like a home-run derby


Seeing it again after quite a few years, it really does remind me of a home-run derby -- lots of big swings and attempts to hit it out of the park, some successful and some not. On the whole, IMHO, it's really worthwhile, despite the inevitable impulse to indulge in face-in-hands cringing when Ryan O'Neal struggles through his few lines or when Robert Redford pulls that GI helmet off and reveals his mid-1970s hair. There are quite a few details that make you go "Why'd they do THAT?" -- some "at that very moment" nonsense, a blood drip on the floor (shown in isolation) that for some reason goes in a circle while a soldier is walking in a straight line, the fact that Redford's unit isn't ready to hit the water as the cover bombardment is going on (or immediately after it finishes) during a river crossing, stuff like that -- but if you watch the film not to pick it to death but to understand this really colossal blunder that actually happened in real life (in the broad strokes, anyway), it's a very good film. Add to that the absolutely stunning pre-CGI recreation of air-drop-and-battle scenes with a massive amount of military hardware and a massive number of troops, and it really is an impressive piece of work.

reply

That's kind of the sense I got. A good film with a lot of flaws. I mean it's another WW2 film (a genre that I'm sick and tired of), but overall it put its best foot forward with a few flubs inserted.

I often wonder how far egos go on these kinds of films.

reply

Ha. Probably exactly the right question to ask, in view of the cast and the amount of money spent on this one. It would explain (at least partially) some of the unevenness.

I mean, it was a gigantic undertaking that I think was mostly successful, but just not as well-done or fully formulated in some aspects as in others. Hard to imagine how hard it must be to pull together every scene in a film so huge in terms of story, scale, logistics, etc.

reply

Yeah, that's a fair statement.

reply