Cool News
Saving Private Ryan
Too much is being made of the opening battle of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, sure, the first time you see the film, it is the most intense realistic battle scene portrayed on film, but by the end of the film, there is another that... for me at least, was far more impactful. Not only that, but ultimately for me, it's the characters and their experiences that should be examined, not a single battle, no matter how grand it may be. But first I'm going to do as I always do and set you up with my state of mind upon entering the theater today.
Nothing happened this morning. But my mind has been on SAVING PRIVATE RYAN for months. When I read Rodat's first draft, I knew this was a perfect Spielberg film, the sort of thing he does best. The script had all the trademark emotional manipulations, the heroism and... well it had an agenda to my eyes. This was a script that was a blueprint for a film to get Spielberg right on track with his audience. Now I happened to have loved AMISTAD, but most didn't. It seemed to be a film without an audience, but this one. I knew SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was made to hit all those Spielberg lovers right between the eyes with a rusty railroad spike. It was written with a finely tuned eye for the dramatics and the horrors of war. It was an ode to the common American soldier of World War II.
That was the script. It was a bit on the corny side, but then months later I read the Darabont re-write which honed the film into a tougher flick. This was a film I hadn't seen Spielberg direct, it had a mean side. No longer was everything so black and white, there were grey tones. We don't usually see much grey in Spielberg films, it's always blocked out by one of his stunning filters. But this script told me I was in for something... possibly extraordinary if Spielberg had the nerve.
Months drifted by and I was shocked to find pictures in my email box one day sent in by Tom Joad, they were from FANGORIA and what they showed were those brutally maimed bodies I put up a few months back. Spielberg hadn't allowed gore... realistic gore since the leg sunk into the water in JAWS, or perhaps the Quint death scene. What I was facing was an amazing amount of change in Spielberg, and I knew he had set a trap for his audience.
The last couple of months have come with a smattering of words about the film. Whispers of greatness. When DREAMWORKS invited me up to DALLAS for that big "Here are the products of DREAMWORKS SKG" the head of Dreamworks' publicity a Teresa Press, said she had seen the film with Steven about a week prior and she was still haunted by images, that this was a film of such horror that she couldn't imagine anyone ever willingly picking up a gun and going to war. Now usually I take what publicity people say, combine it with paper and wipe my ass with it, but in this case, there was something in her eyes that said, "WHAT I AM SAYING IS THE GOD'S HONEST TRUTH." There were reflections of fear, remorse and the echo of an experience. She was speaking the truth, I knew it.
More time passed and a handful of reviews came in. None of the regular spies saw it, but it was a uniformed pattern of shock and horror. Everyone lingering on the gore, on the grossness of it all. These I figured were not fans of Tom Savini. These were people that don't see the full range of film, I thought. Then the first big reviews came in, and they were talking about life changing moments, and how this film was one of them. About seeing things, seeing war as something to stay away from. That nuclear bombs aren't the worst things man has created. That mano a mano, that sniper fire, artillery, the charging of beaches, that they are all equally horrific. Choose your favorite form of death, slow and quiet, quick and fast, slow and gurggling agony, quiet disbelief.... Which would you choose, the reviews were shocked.
That led me up to the trip to Washington D.C. and the SMITHSONIAN. In order to go speak at the SMITHSONIAN I was sacrificing seeing the film for two days longer than need be. That's why you haven't seen a review, I've been up there. When I addressed the audience I went on for about two minutes about how I wished I was standing in line with my friends, father and the line people 1200 miles away, moments away from SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. How it kills a spoiled bastard like me to not see this sort of film first. The audience laughed, but inside I was dying. This was an experience I can't stand. Knowing that a great movie is able to be seen, but for something to keep you from it. Our friends in Europe and abroad know this all too well. Half the time they wait months, listening and reading on Newsgroups and sites like mine that in a land far far away there exists a film of such utterly unbelievable craftsmanship that people or forking money over left and right to see it.
So, instead I occupied myself by getting ready for the film. I visited Arlington Cemetary, I allowed the ghosts of the dead to sweep me up. There is something about staring at acres of the dead and knowing all of these were harvested to keep this concept of the United States of America intact. All those stones, each one representing a man, and each one representing an unknown story. And I got this feeling that perhaps we didn't really deserve the sacrifices these men made. I mean on this same day, the big news was the outlawing of Internet Gambling and the revelations of a Secret Service Man about the possible whereabouts of the President's penis at a certain hour and a certain time. These are the issues of the day, issues we're capable of raising and arguing because of the events that these people gave their lives to resolve.
My cab drove by the Iwo Jima memorial, what an image. I walked by the Vietnam memorial where thousands were caressing the names they once knew and the faces they carry behind the mirrors of their eyes. Then there is the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial and on and on and on. History, remnants of the past, here to remind us of what came before. Then I toured the Smithsonian, and there... there was history kept. The propaganda posters, the documenting of our own horrors and triumphs. The gallery of war, where we see the uniforms of the past, the gear and the weapons. And ya kinda have to wonder if those weapons did anything, what their impressions on the waves of time were. Did they halt an advance? Or were they left in a foxhole beside a man who never fired a round? What is the history, what did these objects see?
That night I did my bit at the SMITHSONIAN, I'm told it was very very good, I blushed alot. Afterwards we went to a bar were I continued talking, and then I sat in a car with a man and discussed the way of things in Washington. About dirty tricks and vast political chess games. About out of touch men, and men with vision arguing the future of things. The only place where less ground is covered than in a war, is in Congress. Then as soon as I hit my room, I had to call and hear the voices of Dad, Robogeek, Quint, RoRo and Johnny Wad. I had to hear them, to listen to the timbre of their voices, to see if the movie had marred them in anyway. It had.
The next day I went to the airport to come home. With three hours to kill I began buying newspapers and magazines, anything and everything with reviews. Everyone was loving the film. A single unified hail of excellence. I was shaking, I started praying that my plane wouldn't crash, that I would see this film.
When I arrived in Austin, I immediately got a paper and saw that there was one showing left in town, so Dad and I took off to attend. It was sold out. So we putted home in the pathetic vehicle we have. I worked on the site till I fell asleep. Trying to keep my mind off of the film, but in email I was getting amazing stories from people.
People of all ages writing to me about how they always looked upon their grandfathers as feeble sick men that lived in the past, and now these people understood that they were not feeble, they were noble. They survived not a flood, not a sudden earthquake. But they lived through seeing the ones they loved and laughed with ripped apart by unseen hunks of metal. They had blood and mud and sinew on their faces. They could look at a butcher shop and see echoes of men. They had seen things that they shouldn't have, they did things that men shouldn't have to do, and they did all this because some people forgot what it was like. Because those instigators of war didn't know what war was, they saw it as counting beans. These letters were very sober. One from a 76 year old lady was about her husband's quiet moments, of his going into the basement with his momentos and coming out with a far away look. Of brushing off questions. Good men never talk of killing, because well one should never beat one's chest over the extinguishing of a human. The letters made me cry.
So it was where my mind was when I awoke this morning. I wasn't carrying memories of films, of charging hills or of pushing a flag upright. I was thinking about seeing things that noone should live to see.
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN
Before the film started the manager came out and apoligized for the stupidity of the Austin American Statesman critic (who gave the film 2 stars), he said, "Contrary to what Chris Garcia thinks, a score is supposed to provoke an emotional response." He then continued with, "Nothing you have read or seen will prepare you for the film you are about to witness." A giggle was kept inside of me, because... well I've read the script, I've read hundreds of reviews, I'm ready for the movie.
NOTHING YOU HAVE READ OR SEEN WILL PREPARE YOU FOR THE FILM YOU ARE ABOUT TO WITNESS.
I wasn't prepared. This is an out of body experience. The film takes ahold of you and shakes you. It picked me up out of my seat and said to me, "PAY ATTENTION!" As much as I should have distanced myself, I let those hands grab and tug my lapels. I allowed my eyes to be pulled past the fabric of the screen. To afcionados of gore, this film offers nothing as say spectacular as the head being blown apart in DAWN OF THE DEAD or as visceral as zombies sinking their teeth into human flesh and ripping out a plug of meat, BUT... Then that's not real. The violence and the horror of this film can not elicit a clap or a cheer. It's not for gore fans, because this is something different. Because of the handheld randomness of the camera in the initial scenes, you never get the sense that it is planned.
When Romero shows a man leveling a shotgun, a zombie stumbling at you, the man correct his sites to the head, the pull of the trigger then the head exploding., well, that's logical. But here you'll have the camera looking in one direction BAM dead body parts, then you turn and see a whole pan of death, then you stare at the ground, not wanting to see anymore only to see the deaths of the ones who's footsteps you are following. It's random, it never feels calculated to me. And as I was witnessing this... I felt a weird sense of guilt, probably because I know I would have lept over the side (probably shot as my ass is so big) and hide behind the boat praying that some other bastard would secure the damn beach. When looking death in the eye, I would like to think I would stare back, but most likely I would hear that Monty Python quote of "RUNAWAY!!!" As a result of this inner cowardice I sympathize completely with a character by the name of Cpl Upham. His lily-liverness is repugnant, you feel like ripping him off the screen and kicking the shit out of him, but I couldn't bring myself to cast a stone, because I do not know what I would or could do in a like situation. What would I do? What would Dad do? Could I somehow shut all my humanity off and charge firing at humans that were doing the like? Would I try to 'play dead'? Would I level out my gun and blow them away? I've hunted. I can handle a weapon, I'm a damn good shot. I've killed cousins of Bambi before, and love the taste of venison, but is there an issue besides hunger that I would kill for? I believe so. Self preservation, the lives of friends, and the lives of others. This film asks you these questions. Would you give it all up? Could you find a temporary killer in you? But then the film reminds us that this is all in the past, events that have come and gone. That we are all the inheritors of their sacrifices. That perhaps each of us is a Private Ryan, with the challenge of "EARN IT" upon our shoulders.
And that is what I'm pondering now, have I "Earned It". I think it'll take me a while to answer that question or statement. Hopefully when I'm gone I can say I did, perhaps I'm on my way. But I do know the film raised issues and questions that I feel the need to seek answers for.
Hallenbeck just sent in his review, it's an objective review. He looked at the film and saw pieces, albeit very good pieces. He attempts to 'rank' the great war films, for me there are so many great war films that ranking them seems unimportant and immaterial. Films that make you question reality and the need for man made death to solve political and idealogical issues are not films to be put in order. Chris Garcia here in town saw pieces and didn't see them as being what he wanted to see. One kid thought the violence was unrealistic. For me, I went to war for two hours and forty minutes today.... seemed realer than I care to witness outside a theater.
I come away hoping that those that can call for men to fight, never have need to call. That people see this film and other films like it (Das Boot, Edge Of Darkness, They Were Expendable, Steel Helmet, The Big Red One, All Quiet on the Western Front, Fires on the Plains, etc etc...) and look long and hard. Making one's enemy a faceless amoral heathen, a prince of darkness... well that's an easy way out. In films like these, there is often the question of whether or not there is a difference between yourself and the man you are shooting. Each is equally convinced they are the morally upright. Many of the German soldiers were people with jobs and lives prior to the war, same as our men. When you realize that the enemy is a poor bastard stuck out in front of a gun barrel because he was fed a line a crap... well the trigger is a bit harder to pull. I've never been able to see differences, I've taken out the difference chip. It's an unnecessary and illogical chip to have in one's brain.
Personally my favorite anti-war piece is an old MGM cartoon called PEACE ON EARTH. It's about how men made each other extinct by hating each other for one side eating vegetables and the other side meat. It is an absurd issue, but so is needing a little "breathing room". The film is told by animals that have inherited the earth, they live in the remnants of war. The helmets are houses, the backpacks are storehouses, empty cartridges are containers for liquid, and ultimately they understand life and hold it more closely guarded than we men. The image that gets me is when one gas masked fella is shot dead, he falls into some mud, face first. Because he was shot through the lung there are bubbles coming up around the man, the bubbles are of red mud.
So where in Spielberg's career does this film stand? Well, for me it stands as the film that just opened. I'll see the film a few more times, I'll ponder the issues it raised in me. The characters are with me, I know each of them. In fact I could name people in my life and match them with the characters in this film. My little squad of friends are very much the same age and the same characters. I'm just glad that we live in a different plot line.
-
+ Expand All
-
Harry
I am a frequent visitor to your site and check it at least once a day. I think you are one of the few people who love movies more than I do and I admire your opinions and views. I just wanted to say that I think the new look is great! Keep it up! Hopefully studio execs will frequent your site and start making some good good movies with original ideas that challenge the soul instead of going for the quick buck.
Thanks
T Bowen -
I wasn't prepared!!! I had no idea. I went with a friend who is a captain in the Army..he said he actually cried during the movie. This was disturbing. I can't remember a movie that elicited a knot in my stomach for the entire length of the movie. And although you think that the first part of the movie is overrated....I have never seen anything like that. I think the hardest part to deal with was when Ryans mother was told about the fate of her three sons...the utter fucking despair..I was sobbing.
Some friends and I had a discussion about the last part of the movie where Hanks' character says "Earn it". It made us all reflect on what these people died for, moreover, what the people who survived have to endure. Do they question themselves? In any other situation to pick up a weapon and blow someone away is a crime..yet, in war you have permission. You go home and people call you a murderer. How in the hell are you supposed to deal with that.
I have heard that a lot of vets that have seen the movie have had a hard time with it, flashbacks, etc.
I have a friend that was in vietnam and has pulled dead bodies out of combat zones. He talks about a time when he was dragging a corpse out of a field and the arm came loose because the body was so rotten.
This movie gave us a glimpse, as horrible as it was I think we all need to see it.
P.S. Saw an article about you in a magazine..wrote down your website and here I am...I'll be back...your cool! thanx -
You probaly get this a lot Harry but since I have no shame I am gonna ask you anyway. If you ever need anyone to write a review for your site I'm your man. I'm 14 years old and I get into a lot of test screenings due to the fact that my brother is good at things like that. But he refuses to write to you because he says that you are a no-talent hack. That's him talking. Not me. Anyway, I'm 14 and I pretty much have the same opinion as other kids my age. I like to think that I am good at writing reviews, but everyone probaly tells you that. But the bottom line is that I love the site and I think that I can write reviews for you and you can grap the young audience. I try to e-mail you but you never respond.
-
well harry nice upgrade but just a word on the background color man it stinks pls choose a better color than brown keep up the good work and maybe some more info on DVD stuff
asha -
to begin on a lighter note, good to see paul giamatti in ANOTHER big film.
i saw the film on july 31. i felt "baseketball" could wait.
i read the reviews. well only about ten of them. i felt i was prepared. i wasn't.
many of the images haunt me now.
the jewish kid (who played the "intalectual" high schooler who got his @$$ kicked by the greaser wannabe in "dazed and confuzed"),his death scene haunts me more than any other scene in the movie. the thought of it. the "enemy" taking his knife from him in the struggle, whispering to him.
the blade at his chest...pleading to "wait a minute, just wait a minute." a chorus of no. and then the slow and terrifing penetration.....
it mortified me. and i cannot get it out of my head, dig?
-
I just saw SPR yesterday, and it affected me deeply. It showed me the reality of war in a way few other films (or books, etc.) have. But Spielberg just kills me. The man puts together a tremendous film, something bold and unflinching, and yet he can't keep his fucking mitts off the heavy-handed lessons. I was dismayed at the opening scene, but managed to forget it during the next 2+ hours. Then, there's the old Ryan "tell me I'm a good man, tell me I've lived a good life". Shut the fuck up. Can anyone feel they deserve to live at the expense of ANYONE else -- however many or few? Does one person mean so much? Those are the questions raised, and raised repeatedly. We get it. Isn't enough to see a kid staring at the corpse of his rescuer, knowing ransom paid for his own life? Didn't Ryan already demonstrate beautifully the anguish he felt at knowing others had been sacrificied for him and him alone?
Spielberg will never be a great storyteller as long as he attempts to tutor us in morals. -
Went to see this movie with my 17 year old son and his friends -- no one else would go with me. My dad who passed away four years ago, never discussed the war other than one thing. They had missed Hitler by minutes. He spent his entire life thinking about it. Every September, with my mom in tow, he would meet with his army buddies for a long weekend. Each year a different state, Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Kentucky, etc. I finally understand why it was so important to him. Several men from around the country came to his funeral. Now I understand why. I really wish I would have asked him more questions, but before this movie -- war was just a guy thing to me. I mentioned I saw the movie to my father-in-law who for the first time told me about D-Day, describing to me the first 25 minutes of the movie, only he hadn't seen in. He had been left for dead. They even had a funeral for him. Arriving at the train station, he called his mom who screamed into the phone that it was a cruel joke to play on a grieving mother. She didn't believe it was him until he walked through the front door. I've heard that story several times, but it was just a story. It's very real to me now. Anyway, the whole point is -- this movie was excellent. I've heard people complain about the opening and ending with the older man at the graveyard. To me, those are the parts that made the story real. Also, there wasn't a bad performance to be found. This movie grabbed hold and drug you in. From someone who doesn't care for "war movies," I can't believe I actually went to the theater to see it. And I can't believe how my mind won't let go of it days later.
-
I left work early so I could see this movie. I had seen a few "making of pvt. ryan" shows and felt emotional during those. Now, I'm the first to crack jokes during a serious movie (Titanic scene where man gets it on the propellor, boy, now that was a riot). Well, I went with a friend who had already seen it the day before. I purposely left a seat in between because I knew what was in store, kind of. The movie came and went, and I felt something had washed over my soul. I yearned to talk to my Grandfather about his WW2 experiences, but we laid his body to rest many years ago. This isn't a movie, it's an experience. I believe that Spielberg has truly made an impact in the industry which will change over time. See this movie with someone who won't mind seeing you cry.
-
First let me say I think SPR is a great movie. It will probably win many Oscars, and deservedly so. But I think Spielberg deceives the audience, and I think is was intentional. The movie's prologue ends with a closeup shot of the eyes of the old man in the graveyard. Then the film immediately shifts to D-Day, giving you the old man is remembering the past, and that we are seeing through his eyes the things he saw back then. During the movie, at least once and maybe more, there are closeup shots of Tom Hanks' eyes that echo that shot of the old man, so you think the old man is Hanks' character. But then, at the end, the old man is not Capt. Miller, it's Pvt. Ryan. But Ryan wasn't on the beach at Normandy, nor was he part of the search since he was the object of the search. I think Spielberg deliberately misleads the audience so that Capt. Miller's death will have a more emotional impact on viewers. Which is completely unnecessary, because the emotion is already there. But I'm willing to forgive Steven and his deception, because the movie is still great.
Oh, did anyone else notice the continuity mistake? When the search team leaves Normandy, there is a distance shot of the eight soldiers walking across a field. Later, after the team member dies and the team is leaving the field hospital set up at the crashed glider, there is another shot from a distance that shows the soldiers walking across a field. And there are eight men again. -
Dear Harry
I read about your site in Empire.
Logged today. Amazing ideas!
Great time I had on your site.
Your reviews are REAL, and straight from the heart.
You are Fox Mulder of the Movie World.
Keep the truth going on whatever happens.
All the Best
Dragon
-
I saw SPR and loved it, I also loved the sniper(Barry Pepper) and so do many others from the looks of the SPR message Board. So we're making a homepage on Barry Pepper and I was hoping you could help me find some more details on this fine young actor. Thank you very much!
Lindsier
the homepage is at
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/cinema/3733 -
Hi,
This is the first time I've been to your site, but I had to write to say that I love it. I've just read your review of Saving Private Ryan and you've inspired me to go and see it. I wasn't sure, but I am now. Unfortunately I don't know when it'll be out because I live in the UK and it takes ages for films to get here. Sorry for babbling about nothing but I found your review moving and eloquent. Thank you,
Vikki. -
This is something different than an ordinary movie. The WW II battle scenes match the sadness that goes with memory of all our war dead. For those who fight and those who lose family, the battles are the same. From Dylan Thomas, "After the first death, there is no other."
The critics want to see SPR as an anti-war movie. I don't understand that. The characters, like veterans of my parents' generation, see WW II as a matter of standing up to the pure evil of Adolph Hitler. The film's soldiers pay the horrible price of our freedom and survival, and do so more or less willingly. As in real life some of them pray to God for courage and strength. (I write as a 60's volunteer, not a draftee.)
"Am I a good man ? Have I lived a good life ?" This quiet appeal shattered me. Earlier, I had imagined a friend dying in the place of one of the boys in the battle scenes. But the battle scenes were always movie scenes, always F/X. The moral weight of our debt -- presented at the end -- is all that we should be able to bear.
Another film, 1997's Starship Troopers, approached these issues. ST posits our world under attack by aliens and presented a Greek city-state version of society. For example, citizenship is earned by service in battle. ST was castigated as a "Nazi" hate film for the violence of its war.
Maimed and mutilated veterans are a commonplace in ST among the older characters. SPR has much the same moral core. SPR is a better film, of course, much easier to understand. I doubt that many of the PC critics knew that ST's "Death From Above" is the real world motto of Airborne. Few outfits paid more lives, are owed a greater debt, than Army paratroopers. -
I suggest everyone find a veteran, of any war or police action, and shake his or her hand for risking their life to preserve ours. Our current generation is the first to never HAVE to fight in a war. Our current army is volunteer, and all of those brave young men and women knew that they might have to be sent into combat. I can not honestly say that I would have been able to charge full tilt at a pillbox with a 50mm cannon firing at me. I am eternally grateful that there were men and women who fought for my life before I was even thought of.
Find a veteran, shake his hand.
Go to a cemetary, decorate a grave.
The next time they play the Star spangled banner- TAKE OFF YOUR HAT, AND PUT YOUR HAND OVER YOUR HEART.
Please remember the people who died to preserve our freedom.
(Insert Thomas Paine remark here)
Thanks- Dr. Michael R. Nash -
Steven Spielberg has made emotional films before. He has always been able to make gripping, edge-of-your-seat movies that would leave you quiet and philosophical by the end of the movie.
But Saving Private Ryan will probably go down as one of his best films.
There are several good points. While some might think the gore isn't "real", keep in mind that it still seems more horrifying, because there's no big Hollywood monster to come and make everything seem unreal. Just tons of regular human beings killing one another, and lots of gory death. The explosions, the bursts of fire, everything seems more real. Especially the "shell shock" scenes when Hank's character seems disconnected from reality and tries to understand what's going on.
The acting is superb. Each character, from Hank's school-teacher-turned-CO, to the sniper who prayed as he shot down the Germans, to the young translator who finds a reason to kill right at the end of the movie, each character is someone you or I know in real life. Someone who, under other circumstances, might have a beer and some hot dogs with those "damned Nazis".
The portrayal of the real WW2 will make even the most jaded person wonder about the real purpose of war. This is not a war of heroic sacrifice and noble intentions. It is a war about survival, at any cost, no mater what. It is a war about blood, and guts, and sweat, and tears. This is the war of our grandfathers, a war in some ways much worse than Vietnam, because it is a war that you yourself may have volunteered to fight in, rather than be forced to fight in it. Meaning that the things you do you have agreed to do.
I doubt that any movie to date has so acurately portrayed a war as this one has. If Spielberg doesn't receive a small truckload of awards for it, I will be highly disappointed. This is a film unlike any other. -
It's difficult to be effusive, even cogent about this film, because of a dillema Stephen King illustrated so well in one of his short stories (the title of which escapes me at present). The great things, the things that are able to touch man deeply, that get close to his spirit, the part that knows the truth from what his soul lets itself be talked into, seem to be diminished when spoken about; and the more it is talked about, the more it is cheapened. Much like what Jesus said about casting one's pearls before swine.
We talk about and compare and review every film that comes along. Sadly, there are people that this film will not touch. They will have reactions like, "The violence wasn't really realistic," or "It was too violent," or "Dude, yeah, like bodies were goin everywhere, and this dude got..." People will experience this movie on various levels. The physical: these peoople will probably be better off going to see Doctor Dolittle.
The emotional: these people will be horrified by the brutality of war, possibly walk out on the picture within fifteen minutes, or think it is an anti-war film and love it for that reason, or glean any number of moral dillemas worth pondering offered in it. This would be an invaluable experience for anyone capable of experiencing it on this level.
The spiritual: Marlon Brando has said he believed that artists haven't existed for decades or longer. It is difficult to define art, but real art is God-inspired and, hence, born out of selflessness. Since it is difficult to define art, it is difficult to define something as art, but this film helps us see more clearly the purpose, power and nature of art.
Obviously, I've broken the very rule I established here by discussing this at the length I have, but I hope to preserve some of that ideal by the WAY in which I've talked and will talk about this film to people who don't know when to keep there mouth shut, whether because of dull-wittedness or merely of the ignorance of innocence. There are people who incense me because of their lack of or disregard for reverence, and those who simply are overwhelmed by the influence of this cinematic masterpiece. I'm sure I err to some degree toward both sides of those categories. -
First, I love your site. I am an absolute movie nut -- so logging in every day is like paradise for me and it's fun. I'm 63 and female so I see movies or films (sometimes) differently than your generation does. Just got back from Saving Private Ryan. I think Spielberg is a genius -- but I think he needs to stop and re-assess where he's going. Is he successful Yes. I think he is catering to a middle American taste that reduces his artistic content. Yes the film is mightily powerful. I saw in down by Barton Creek in that sort of like a football stadium movie theatre -- much movement of the audience but a lot of silence at the end. Thought having Matt Damon as Private Ryan was just too much of a cliche. Tom Hanks -- well yes this generation's Jimmy Stewart. I liked it but I thought it could have been better --at the end I was sitting there thinking all of this so those wretched kids that Ryan had brought all the way to Normandy with him could eat at McDonald's and then thought but you know what that is what we fight for. Just some thoughts. Thanks for the venue. Keep up the good work and have fun at the movies. I look forward to more of your reviews.
-
Like Vicki I too live in England but I know SPR is out here in Sepember and, as far as I am concerned, the sooner the better.
I have never known a movie to get so much great press here with many of the critics, who have seen it in the USA, echoing the feelings on this website. I have always enjoyed Spielberg's movies and greatly look forward to this one. Thank you all for giving me a slice of what is to come.
Love this website but what a Godawful colour (English spelling!)
And another thing- why is it we have to wait so long before movies cross the waters to get to us? What have we ever done to deserve this??? -
I really liked the movie it's gripping and VERY realistic piece of work and I think more american 'wanna be heros' should go and see it. I liked the plot, the characters, the thechnical part ...
BUT:
When it came to the last 1/3 of the movie the plot and everything reminded me strongly of a famous german movie done right after WWII which is called "Die Bruecke" -"The Bridge". The scences are sometimes even IDENTICAL!! Example the soldders having to defend a bridge against a LOT of tanks are hopelessly underequipped with grenades or other anti-tank weapons... so they have to be VERY brave and use some invented weapons..('sticky bombs ... remember..) The drama of waiting for the tanks...the slowly appearing sounds of their engines-close up of the faces picturing their fears etc...all done 50year ago, MR. Spielberg...
I wounder if anybody else was noticing that?? Or is it just me.
Wounder if even MR. Spielberg would comment on this VERY OBVIOUS issue...well I can dream can't I...
Greetings Ray
P.S.:
To explain: I am German and everybody in Germany saw this movie sooner or later during highschool as a recommended anti-war movie or even on TV. -
there is a great-realistic-powerful scene when the german soldier is pushing slowly his army knife through the american soldier's chest. I am very interested to know what the german soldier was saying to the american when he was killing him since no translation was provided. anybody knows? is it important to know? is this part of being at war in a foreign country? therefore this is how spieldberg wanted it?
great review by the way. -
Spielberg never knows when to quit. His framing device for "Schindler's List" spoiled the dramatic impact of what went before. And I felt the same way about "Ryan."
I also felt that the second act sagged. Granted, anything following 25 minutes of mayhem would naturally suffer by comparison, but the entire film came off as oddly weighted. To me, "Ryan" didn't get going until Miller's unit arrived at the bridge.
I know I'm nearly alone in this view, but the film as a whole came off to me as lightweight. "Empire of the Sun" is a far better dramatic vehicle and is a more elegant cinematic statement than "Ryan".
Spielberg's latest looks and feels like movie shorthand.
-
Why does Kevin Costner have a non-speaking (but credited) role in "Saving Private Ryan" as the German sniper?
And why aren't all the usual "sources" (TV magazine shows) talking about it...or even HIP to it? -
I just saw S.P.R. I'm stationed overseas so it took awhile for this film to make it here. I saw this movie on a Marine Corp base. The theater was packed with Marines, Airmen, Soldiers and Sailors, perfect setting for a good war movie! From the start of the invasion of Omaha Beach to the end of it you could have heard a pin drop. I take that back. You could have heard a pin drop if there wasn't so much crying going on all around me. Many of us hope and pray that we will never be called to do what those brave young men did on June 6, 1944. For my fellow servicemen and women who crave that sort of thing, I hope that each of them sees this movie and it gives them nightmares. I'm sure that when I finally drift off tonight I'll see some of my closest friends being blown to pieces as I fight my way up that beach. I'm dreading it. This was an excellent war film, it makes me wonder what the hell I've been doing for the last 6 years that I've been in the service. It also scares the hell out of me. I can't get that guy looking for his arm out my head. Mr. Spielberg, you finally did it.
-
Well, after hearing all the reviews and the positive buzz on SPR, I finally broke down and went to see it. And I cannot believe how disappointed I am. I found the plot to be laughable, the message to be preachy and heavyhanded, the acting to be subpar for the actors involved, and the whole movie to be just plain poor. I understand that people seem to think Spielberg has done something great in the first twenty minutes of the film. However, I felt that he was able to create a more emotionally affecting scene mostly because he used a lot more gore than anyone else. This does not make him a better filmmaker than anybody else who's made a war film, it just means he lives in a time when he can get away with that.
The fact of the matter is that Steven Spielberg nowadays benefits more than any other person in Hollywood from people's fear to be critical of him, given the topics he chooses. I mean, he essentially manipulates viewers and critics into being on his side by choosing themes that everyone already agrees with. "War is bad." "Racism is bad." "The Holocaust was bad." It's much easier to have an emotional impact when you're preaching to the already converted... -
I work as a staff surgeon at a VA hospital. I love the generation of men from WW II. They are very open and honest people. They will on rare occasions talk about personal experiences from the war. The majority of the time these comments come unsolicited. The number one thing I have noticed with them is the tremendous amount of corage and dignity with which they approach the latter years of their lives. Until I saw this movie, I did not understand. Now I realize that they have been through much worse than any disease can offer when they were in their 20's. I consider it a tremendous honor to care for these patients. The movie has the quality all great movies have - it stays with you long after you leave the theater and touches each of us in a personal and intimate way.
-
Son, do you have ANY friends?
-
I would just like to say that I have never been as emotionally moved by a movie as I have been by this one. In my opinion
Saving Private Ryan is the best anti-war movie hands down. It was great on a technical level,
historically and technically accurate, and had that indefinable "magnetism" that is so hard to acheve in filmmaking. Easily one of the all time
greats.
In defense of the movies opening and closing scence: It was he whole Damn point of the movie!I have heard a lot of people complaining about it and it just baffles me. What do you want? Just another period piece that is just a far away fairy tale that you don't have to relate to. My father fought in the
war and both scence left me crying like a little baby(and I have never cried at a movie before). I just thought of all the times while I was growing up and the instances we have fought or I was disrespectful to him and now I'm thinking to myself what a little arrogant shit I was. How dare I argue with a man that had been through something like that. I'm just glad he is still alive and I can apoligize and thank him for what he had to sacrafice in order to live the life most of us nowadays take for granted. In other words those scences brought it home for me and That's what good film making does. -
Saw SPR last night and it caused me to think of a discussion I had with a teacher once before. I am 30 years old and people of my generation, and maybe even the one before mine, will never be able to fully understand the sacrifices my grandfather and those of his generation made for us. Sure, sentences like that have been said countless times, but for my own part, it shames me to know that I am incapable of grasping what those men went through. Knowing that they weren't thinking of ridding the world of evil or stopping tyranny or such noble intentions; hell, they just wanted to go home. But rid the world of evil and stop tyranny is exactly what they did. I lost a job once and went through a divorce and thought they were hard things to endure. SPR reminds me that I don't know what hardship is. The men like the ones depicted in SPR are to whom I owe my cushioned, easy, spoiled-rotten life. I pray that I, too, can earn it.
-
Don't get me wrong, I loved Saving Private Ryan. Yet, the bookends of the film, the frames that Spielberg loves to use lately, are not necessary and are extremely overwrought. A lot of people are saying this, and I can't disagree. First of all, right as the old man is walking at the beginning, it is pretty damn obvious who he is and how Spielberg set him up in the cemetary with his family to show how it made a difference. Similar to Schindler. And when he salutes the grave, yeah, its kind of sad, but it is really just overdone melodrama with William's emotional music in the background. This film could have stood alone, with the opening shot of the water on Omaha Beach. Yet, I still do think that, just like in Schindler, the frames allow audiences to connect the past to the present and think, "Hey, that old guy could be my Grandpa." Still, whenever Spielberg puts in those sequences I feel he is making an intense R-rated film, surrounded by a cheesy PG-rated film. Yet, that is really my only critiscism except for this; SPOILER ALERT: DON"T READ UNLESS YOU"VE SEEN IT---------When MIller is shot by the German they let go, not enough is made of it. I find it to be the most provocative part of the entire film, but it took me a while before I realized it was the man they let go. A lot of the soldiers look alike and you aren't really paying attention to his looks as he holds the gun, or even when Jeremy Davies runs up to him. These are minor flaws in an incredible film.
DOOWILS -
I must say that I was one of the "luckier", if there is such a word, ones to be able to see Saving Private Ryan on its premier night here in Columbus, GA.
Although I bore the hell out of my friends by blabbering about the sound quality found in our theaters, they do agree with me that superior sound reproduction can set you in a mood for the movie, and place you in the middle of the action. I have been to many other theaters, and although many of you could give a rats ass about it; I must say that we have some of the finer theaters in the south-east. That may be due to the fact that the owners of this particular movie theater chain reside here.
To the point....
I am a huge movie buff and I was very much looking forward to seeing this film. Unlike my friends that were into seein it for the guts and gore, I tried to keep my views open to catch the true meaning and moral of the movie. And as Harry well describes it... it is very humbling, and even forces a 19 year old kid like me to see what has been sacrificed for me to live the life I am living, and to ask myself the question, "Am I earning it?".
After the final shot of the flag flying in its glory.. the screen went to black and the credits began to roll, the audience I was with did not get up and hurry out to the restrooms or to there cars to beat the traffic. They sat there, and thought deeply about the movie. It is very rare to get that sort of reaction to a movie around here.
I loved Harry's review on the movie and am looking forward to his insight of more flicks soon to come.
nathan -
There've been a lot of movies in the last few years that were absolutely great. However, this is the only movie I can think of that should be required viewing for everyone in the free world that enjoys the freedom won in WWII. The only exception would be small children and the veterans that already went through this experience. This is not the kind of movie that you exactly "enjoy" and you definitely don't have a "good time", but you have to see it.
It seemed much better than Schindler's List to me. Perhaps that's because I am American but am not Jewish. However, I think it's more to do with the fact that the story of Schindler's List had to do with extra-ordinary circumstances and a little too much of a happy ending. This movie seemed a lot more real.
One thing that worries me is that Tom Hanks will be overlooked for an Oscar because he's already had too much Oscar success.
Anyway ... go see it. Make any children you have of an appropriate age see it. -
This movie makes you understand is that our generation will never understand what it was like to go to war. Powerful film-making at it's best.
-
Can we say white men pat themselves on the back way too damn much?! What did I waste three fucking hours of my life on just now? American's masturbating to the sounds of patriotism and anthems that ring hollow to those that are left dead in it's wake.
Film has sunken lower before, but I cannot understand the outpour of emotion and sympathy that this film creates for those that it depicts. I was smiling throughout the first twenty minutes of "Violent war in all of it's brutal realism". The rest of the time I was bored out of my mind by the banal "jokes" and crap dialouge that all those fucking not-worth-their-salt young filmmaker's got to spout. Diesel, Burns? What the fuck are these two doing acting? Those fucking white boys can die and they did, too bad. That is the sentiment the government under which we live has told it's aboriginal people forever.
"Earn it." could be a statement that could be directed at all white people, "Earn our forgiveness", maybe we'll listen.
On the other hand Kaminski's photography is and has been breathtaking. As well, John Williams continues to be a master, though supposedly even being a regurgitator of previous masters, but isn't that what we all do?
I enjoy you Harry. I like the idea that we can all find a way to do what we love, it seems that you have.
-
Hey Harry, or anybody.
Thought I'd chime in with some comments on the movie. Saw it about a week ago and I still think about it. THAT is exactly what movies should do, at least for me. It doesn't matter if it follows some Hollywood formula to the letter as long as it stays with you. In a good way, not like too much Taco Bell.
I'd say this is one of Speilberg's best, alongside Close Encounters. I don't include E.T. as one of his best because it was a little to manipulative for my tastes (like Hook)
I kept expecting that heavy-handed Speilberg approach to show up and for the most part it didn't.
I had heard about the opening sequence and was actually quite apprehensive going in. Saw it with my mother who kept her eyes covered at some points. The thing I liked about it was it didn't sugarcoat it at all. Getting shot by machine guns and mortars has no glory to it at all. If someone gets shot in a film...do it realistically! Although I have never seen anyone shot, the little I have read and studied says that there's nothing pleasant about it.
One cinematic effect I am sick and tired of: "The bullet hole exactly in the center of the forehead shot." Who is that good of a shot? Usually most of the head gets blown off in that kind of event. Here we weren't spared the aftermath of combat.
I could have done without the framing sequence in the beginning and end. It seems that Americans are too stupid to get the relevance without some sort of device that says: "Hey! Here's the relevance! Check it out!"
One scene that did have alot of relevance for me was Sgt Horvath putting dirt into hislittle cannisters. Each had a different location on it. That had impact when you thought about it; they had been to these places and fought there. Then they had to take part in a brutal invasion. Imagine that: war isn't survival, its a whole bunch of survivals. I can understand why a person would go crazy.
Simply put, I think it's one of the best films this summer.
I'm going to wait on seeing Armageddon until it comes out on video. Having seen The Rock I think I know what to expect. Although The Rock had some moments, overall it made me think of a bunch of high-school boys who decide to make a "kick-ass movie!" They've got their parents video camera and everybody in the neighborhood wants to be in it. They throw together a slight script and don't pay much attention to it after that. Then whenever they do a scene they try to think of the coolest thing that could happen to the heroes and top it!
The problem with Michael Bay is that he's no auteur. He has no overall plan for the movie. Cameron does, Speilberg does, Scorcese does, Eastwood does. All, or most of the great directors have an overall design of how they want things. And the really great ones realize that first and foremost the thing you need is a STORY! One that makes some sense and doesn't dumb itself down because the writer(s) have underestimated the audience.
Many great films have succeeded because they didn't insult the audience.
Gotta go
I post some more thoughts on something after I've seen it.
-
Will this movie EVER come to australia??? grr i know i am gonna love this movie but it is taking forever to get here! I f anyone knows the australian release date and rating could you PLEASE email me and let me know?
-
I think every Frenchman should be required to see this film. Perhaps we Americans are not so popular there due to some of our more arrogant citizens' stupidity. But the sacrifice that we made so that the French could complain about it should be understood.
-
I thought the film was excellent and powerful. I, too, thought the final battle was even more intense than the opening -- which pretty much left me wasted by the time it was over. However, that present-day coda really blew it for me from keeping this film in the "masterpiece" category. I think Spielberg should've opened the film with the shot of the diaphanous U.S. flag for 30 seconds or thereabouts, then cut to Hanks' shaking hands, and proceeded from that point. The end would've been more shattering and poignant had the final long-shot of the remaining soldiers dissolved into a closing shot of that same billowing flag, holding on it for a minute, then slow fade-out to black.
There! That's what I would've done! (opinions, opinions)
-
God I feel like the world has been taking over by alien pod zombie creatures... or else Spielberg's marketing team must be paying a lot of people to rave about a realllly stupid boring, trite, - and i'm sure many other bad adjectives but i don't care enough to recall them - film. I mean WHAT THE FUCK is wrong with everyone? This film SUCKS!!!! It is soooo worthless.
So heavy handed and obvious and cliched in parts.
Beautiful to look at however. I can see that affecting some. The sound design was first rate - should win the oscar - best sound I've heard in a film possibly - really intriguing and unique.
But the dialogue SUCKED. The acting was unwatchable except for some of jeremy davies & that medic guy's work. Hello? Did anyone see the scene where Hanks' stops the mutiny by telling everyone he's a schoolteacher? You mean you actually swallowed that?!! I mean fuck the opening and closing shit full of old people overacting and long long loooong shots cuz we're supposedly emoting SHIT. I mean thats of course ob-fucking-scene. But what about all the pointless drivel that went on during the film? the characters that you couldn't care about unless youre so completely simplistic you probably think oj is innocent and michael jackson and lisa marie presley are the real thing. Is that what this is? Just really simple folk havin a picnic?
I thot i was gonna see a brilliant film - i've read the reviews here & everywhere else - i was excited. The boat landing and the underwater shots and the silence interspersed with artillery... were genius. They were completely idiosyncratic personal original otherworldly interpretations that cut to the core of this moment in war without naming it. Brilliant. And then... shit. nothing but shit. A few hopeful moments occassionally where i felt i might wake up from my spielberg induced coma - i liked the line "earn it", im afraid i've already forgotten the other moments i almost liked and i just saw this flick a few hours ago... well you know where im coming from - obviously im asking for it from you die-hards with my largely inarticulate insulting tone, but i just want you to know that...THIS STINK ASS MOVIE BETTER NOT WIN THE OSCAR!!!! There are dozens of better war films! -
One magazine rated SPR 4/5
I live in England and I have been looking forward to this film for more than 6 Month and this magazine I trust the most reviewed it 4/5!! the film opens here september 11 and please someone tell me it was a mistake! now i am so afraid to go and see SPR. send hateful letters to TOTAL FILM MAGAZINE!!
totalfilm@futurenet.co.uk
-
Counting soldiers in filler scenes ?! Get a life.
-
Hi,
I'd just like to say I enjoyed the review and I'm one of those people who hasn't yet seen it in Europe and has heard of the 'effect', if I can call it that, of the first traumatic, gut-wrenching, limb tearing (etc etc) 25 minutes. I'm just pondering if Spielberg is essentially returning to his roots - you know in 'Jaws' where the audience was petrified out their wits by a make-believe motorised Shark which ate loads of fun loving sun-tanned characters. Then we got the Dino Diner movie Jurrasic Park with human parts flying et al; With SPR, is Spielberg becoming more discerning in his use of flying body parts or just trying to emotionally program the audiences some more, except this time placing them in our historically rich past to gain more emotional hold over the audience and consequent cash draw. Is war hell or are movies having to go to hell, looking for more visceral story telling in order to shock the audiences out of our popcorn induced apathy. Do we need to have our eyes almost popping out of our heads for the movie maker to sell the point that - hey, war is hell - and look there are the body parts to prove it. Do people have to be trautamized by cinema in order for it to be a more authentic experience - like some acid-popping trip that can allegedly alter your perceptions of reality for good - or bad as the case may be. What I'm really trying to say is, is visceral story telling great movie telling or is it a shot between the eyes because there's nothing else left or is the truth too hard to bear or is it just another manipulative blood-filled flick, cashing in on honour, bravery and sacrifice, serving only self-serving hollywood dreamsters - or am I being too cynical - or am I just getting wise - or old - or is there a difference? Whatever the case, movie makers feel the power of their craft over the audience and are determined to educate us -as they see it- but isn't education for the classroom and if SPR is so effective as it is purported to be in all the reviews I have read then why don't they show movies like these in schools - well, because they're disturbing, plain and simple, and society needs to minimize those that are disturbed no matter how honourable the intentions. And that is why the generation which suceeded WWII didn't make movies like this, because they were sick of blood and guts and death. They wanted a better life. Ask yourself, why do people seem to care more about people who die on movie screens than on real streets. Maybe because people who die on real streets have become less real to us thanks to so-called movie magic. Sure, our heros get to die onscreen in beautifully choreographed sequences with magnificiently organized sound tracks but on our streets it's bang and its over and people stay in their homes, safely watching life pass them by on their now-almost-safe television screens. And what of war movies of the future I wonder. Will we personally get to experience being killed by machine gun fire and have ourselves torn apart in real time so that it really hurts and then wake up in the safety of our living room. Will we be able to smell the cordite and actually get to kill some of the enemy before dying heroically. Will this be really cool or be a sad commentary on our so-called intelligent species. Or am I being too cynical - or just getting too old... -
When I saw the movie, intellectually I knew about the things that happened on D-Day and what weapons of war actually do to people, from reading WW2 history books ever since I could read. But, the movie still was emotionally very powerful for me. It was the best "serious" war movie for me since Schindler's List and The Big Red One.
-
Odd that the comments already posted on this movie are so extreme - people either love it or hate it, but it seems few are indifferent.
One thing among all the debate, op ed pieces, etc. coming out of this movie that really disturbs me is the reaction to Cpl. Upham (wonderful job by Jeremy Davies, BTW; he should get Oscar consideration.) Many critics and/or movie fans have reviled Upham, and I've seen written comments that Spielberg had created the character on purpose to be so reviled.
I disagree totally. In my mind, Upham represents Us, everyman, the person thrown into the fray with no knowledge or experience. He was a young interpreter with no combat experience or training. He hadn't fired his gun since basic training. Within a group of obviously hardened soldiers, he was lost. Wouldn't any of us be? It's easy to say, "Oh, I'd do this and that; I'd save the day." Uh uh. Probably most of us would be pissing our pants in fear from the get-go.
I've also heard criticism of the young medic calling for his mother as he died (and as the mother of a 4-year-old, I wept hardest at that part). Well, Clara Barton could tell you that was true - Civil War soldiers did it too.
I wept all through this movie. I wept for the evil that causes wars. I wept for the stupidity of some commanders and the capriciousness of fate. I wept for Ryan's mother. I wept for the young medic's mother. I wept for my father, who was on board a ship off Omaha Beach and who had earlier in the war seen his best friend blown to bits by his side.
How could some celluloid (or whatever they use these days) bring out such emotions?
I hear the snarling German tanks as the soldiers wait and imagine horrible monsters. And I shiver.
Anyone who thinks this movie is boring or uninvolving must have a heart of stone.
-
Just been to see it here in Britain. This is undoubtably his best film. The director puts us in a bullet-proof time capsule in the middle of Omaha beach. We're protected from flying lead - but not the blood splashes. It's the nearest most of us are ever going to get to bieng in a battle without having to suck shrapnel. There's no mawkish sentimentality, no jingoism, and, a point which seems to be lost on our friend "Terror" (see above) the dialogue is not needlessly clever or witty.(do real soldiers spout clever little epigrams, and carefully crafted gags all the time?) This is a fine movie and it deserves a clutch of Oscars. To any one here in Britain who hasn't seen it - do yourself a favour. It'll be a fiver well spent. Go and see what your dads and grandads really went through. It's as near as you are going to get.
-
Jackhearts says maybe the Americans aren't popular with the French because of US citizens' arrogance. But saying the French aren't grateful enough? You guys let France be occupied for years! The only reason you joined the war at all was because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour. And don't get off on this "we" business. You didn't do anything, your grandparents did. Few of you would come to France to help out if the Germans attacked again.
-
Before this movie came out i'd been reading these amazing reviews coming out of the U.S., but i wasn't buying it, I figured people were over reacting, I just couldn't believe that a movie directed by Spielberg and starring Tom hanks could be anything other than lightweight,[ I know he made Schindlers list but I haven't seen it although I will be very shortley] and the trailers i'd seen here in England just didn't interest me especially with that shot of Matt Damon laughing [this was in the U.K.trailer, don't know about anywhere else]but now that i've seen it I have to hold up my hands, beg forgiveness and sing the praises of the most powerfull WWII movie i've ever seen.
I work in a cinema and I get to see preety much every film that gets released, and to be honest it's easy to get disheartened when you see so many really average movies, even movies that i've licked recently and found entertaining wern't really memerable, but then the source of my movie salvation came from this unsuspected source,I actually went to another cinema to see it and took my place in the auditorium before being transported onto Omaha beach, I mean it, I was as close to combat as I ever want to get, after about fifteen minutes i caught myself hunching forward trying to get as low in the seat as I could whilst staring at the carnage on screen. That opening will get re-run in my mind over and over, the guy picking up his own arm, retreval of ammo off the poor soul whose had his legs blown off, and more, far too many to list here, with more through the whole movie[ssshhhh sssshhhh, will always send a shiver up my back] i've already gone on too long suffice to say I will be seeing this movie many more times to come both on screen and in in my head.
Just one minor gripe, there was no referance to the allies, be it Canadian or British and at the back of my mind I have this nagging feeling that Americans see that war as theirs and theirs only, they could of made reference to British and Canadian troops landing on D.Day in Tom Hanks scene in which he discusses their advancement, anything, maybe i'm being oversensitive and in the end the movie is beyond critisicm because it will help those who know remember and the rest of us will be compelled to learn. -
Now that the movie has been released overseas, there seems to be a reaction to what seems to be what many can construe to be an
-
There is an interesting movie to be made about the mix of races involved in WW2. Perhaps many, but SPR never claimed to be such a movie. I wouldn't watch a UK WW2 movie and complain there weren't enough Amercians represented. If SPR had filled the cast with a perhaps more authentic mix of races other issues may have got in the way of the film's central message.
Dan, you are right, I should be more tolerant of Jackhearts' opinions. However would you be so tolerant if he had said all Jews should watch SPR or Schindler's List so THEY can be grateful to America too? That said I will forgive him if he opens a Taco Bell in London because God knows we need one. Mmmm... Buritos. -
I agree with people saying that Saving Private Ryan is maybe the first American film that shows the pure horror of war, and that makes SPR a great war movie, a milestone in American cinema. On the other hand, I can't help thinking that there is still something more in it. Problems about the value of an human life, questions like "Am I a good man?", are part of everyone's everyday life, in times of peace aswell of war. That's why I can't understand people complaining because "main charachters are only Americans": here's the story of some men; they happen to be white Americans, but their choices are just human. I'm not American, my grandfathers haven't been in wwii, but as I came out of the movie theater I was shivering - I am an human being.
-
A lot of reviews here in the UK have taken a shot at the film (while mostly giving good reviews) because the Canadians and British don't show up in the film, just American soldiers. And I hear that Speilberg has had to apologise over the dig at Monty that comes from Ted Danson's character.
Now, I'm a Canadian, so I don't feel any particular need to defend the US, but this criticism is a bit...I don't know...sucky. Basically, the nature of the D-Day operation was that the British had two beaches, the Canadians one, and the the US two more. The landing points were all miles apart, with the Canadian/British beaches on the Eastern half, the US on the West side. Airborne forces were dropped inland of their respective country's landing areas. Therefore, an American unit was unlikely to run into British or Canadian forces if they were pushing inland to link up with airborne. Speilberg was not putting on I-See-Americans-Only glasses, he was only painting a picture based on simple facts. And there was likely some rivaly between the US and Brit forces because Monty did get hung up at Caen, just as Danson says in the film.
Besides, when the British complain about the American view of D-Day, they usually forget the Canadians had a bad day at the beach, too. But we still got the job done.
By the way, SPR is a great movie. Another film which has haunted me as well is a documentary called "Four Hours at My Lai" which deals not just with the massacre, but with the devastating effects on the victims and the participants. I suggest it as a counterpoint to SPR as a moving film about the effect of fighting a wrong war. It too, is about a generation that could have been us, asking the question "Could you become these people?" -
there's no woman character in this movie, how can l interpretate this? it means a war is basically masculine? saving Ryan? for whom? for his mom? what do you think about there's no woman character in this movie?
-
I've now FINALY seen "Saving Private Ryan" (I live in Germany but I'm Swedish). Over the last two months I've heard and read all this hype about THE anti-war film of all time, "...the most astonishing film of the year...", "... it'll shock you..., make you cry...". So I'm sitting in the 19th row with my girlfriend, the lights go out and the film starts. Mr. Spielberg throws you into D-Day after the first 5 minutes of the film and all hell breaks loose. You see soldiers who don't even manage to get of the boats, the just get torn apart by the bullets. You see a soldier who looks for his torn-off arm, a soldier who's crying out for his mother with his guts in his hands. You see exploding heads, arms and legs. NOTHING prepared me for the carnage that I was witnessing on the screen! I've never seen such a "realistic" and violent war film! EVER! My heart was pounding and my girlfriend was crying with the other 800 people who were witnissing carnage upon carnage. The first 25 minutes of the film blew me away! "This is exactly how an anti-war film should be shown!", I thought. But then the film drifts into another direction. I can't explain it but you never really got to know the characters. Tom Hanks was OK but not BRILLIANT! And the last 30 minutes was just a pure action fest! I never got this "War really sucks!"-feeling like I did in the first half hour. I don't know if Steven Spielberg actually had "Anti-War-Film" in mind when he was filming this SPR. If he did, he only really concentrated on doing this for the amazing D-Day scene. I thought the film wasn't bad, but there's just too much Hollywood in there for it to be THE anti-war film! For me anti-war is "Full Metal Jacket" or "Platton" or even "Das Boot". The film gets 6 out of 10 from me.
-
Someone complained that there were no female characters in the film. Strange, you'd think that someone with the intelligence to buy the ticket, and find their way to the right screening room would realise why there's no significant female character.
For the same reason there were no blacks, asians, etc...in Braveheart. Well, kind of, anyway. but look at the story, it had no need for main female cgaracters, they wouldn't have fitted in, there was literally no place for any in the film.
Anyway, I saw the film today (yeah, took a long time to get to NZ). The landing scenes blew me away. i wa thinking how the fuck did anyone survive it, war is awful, etc etc.
But this was the only part that made me feel this way. The rest of the film was great, really good, but nothing else made me twist in my seat and thank God that it wasn't me that had to be there. The last squence with the tanks and stuff seemed to be aimed at thrills, rather than aiming for the antiwar bit. It was sad seeing these characters die, but, I dunno, it just didn't have the same impact as the start, and...Fuck it, wicked film, loved it. Stylised realism, sure, but so what?
I'm English, I have my useless american wankers moments like anyone, but to complain that there wasn't much about the other allies in the film is a bit silly, it'd take away from the realism of it to have anything other than a mention in passing. Like some other guy said, the US and allies were in different parts of the country. It'sd be as stupid as having a woman in the platoon (or whatever it was). (Although I understand why some people do feel that America feels it has the monopoly on teh good guys side of WWII.
but I'm going on, and why not, it's ages since anyone visited this talk back bit, so I'll go on, and on.
A joke.
What's the best thing about necrophilia?
You don't have to worry about your partner having an orgasm?
Ho, ho, ho I crack myself up
Well, better go and find some porn. -
I... am not... an animal!!.... and I sure as hell ain't no toad you psycho aggro ww2 history geek.
I am however still not buying this pretentious film that poses as a historic masterpiece when it is really just a vaguely entertaining generic war film on a big expensive scale. But Spielberg is the major honcho in film land - he's like the fucking president of entertainment. And the reaction to his work seems one of gratitude that he opted to choose this chapter in history as his project. He's an inept but powerful social worker on a huuuge scale. Y'all act like Reagan came to shake your hand.
Now I am not a war veteran, i did not spend my childhood watching afternoon war flicks like many of my friends, I do not know any hardened veterans, and I would never take part in a war - I am a total pacifist and I think killing is wrong no matter what the stakes. This is not an ANTI-WAR film. And just because someone said so on Oprah, doesn't mean that it is. And I don't see how you could really come to the conclusion that it was if you were watching the film. Perhaps the gruesome carnage would suggest to you that this was somehow an ANTI WAR film the same way those TRAFFIC SCHOOL documentaries are anti drunk driving, tho there have been many other films with as much carnage... and I wouldn't exactly say that your typical splatterville horror film was doing so to make an ANTI-KILLING social statement. I found these scenes very staged except for the boats landing, and once they started speaking that trite cliched unbelievable dialogue I lost all interest (I don't want witty repartee you moron - I'd rather have silence than the poser cliches spouted here). Especially when they pulled that mirror/gum trick out of Spielberg's typical gimmicks. If it had been a throwaway business as usal moment it would have been just the kind of detail that draws me into the realism of a scene - but instead it was a showy flourish and I didn't buy it. But back to the ANTI-WAR false belief... it's pretty simple - Jeremy Davies' character - the film's sole moral conscience mouthpiece - convinces the troop to release a German Soldier as long as he promises not to fight again, later the German Soldier returns and kills one of the major characters, Jeremy Davies vengefully shoots the German Soldier dead - it is his first kill, and it elecits whoops and cheers from the audience as intended. This is the film's climax and it's statement is obvious - war is ugly but necessary because the enemy is a treacherous dog. Don't believe the hype.
-
Hello Harry,
I hope this is your first comment from Denmark --- here it comes:
I have read most of the comments about SPR and I must say I agree with those who resent and loathe the film. I went to see it last week, and I was terribly disappointed.
I was disappointed mainly because of reasons already stated:
1. The sentimental awkward frame
2. The vomit-inducing score
3. The question of race..
Italians, jews, schoolteachers, but no asian or african americans.
4. Rotten dialogue
5. Moral hypocracy
6. predictable.....
But most of all I was disappointed by the predictability of the plot. We all know from the beginning who will die and how. It is no surprise that Tom Sizemore.. dies last followed by Hanks..maybe this is the love-story of the film? When the best buddy dies Hanks literally throws himself at the bullets. American films doesn't really need women basically it's all about bonding in the fierceful wilderness.. if it isn't Indians it's Germans and the rest of the world doesn't exist not even in Europe..
I know these comments may be a trifle vengeful or sarcastic but I love movies I am not one of those freaks who only watch French-films and thinks everything else is crap.But I HATE to be disappointed when I've had such great expectations.
I totally agree with the comment on the motivations of the geek character shooting the runaway German. What was that all about?
Wasn't the point of his release to show that the geek was more humane than the rest of them?
The knife scene seems rather erotized to me two men so close to death(and not the little one I may add)and penetration, whispering ..slowly, slowy in German. I find this extremely disturbing where does this fit in?
I don't have much else to say but I have lost my faith in Spielberg's abilities(What's the point of having a sniper citing from the bible?)As far as I am concerned he hasn't made a thrilling scene since Dreyfuss built that mountain in his living room in close encounter, and that moment is far more realistic than any scene in SPR !!!!
What is the difference between this film and other violent films that earn money? The plot structure is exactly the same, the characters are the same, the music is the same. (The moral is the same pasted nicely to a waving American flag) The only difference is that something similar (so realistic...)happenend in the past. If people can become wealthy this way I have given my support to Spielberg's bank account for the very last time.
The best war film ever made is still STALINGRAD!!!!!!!!!!!
But I guess no American will know this before someone makes an American version all I can say is : I hope it wont be Spielberg..
-
I saw Saving Private Ryan about a month ago. Very moving;I was numb and damn well near tears when the film ended, and from what I could see it looked like about 97% of the other patrons were too.
People say the violence was excessive and unnecessary, but I'd say it's of *some* benefit (in a way)when fifty-four years have put distance between people's perceptions of war as a cinematic game and the reality that it is hell in a very small place.
True, it's got some corniness to it in places (and Pvt. Ryan's oh-so-perfect haircut in his big scene at the town almost made me laugh) but some of what others may see as contrived or corny does have roots in reality. (e.g. the old movie shtick of landing soldiers putting condoms over the muzzles of their rifles to keep the water out; that's documented.) Yes some of the dialogue was dopey, most GIs would've been too numb and exhausted to say anything if they didn't have to. And of the whole Cpl. Upham and the prisoner matter, I doubt if most people caught that Upham shot the same guy whose life he'd fought for earlier. I certainly didn't. And reality was that people tried to do decent things and sometimes got bitten in the butt for it.
But even if it's not perfect, if it gives some people with little knowledge of a fading part of history an idea--however faint--of what life was like for the grunts and why that was a defining moment in many of their lives, it's done enough. There's never been a perfect "anti-war" war film, and there never will be. (Personally I think Das Boot--minus that contrived ending--did a better job in that area. That or The Bridges of Toko-Ri.)
Throat Wobbler Mangrove. -
I first saw SPR on opening weekend. Some of the scenes still linger in my head. That was almost 4 months ago! I am convinced that anyone who claims to despise this film is only saying so because they want to be original and go against popular and realistic opinion. As for the dialogue, it was meant to be hokey, because shit-scared soldiers aren't gonna come up with clever quips and anecdotes in such situations. As far as race, Spielberg employed the Irish Army for extras, in which there are almost NO African Americans. Also, he didn't want race to be an issue in the film. As far as the score, it is one of John Williams most innovative, and conveys the mood perfectly. As far as the lack of women, there was ABSOLUTELY NO LOGOICAL WAY TO INCLUDE THEM. Anyone with 1/2 a brain can see that. The battle scenes are as realistic as they come. And the reason that the film conveys the simple "War is Hell" message is simply because war is simple. All it is is senseless slaughter, i.e. Hell. But hey, without war, from what source would we get our greatest films? Guarenteed Best Picture Oscar in 1999.
-
Whilst a real guilt-trip movie, with a healthy dose of quiet depression, it wasn't as great as I was expecting from the hype. The war scenes, especially the D-Day landing, were amazing, and as close to real war as I ever want to get. The bloody scenes may have had more impact on me had I not seen Starship Troopers beforehand, but these struck home with the realism. But on the whole, I was more moved, and for longer, by Schindler's. This haunted me a little, and I feel I've seen war at it's worst... almost how my grandfathers saw it. Overall, however, a very good movie but not a great one.
-
This...is the best war movie I've seen since Glory. It shows the true horrors of war. It seems like we were actualy IN the battle. The movie touched me, and it definitely deserves an oscar.
-
For Christ's sake, why doesn't Spielberg go back to making the movies he was atcually GOOD at making ie Jaws, Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind, ET, Duel etc. FACT Spielberg is crap at making serious movies with serious subject matter. I refused to go and watch Schindlers list because it looked too depressing, I saw it on video and I was right. "Oh it's a masterpiece" said the critics, but what about the people? There is no way I would pay to watch depressing shit that makes me feel depressed and bad about the human race and myself. After Saving Private Ryan, I thought "Average". The whole film was average. The opening scene with the D day landing was too violent and sick to even watch, basically it was over the top. The battle scene at the end was also pretty sick. I don't care about cinematic realism, it was sick, gory and over the top. If I wanted to see that kind of stuff then I think Sam Rami does it a lot better in the Evil Dead movies.
The rest of the movie in between the battle scenes at the beginng and end, was plain boring. I didn't think Private Ryan was worth saving, and the dialogue was banal and stupid. I love Spielberg and most of his movies are classics, but I don't think any of his 90's serious movies are up to the same standard as ET or Raiders of the Lost Ark. Call me a populist, but don't watch Saving Private Ryan. If you want an education then go to college, not the cinema. -
Spielberg loses all the kiddie stuff from his past movies like "E.T." and "Hook". He went out and did SPR which is one of the best films of the last century. I don't know about you but I thought it should've won the best picture award at the Academy.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Antepenultimate THRONES!! Lane Pryce Returns To MAD MEN!! Roger Waters On 60 MINUTES!! Plus GIRLS, VEEP, SIMPSONS, BURGERS, KILLING, METALOCALYPSE, SHERLOCK!! THE LAST SUNDAY OF SWEEPS!! -- 102 total posts 95 posts
- Duncan Jones To Tell The Story Of Ian Fleming! -- 64 total posts 64 posts
- SNL Says Goodbye To Kristen Wiig!! -- 56 total posts 56 posts
- Hercules Picks Next Season’s 10 Most Promising New Broadcast Series!! -- 131 total posts 43 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day will traumatize you. -- 37 total posts 37 posts
- "Some Men Are Coming To Kill Us. We're Going To Kill Them First." Teaser To SKYFALL! -- 34 total posts 34 posts
- There Can Be Only One... Ryan Reynolds?! -- 404 total posts 30 posts
- Dan Harmon Done As COMMUNITY Showrunner!! -- 148 total posts 21 posts
- Quint thinks John Hillcoat's prohibition-era flick LAWLESS is violently awesome! Cannes 2012! -- 69 total posts 20 posts
- Adrian Hieatt Gives Us His Second Daily Report From KAPOW! Comic Convention in London! The AMAZING SPIDER-MAN! TOTAL RECALL! DC NEW 52! DAVE GIBBONS! And More! -- 18 total posts 18 posts