As a boomer, the movies you mention are not the ones that come to mind as examples of WW2 movies. Here in the UK, there were quite a few movies made in the decade or two after the war, with people who had a lot of experience. and were free from the obligations of propaganda, since the war had been won. I'm thinking about; Ice Cold in Alex, The Cruel Sea, Carve Her Name with Pride - movies like that. Later came the 'prestige' movies, with star-studded casts; The Battle of Britain, and The Longest Day, and a bit later, A Bridge too Far. I preferred the earlier ones - they were on a human scale. The family would watch them after Sunday dinner. Uncles who had fought in the war were there too! But The Thin Red Line is a fantastic movie - really thought provoking. And of course, Saving Private Ryan is absolutely a solid film. I've not seen Fury, but I'm not sure it's my cup of tea. I think Brad Pitt has a nickname in the movie that is just awful, and it put me off, tbh.

Whoever thinks this movie is shallow and mediocre, needs to watch this video. There’s lots of depth in this movie. It’s my favorite movie of all time. I also really like the thin red line.

Well done--this video and the one on THE THIN RED LINE. IMO, that there are those who can appropriate the thematic and almost literal depiction of motifs of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN vs THE THIN RED LINE for their own cultural and political purposes and preferences, speaks volumes about both filmmakers' craft, if not ethics, faith, and ideas about humanity. Such appropriation is not possible with Malick's film. I feel I must point out that the beginning you cite in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is not the literal beginning. The start is the latter-day cemetery scene that serves as one of the bookends to the narrative. IMO, it is there as a grounding measure out of the insecurity of the filmmakers, concerned that audiences of the time would be unable to identify with the nature of the story about to unfold. It is mawkish in execution and thankfully, mercifully brief, harkening back to the ham-handed efforts and arcane ethos of past flawed treatises on war. I found the presumption that Ryan would need to "earn" the privilege of his survival from such experience to be a specious one. Other critics such as the late John Leonard, found the same fault. Also, in dismissing Upham as a coward in Spielbergian context, if you will, I take the gravest exception. Upham is the herald about the situation and himself, asking salient questions and making justified assertions which even Captain Miller pays facile heed. To vilify intellect as somehow weak in the face of mission expedience is cliche. It is an unbearably corny trope and makes certain moments of the film cringeworthy, as a result. Especially when you consider the wealth of wartime reflections available preceding the exercise by such notables as Irwin Shaw, Norman Mailer, Joseph Heller, Kurt Vonnegutt, and James Jones, to draw gradations and subtlety. A case could be made that Upham is akin to Sir Edward Grey, warning the war drunk at the outset of the previous world conflict: "‘The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime." Upham survives but is destroyed as a person by the necessity of the war machine to ignore his protests. Upham's fate is another cringe moment but for the wrong reason, an indirect indictment of the Ryan film's jingoist rationale to my mind, possibly a subconscious one. (Spielberg has never been particularly deft or graceful when it comes to subtext and signifiers) No surprise many call the Ryan film out as muscle-bound propaganda. The D-Day landing sequence to my mind borders on war porn with its flagrant and overt objectification of experience. We are to be taken in that the man in the cemetery is Miller, at first. Dissonance resulted later for me as an audience member. I wondered at conclusion of my first viewing how Ryan would know about what occurred on the beaches as a paratrooper, short of telepathy. It's as if all war experience is universal when the implication at the outset is that it is personal. If it is meant to be personal, why are we seeing Miller's experience at all? What is served ultimately within this realm except showing some gratuitously violent war scenes? It is a Sloppy Joe of a movie, end of day, redeemed by the far superior multi-perspective Spielberg-Hanks effort of BAND OF BROTHERS, three years later. (Possibly that series' success as a framework is due largely to repeated viewings of THE THIN RED LINE?) Oliver Stone, as usual, used a big brush to cite the Ryan film as somehow setting the stage and fomenting a desire in the American consciousness for imperial operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is giving it too much credit. BAND OF BROTHERS is possibly more plausible on this score. In any event, the disastrous misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have multiple and far more spurious catalysts. Key participants will need to pass into history before any candid or honest appraisal and examination will be possible. The assessment of WWII as a "good war" to rationalize the sacrifice of millions is ultimately down through the decades, a rank palliative. All wars are tragedy. All wars are failures. Americans would do better to heed Franklin's keen observation that there never was a good war or a bad peace. Hardly macho, reaffirming, or adventurous, but promotive of more legitimate and forthright reflection than SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.

As a historian looking at movie aspect independent of history. The mission to save the surviving brother did happen. Omaha Beach did happen. The Atlantic wall was real. It made war is hell case quite well. Young men being killed both sides is war. Rommel had the beach sighted in. Prologanda. The theme was a small story of a huge war. They picked a story which could be a vehicle for the movie. In 39 the US army was tiny.

it was an anti German film

A very good video on a great film. Also the video on the Thin Red Line was excellent. These films are more than just explosions, shouting and action sequences. I wonder how you would contrast these two movies from When Trumpets Fade, which was also released in '98 and has a very different and altogether more grim portrayal of the war. Seeing the wastage of young and inexperienced soldiers in the Hurtgen campaign in late '44.

There is a difference between realism and historical accuracy, as I said in my comment on Fury. On the realism side, Saving Private Ryan is incredibly realistic in most every way, with a very few exceptions...such as bullets not being able to kill you more than a few inches underwater. But on the accuracy to history side, SPR does fall down on a number of significant issues. It is not Pro America propaganda, but it does put forward propagandistic ideas on more than one occasion...as when Miller says all the armor is at the bottom of the English Channel...which is not what happened...or when a mission is sent to get Private Ryan. The movie is not a true story, and it differs from the actual history of D-Day in many significant ways...but the basic plot is loosely based on the 4 Niland Brothers, one of whom served with the 101st Airborne Division. However, when 3 Nilands were reported dead, no mission was sent to get the last brother, and it turned out that one brother that had been thought dead had actually only been captured. There really was a Company C of the 2nd Rangers that landed on Omaha Beach, but they were commanded by Captain Ralph Goranson, and they did not land quite where it was shown in the film. Probably the most important historical thing that Spielberg got wrong is that he had the boats that carried the Rangers to the beach being driven by Americans...they were not. On D-Day, the boats that carried the US Rangers to the beach were driven by UK sailors of the Royal Navy. There are many other things in the film that are not accurate to the real history of D-Day, but that one really fails to honor some of the men that fought and died at Omaha Beach, so it is definitely the one most worth noting.

Great analysis!