Sorry for my early morning sarcasm here, but.. perhaps it's because it's entertainment for the masses, not a wartime documentary.
I'm not pointing a finger at you, sir, but generally, in all WW2 movies represented here on IMDB, there are hordes of people calling movies "terrible" because of historical inaccuracies or "unrealism" in some way.
It's perfectly okay to invest emotions in ones perception of historical events, but one also needs to learn how to distinguish between entertainment and "real life". No one (wanting to make money on movies) sets out to make an accurate interpretation of warfare, or the life of a Stalingrad sniper. Because the 2-hour movie would be 1:59 minutes of looking for food, freezing, trying to find a quiet place to take a leak, sleeping and feeling miserable. Coupled with some sleep, and horrible nightmares. And then a few seconds of shooting, and more often than not, missing a target.
It's a story. It's supposed to entertain - and yes, there's a love story in this one. It's perfectly alright to want to make a story about a russian sniper who falls in love. It's also perfectly alright not to - and we're all welcome to do that, I think.
Just because you or I could find a million things we'd have liked to have been done differently, doesn't make a movie "bad". It's the vision and story of someone else, telling the story *they* want to tell, how *they* want to tell it... and then it's been edited to oblivion by some studio executive who wants more of those things that sell tickets, so they can all feed their kids, and pay their mortgages :)
reply
share