of the central characters of this book.(I would have at least done a bit of homework first before sending off my latest transmission)
This and other irritating events disturbed my sense of logic throughout the film.Yet it is rare for something to be either wholly good or bad and there were a few bright flourishes which amused me.One was the rather pretentious prose used by Meg Ryan's partner when he types a phrase to her on his old fashioned electric typewriter while in her presence.Incidentally by 1998 were not people generally using word processors? And why is it that all film actors in scenes involving typing can do 120 w.p.m.? I thought the plot was just too "pat" for my liking and the finale was telegraphed a 100 miles away.
Notwithstanding my criticism, I did enjoy most of it but certainly not as much as the original in my title.Generally I find sequels a let down as Hollywood producers just cannot resist repeating a successful formula, although I do concede the two principal actors do have chemistry together on screen so I understand why it was produced.I rated it 6/10 compared to the present values of 6.7 for SIS and 6.2 for this film.
