Whenever Saving Private Ryan comes up, someone invariably says that the D-Day scene is great, but that the rest of the movie is (pick one) mediocre/cliche/forgettable/bad.
I just rewatched it today, and I don’t see how people can think that. Did they see the same movie I did? It has a number of truly powerful moments, great acting, an excellent script, amazing scenery and cinematography and memorable characters. What’s not to like?
I’m not saying it has no flaws, but SPR minus the first 30 minutes is still an excellent and powerful movie.
What other oft-repeated-on-the-SDMB statements do you just not agree with?
“Lord of the Rings” is good and worth discussing ad nauseum. “Star Trek” is good and worth discussing ad nauseum. Cats are good and worth showing pictures of ad nauseum.
Those are three consensi that I heartily disagree with.
(I assuming you’re saying that the consensus is that they WERE and you disagree?)
If so, I agree with you. They were flawed and inconsistent, but had some awesome, and occasionally even touching, moments. I sure wish they had been better, but I can’t say that they didn’t bring enjoyment into my life.
That Johnny Cash’s cover of NIN’s Hurt sounds unlike the drunken, tuneless ravings of a toothless wino who’s pissed and shat himself in a rat-infested alleyway.
Yeah, and I don’t care what Trent says about it, either.
I don’t think the performance has to be read that way, but I think it can plausibly be read that way. I don’t take this to be a criticism of the song. It’s just a story the song tells in a particular way.
Everything after the first scene is a vietnam movie set in WW2, rubs me slightly the wrong way. It loses the epic feel of ww2 entirely. Also, nothing especially impressive story or realism wise.
Which is exactly what I was thinking of. Granted, with a story by Elmore Leonard, directed by Soderbergh and co-starring Clooney, the result ougt to be good. But she truly held her ownin that company. Too bad she’s done to many fluffy rom-coms, because she can actually act.
Eh. It’s a few guys treking through the jungles of Vietnam… errr, cities of Europe, operating as a lone half-squad crossing the countryside on what’s a silly mission in the first place. The first scene (and probably the bridge scene) actually feel to some degree as if it’s set in WW2.
There are endless interesting stories to be told about WW2 - and that really wasn’t one of them.
That said, I liked the movie overall, I’m just now wowed by it.
So were the originals. (I think that counts for this thread, too.)
I also liked Constantine - it sucks as an adaptation of Hellblazer, but by the same token it’s easy to disconnect it from Hellblazer (None of the characters are connected in anything but name? Totally different beastie, then innit?), and take it as a story in its own right, in which case it’s actually quite entertaining.
The Lord of the Rings is horribly over-written, and in need of an editor. There’s a good story in there, but it took Peter Jackson to pull the story out of the endless ‘there was a leaf…and another one’ that plagued the novel.
Jeff Buckley’s version of Hallelujah is by far the worst version of the song. Give me Cohen, give me Wainwright, give me Cale, give me ANYONE else…but don’t even bring Buckley’s dreck near me.
I totally agree wth you!Ive watched it cliff knows how many times and it doesnt tarnish.I think that the first 30 mins are incredible, so that many people as the memory of the film fades,forget that the endsection is merely great and the middle very,very good.My only niggling critiscism is with the dying officer mouthing “live a good life” and the post war Ryan asking if he did .It seems weak and sentimental compared with the sharpness of the rest of the movie.
er I disagree on several points ,to the soldiers who actually fought in ww2 I suspect that the war didnt seem to them to be epic; they were only really interested in their particular little part of it ,trying to do their job without being amongst the last killed as it was obvious the wars end was approaching. As an ex soldier I found the tactics and the mens reaction to what was happening to them to be totally authentic and Hanks portrayel of on going combat fatigue to be text book excellenct. As to the comparison with Vietnam War movies I cant see it myself ,they usually depict undisciplined,poorly trained men who are against the whole reason for the war and especially their being there. Whereas the rangers in S.P.R are only "anti "that particular mission ,and their only discipline breakdown was wanting to execute the prisoner at the M.G.In real life probably 6 times out of 10 that prisoner would have been dead.They arent against the war as a whole or their being there.