Saving Private Ryan
It was to my detriment that I waited six weeks before finally seeing _Saving Private Ryan_. In the interim, I've heard a synopsis, strong views pro and con, warnings of its graphic nature, and the candidates for Oscar noms. Superlatives ("the best war film ever made") are used extravagantly, and there is this unwritten pressure to follow the media frenzy. Oh woe. If only I had seen this afresh, with no pap. Fat chance.
That said, the best way to describe _Saving Private Ryan_ is by use of analogy. _Saving Private Ryan_ is to _Schindler's List_ is what _The Lost World_ was to _Jurassic Park_. It is a gorier, drawn out excursion of elements made better in a prior film. Lucky for Spielberg, _SPR_ doesn't suck like _Lost World_ did. But Oscar contender? I dunno.
Tom Hanks stars as Captain John Miller, a dedicated everyman, given the task to find Private Ryan, so he could be released from duty. Ryan's three brothers had all died in the war, and the mother is in terrible grief. Such a move, reasons General George C. Marshall (Fargo's Harve Presnell), should boost morale.
Should, but doesn't. There's immense resentment amongst the ranks in Miller's unit, most prominently voiced by Private Reiben (excellently played by Ed Burns). Does it make sense for an entire unit to risk their lives in order to save one man? Doesn't every other soldier there have a mother too?
It's a good question, but remains unanswered. Which puts the film in a catch-22: had the film been based on a real event, then a greater theme of following unjust orders for a just cause would have genuine merit. Because it's fiction, it's just a plot device, and a lame one at that.
The purpose of this plot device is to show, in vivid detail, the atrocities of World War II. Does it succeed? Well... yes and no. The violence in the film is unlike any other World War II film ever made. But violence doesn't equal realism. I repeat: _Violence Does Not Equal Realism_.
An example of this is in the opening sequence, mirrored after D-Day. Two men are hiding underwater. Two bullets (and _only_ two bullets) glide down from above. Two hits, in both chests. Sure, it's ultra-violent, it's relentless, and it's exhausting. War is hell. But was that moment in cinema history realistic? Me-thinks not.
Meanwhile, the stars of the film could have waltzed in wearing loud neon-colored bulls-eyes on their helmets. They're just not going to be hit. Oh sure, the red-shirts next to them will, including one who takes off his helmet, to study the bullet that missed him. Not a good idea.
The D-Day scene has some interesting camerawork that sets it apart from (but not superior to) that in _Glory_, _Apocolypse Now_, or _Platoon_. I liked the eerie slow-motion in real-time effect, which gave a vivid impression that we were seeing through Tom Hanks' eyes. We are also treated to the documentary-verite style of having the camera zig-zag everywhere, sometimes with splatters of blood on its lens. If nothing else, these get some kudos.
Further, the opening sequence is also much gorier than any D-Day sequence before. But gore is gore. Gore does not advance the plot, increase the tension, or make a better film. It just weakens the stomachs of those who would otherwise want to see this film, but won't. Meanwhile, Fangoria connoisseurs can see where Spielberg lifted his ideas: lessee... the intestines hanging out is from _Scream_, and the man searching for his arm is similar to _Re-Animator_, only the effect in those films was far more devastating...
Other finer plot points lifted from other films: there's that sharpshooter who prays and quotes Scripture before pulling the trigger. There are elements of _Pulp Fiction_ and _Desperado_ in there. Tell me, if you see the Spielbergian shot of an extreme close up from the barrel of a gun to the eye of the sharpshooter, just to hear him quote a Psalm ("Thou O Lord are my high tower"), do you think he's gonna miss his target?
Then there's the cowardly everyman, Corporal Upham, who's played vividly by Jeremy Davies (_Spanking the Monkey_). The buzz is that he's a sure-thing Oscar contender. But his opening scene, where he clumsily knocks down everything in his path and offers to bring a typewriter to the mission, is among the worst acting and writing I have seen this year. Perhaps Spielberg could not resist injecting some humor in the film, which didn't need any.
The other strong supporting-Actor Oscar contender (they say) is Tom Sizemore, who plays Captain Miller's gruff assistant, Sergeant Horvath. Sizemore is okay, but nowhere near the perfection he reached in _Heat_. Nah. The best acting in the film is Hanks (a deserved given), with a close second being that of Ed Burns. Burns is resentful, thoughtful, outspoken, tough, and dependable. Most importantly, he's _real_.
Along the way, there are also nice cameos by Dennis Farina, Paul Giametti, and Ted Danson. But I secretly wished that the invisible shield that surrounded a highly compensated cameo should've been lifted, and the actor been shot at and died. Particuarly Danson. (No such luck.)
Lastly, it is an unfortunate casting choice to have Matt Damon, fresh off of _Good Will Hunting_ fame, play the title role. Had he been an unknown character actor, as he was when he was cast, there would have been real suspense in the search. No dice. A scene where they find another "Private James Ryan" is totally useless and from the Screenwriter's Guide for Curing Writer's Block. With an unknown actor in that role, there would have been genuine tension, because you _just wouldn't know_.
Damon is the only actor in the troupe who did not undergo a vicious basic training beforehand. It should come as no surprise that compared to the rugged, tired, frustrated faces of his pursuers, Damon appears to be out from walking his dog. Maybe such a contrast would've worked. Not here.
I don't want to give the wrong impression. _Saving Private Ryan_ is a pretty good movie. Unfortunately, it's the masquerading as THE GREATEST WAR MOVIE EVER MADE that's bothering me. It has too many Spielbergisms and cliches and screenplay distractions to merit that honor. In the final sequence, we see an old man revisiting the gravesite of a fellow soldier, saying to his wife, "Tell me I've been a good man." I am not impressed. Sorry.
It's hard to place superlatives, but for my money, the best war film ever made is a toss-up between _Paths of Glory_ and (if you have the patience) _Gettysburg_. Search for them. Those are needles in a stack of needles (at your video store).
Nick Scale (1 to 10): 7
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