Saving Private Ryan
A movie review by "Average Joe" Barlow
(c) Copyright 1998
STARRING: Tom Hanks, Matt Damon, Tom Sizemore, Edward Burns,
Jeremy Davies
DIRECTOR: Steven Spielberg
WRITER: Robert Rodat
RATED/YEAR: R/1998
Film criticism may well be the Art of the Fool, the last refuge of those who wish to be involved in the movie industry but lack the talent or drive needed to actually create something. How does the expression go? "Those who can, do; those who can't, criticize." While this may be a bit harsh (and is certainly not true in every case), I think it does have some basis in reality. I hope to get involved in the film business one day, though I have not yet produced anything except some experimental footage that I'd be reluctant to screen for any but my most non-critical friends. I am still learning what makes a shot work, the effects that different types of lighting can have, and the many ways in which a storyline can be revealed to the audience (with "The Truman Show" being one of the finest examples I've ever seen). Film criticism, to me, is part of the learning process. By subjecting myself to as many films as possible, then writing my comments while the film is still fresh in my mind, I have learned a great deal about what makes a particular film "good" or "bad," at least in my eyes. I notice the frequency with which certain cliches (such as "I have a BAD feeling about this" or "I'm sorry, I was wrong. Can you ever forgive me?") crop up in different movies. Sharing these observations with all of you helps my film education, just as it hopefully offers new insight for you, the reader, as well. But it's important to remember that no matter what credentials a critic has, everything boils down in the end to one person's opinion. Despite the fact that I personally adore "Star Wars" and consider it one of this century's most incredible cinematic achievements, I know people who hate it. "Citizen Kane," the best movie ever made according to the recent American Film Institute survey, is not universally adored. (I like and respect it, but I still think "Casablanca" is superior.) My favorite film critic, Roger Ebert, cited this year's "Dark City" as a cinematic masterpiece, praising its visuals and sinister feel; I, on the other hand, found the film mediocre at best and less than that much of the time. The point is, there's no "right" or "wrong" in this field; all a critic can do is explain why he or she thinks a film is or isn't worth seeing. As often as not, you'll disagree with the opinions they provide. That's fine. In my short time reviewing films on the Internet, I've received a mountain of correspondence from people who have seen (or opted not to see) films based on my recommendation, as well as those who saw a film before reading my review and later dropped me a line to tell me how much they did (or did not) agree with me. It's flattering to know that people can decide to go to a movie they had no intention of seeing, based on your recommendation. I enjoy reading the responses my reviews generate, even the ones that dispute what I have to say. Believe me, there are plenty of them. Nothing I've written, however, has generated more feedback than some offhand comments I made about Steven Spielberg's latest film, "Saving Private Ryan." After casually mentioning how disappointed I was by the movie on both my favorite IRC chat room and a "general talk" newsgroup, I was flooded by a number of intelligent, well-thought-out rebuttals. I debated the film's merits or lack thereof with several of these filmgoers, and ignored the vulgar messages I received from a half-dozen or so others which questioned my sanity and insulted my heritage. Clearly, people respond to this movie in a way almost without precedent. For these reasons, I specifically decided I would not review the film. When so many people disagree with me (and indeed, I've yet to come across a single other person either on the internet or in "real-life" who shares my opinion on the movie), then maybe it's just me, you know? Ego intervened, however. I've received three different e-mails this week from readers asking for my opinion on the film. "We haven't seen it, because we want to know what you think about it first," explains one particularly kind letter. So I've decided to compromise. Rather than write a completely new review of the film, I'm going to plunder the e-mails and posts I've already written about the movie, cobbling together a Frankenstein-esque review from these many "parts." As always, if people have comments or questions, I'm all ears. If people have insults and ridicule for my opinion, that's fine too; just don't expect a response. It's my greatest desire not to get into another violent arguments over this movie. Thanks. --AJB
In case you missed the point of "Schindler's List," Steven Spielberg would like you to know that World War II was a bad thing. His new movie, "Saving Private Ryan," is a shockingly violent yet surprisingly boring drama which begins during the D-Day invasion of 1944 (giving the director the chance to throw blood and entrails in our face for half an hour and call it "art") and ends with... well, pretty much the same scene, except on a bridge rather than a beach. Tom Hanks plays Captain John Miller, the leader of a small troop of American soldiers in the midst of this hell. Miller has clearly seen enough violence and destruction to last him the rest of his days; his hands shake violently when he tries to do something as simple as take a drink of water. Isolation is his defense against his environment-- so secretive is he about his private life that the troop has a running bet: will the war end before Miller reveals any personal details about himself to them? After surviving a nightmarish battle, Hanks and his soldiers are given a new mission: to find a soldier named James Ryan and escort him to safety. The reason? It appears that all three of his brothers were killed in combat on the same day. The army, figuring that poor Mrs. Ryan deserves a consolation prize, decides to send the surviving son home. The problem is, no one is quite sure where Ryan is, so it's up to Hanks and his crew to find the poor boy. For much of the film, they "search" for him by dashing up to random people and yelling "Private James Ryan! Do you know him?" The basic premise of the movie is laughably bad. Raise your hand if you think the army would feel sorry for a woman whose sons had died in combat. From the army's perspective, that's what they're there for! Would the military *really* risk the lives of a whole squadron of people in an attempt to rescue a wayward son, especially when the movie takes place in June of 1944? From my rememberence of history, the war wasn't going particularly well for the Allies at that time. They'd surely be making the best possible use of all their resources, not assigning them to frivilous projects. The excuse used to justify the plot: the army thinks it will be a great morale boost if Ryan can be found and sent home to his mother. Beg pardon? Let me get this straight: you've got thousands of American soldiers risking their lives in combat every day, fighting on foreign soil. They haven't seen their loved ones in months, or even *years*. All of a sudden, they learn that Private James Ryan is going home. That's supposed to inspire morale? I'd think it would inspire resentment and jealousy. But no matter. It's the plot of the movie, and we'll let it be. After our opening bloodbath, we watch our "heroes" (and I use the term loosely, since we learn so little about these guys that it's hard to feel anything at all for them) hike around the countryside and shoot things for a couple of hours. During this time, they talk at great length about very little, tease the "new guy" mercilessly, and hedge bets on where their captain is from. These exchanges reek so badly of cliche' that we immediately know: (1) the new guy will eventually do something brave and daring, thereby earning the respect of his peers, and (2) sooner or later, Miller will unveil his life story to the troops, probably during a moment of great tension. As always, Tom Hanks's performance is spectacular. He does such a fine job with his role that it's possible not to noice how poorly written his character is. With his convincing facial gestures and a world-weariness that seems beyond genuine, Hanks *becomes* Captain Miller; the problem is, Captain Miller's not very interesting. The tactic of keeping him aloof from the audience and his troops was probably intended to make him seem mysterious. It made me not like him very much. Why am I expected to bond with a character that I know absolutely nothing about? Indeed, that's the biggest problem with the film: we're given absolutely no reason to care about anything happening on the screen at all. The members of Miller's troop may as well be played by department- store mannequins for all the emotion and depth they show. From time to time, someone dies. Does it bother us? Not once. We've not been given a reason to be. Also, on a semi-related note: have we become so desensitized as a society that extreme violence is now funny? You won't find another movie with violence this realistic, but at the screening I attended, the audience greeted much of this footage with giggles and titters. One soldier loses his arm and bends down to pick it up. *audience snickers* A soldier removes his helmet; immediately his head explodes in a round of mortar fire, drenching his companions with brains and bloody goo. *audience giggles* And the biggest offense: Hanks and his men eventually find Private Ryan, after slogging their way through enemy terrain, losing much of their party in the process. But get this: it's the WRONG Private Ryan! The audience shrieked with delighted laughter at this scene. I sat in stunned silence. 'Yeah, that's really funny. These guys have fought hard for their cause, shed plenty of blood, seen some of their companions killed... and why? Because the tip they had on Ryan's whereabouts was wrong! Boy, that's a knee-slapper.' But the audience continued to hoot in utter delight, as though it were the best practical joke they'd ever seen. Never have I wanted to slap so many people. Spielberg opted to shoot much of the film with hand-held cameras to capture a documentary/in-the-field look; as such, the picture shakes badly during many scenes (imagine watching a "movie" shot by a four-year-old with a camcorder). I got a splitting headache while trying to follow the action, and that's the honest truth. Tripod, Steven. You know you want one. Let's go back to the film's beginning again. The story opens with 30 minutes of nonstop carnage. That in and of itself is not a problem, but during these scenes nothing that is relevant to the plot happens, certainly nothing that requires this much screen time. We learn nothing about the characters. Just because I recognize the wonderful actor Tom Hanks in the lead role does mean that I will automatically care what happens to the person he is playing if I haven't been given any kind of emotional hook into his psyche. Spielberg spent an awful lot of money on these scenes, but it's a lot of footage that seems to have no point other than conveying the horrors of warfare. I already know that war is a bad thing, and the fact that the film rubs our nose in it for so long detracts from the pace of the story. We don't even learn what the movie is about until we're nearly an hour into it. Spielberg seems so in love with the grotesqueness of these shots that he forgets to include a petty item like "story." Contrast this with Spielberg's other WW2 film, the equally long "Schindler's List" (one of my favorite movies, EVER). All of the characters, including the villains, had depth to them. We felt the turmoil Oskar Schindler went through. We saw how his attitude changed and grew over the course of the movie, and we understood the decisions he made. I didn't get any of that from the characters in "Saving Private Ryan." No one really changes emotionally, and I've got to believe that warfare, especially warfare THAT graphic, will have psychological effects on people. Apart from Miller's shaking hands, no one seemed the least bit off-balance. They're made of sterner stuff than I. In a nutshell: I didn't like Spielberg's approach. It's almost as if the movie is saying "Look! I am showing lots and lots of very realistic warfare. Therefore, I am a GREAT FILM. You will TAKE ME SERIOUSLY. You will CRY WHEN I TELL YOU TO. YOU MUST LIKE ME!" Many are calling the film "brilliant"; I'm calling it "the Emporer's new clothes." So many critics are raving about the movie that the majority of cinemagoers are being brainwashed into thinking it's far better than it really is. "Saving Private Ryan" tries much too hard; "Schindler's List," apart from the final cemetary scene, played upon your emotions very subtly. You never realised just how much you cared about Oskar, but when the ending rolls around you're blinking back tears. "Saving Private Ryan," on the other hand, seems like it was conceived from the outset as a GREAT FILM. There's no restraint; everything is so in-your-face that I frequently found myself closing my eyes-- not to shut out the visuals, but to simply distance myself from the movie, which seemed to want to climb into my lap. Many will say that's the point: Spielberg is trying to thrust the horrors of war upon us. I don't know. I found myself caring about good ol' Forrest Gump's war buddies a lot more than these guys, partly because they (especially Bubba and Lt. Dan) were so well-developed. When a character dies in "Ryan," I simply shrugged-- just another "nobody." I never got the feeling that they (apart from Hanks, near the end) had anyone back home praying for their safe return. When I complained about the film's lack of subtlety on a news- group, one of the film's many admirers chimed back with, "Does anyone remember any subtlety in World War II? Neither do I." Touche'. But you know, I don't recall World War II being billed as entertainment. Unfortunately, I can't think of a single reason to recommend this film, and considering the name of the director, whose work I usually enjoy, that's surprising. The characters are uninteresting, the photography is difficult to watch, the music is generic, the pace is nonexistant. It's a shame, but I guess Spielberg needs his failures to make his triumphs that more powerful. Forget about "Saving Private Ryan," friends. Save your money instead.
RATING: 1.5 stars (out of a possible five)
This review was written in spurts from July 25, 1998 to August 14, 1998. Copyright (c) 1998 by Joe Barlow. This review may be freely distributed as long as ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGES are made and this disclaimer remains attached. It may not be reproduced for profit without the written consent of the author. If you have comments or questions, please send them to: jbarlow at earthling dot net (substituting the appropriate symbols, to discourage spam).
----- "Average Joe" Barlow * MiSTie #73097 * Writer/musician/aspiring filmmaker jbarlow@YOURearthling.PANTSnet http://www.ipass.net/~jbarlow {Remove YOUR PANTS to e-mail me.}
The latest movie reviews on my website include "Saving Private
Ryan," "Snake Eyes" and "Halloween: H20"
I was touched by that, especially the part where Rick mutters, "My
God, it's full of the usual suspects!" --Bill Livingston
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews