Rating: 
Summary: Half of a nearly-perfect movie
Review: Saving Private Ryan contains what is unquestionably the finest 30 minutes of a war film ever made. From the landing up through taking most of the beach, Spielberg does a staggering job of presenting the American end of operation Overloard. This is not for the faint of heart, but nontheless this is somthing I reccomend to everyone (and watching it on home video is going to be a lot less daunting than on the big screen).Sadly, though, the movie falls apart in the second half. The stunning authenticity of the landing degenerates into war movie cliches and Norman Rockwell-style imagry. We've got the offhand dismissal of the British and Commonwealth contribution, even though they did most of the bleeding in the first weeks to take the heat of the Americans. We've got the by-now absolutely standard American ethically-diverse squad, each with his own identifiable personality trait. The final battle at the bridge has all the failings he so meticulously eliminated in the beach landing scene: the shockingly incompetant Germans (particularly the tank drivers), the heroic GIs (except, of course, for the one guy who has already been stereotyped as paniky), a perfectly-timed appearance by the cavalry, and a heroic and prolonged death scene for our hero. Ugh. You know, though, perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if the contrast *within the same film* wasn't so sharp. It seems that Spielberg is just intellectually incapable of avoiding melodrama. This would have been a much more compelling story if Spielberg had simply tried to tell a real story (as he did for the first 30 minutes) rather than making one up, but there you go I guess. Still, does the first 30 minutes make up for the last 90? Absolutely. The first 30 minutes is in my opinion absolute cinematic genius, a staggering accomplishment. But the split personality of this film is somewhat bizzare, and I wouldn't feel bad for skipping out as soon as Tom Hanks meets that paniky interpreter-guy. As good as Saving Private Ryan is (and it's pretty good), I can only hope this paves the way for a truly great World War II movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Overrated, overlong
Review: There's been so much hype and commentary generated about this film, most pro and con commentary has been mentioned, so just some brief comments here: The Omaha Beach scene, filled with mind-numbing violence, and realistic disorientation, earns the film the credit I have given it. One may quibble about whether Capt. Miller would really have deliberately exposed himself to a German MG just to draw fire... and there's no doubt that the real WW2 trivia buffs would pick the entire film apart. But really, my objection is that the rest of the story is too much of a lengthy, schmaltzy cliche about "the few sacrificing for the one." It tries way too hard to be (ultimately one-dimensionally) inspirational, based solely on that single theme. "The Thin Red Line, " a somewhat flawed but better film, gives one much more philosophical meat to chew on. Perhaps as a compensatory conceit, SPR does tend to tone down the sophomoric morality a bit by slathering over the scenes with slick and flashy violence. And in the lately fashionable trend of sniping at the Brits, they just couldn't resist the temptation to perpetuate the anti-Monty myths with a toss-away derisive comment. Unlike many true classics, this film gets more boring as you view it numerous times. Nothing new is appreciated, but the triteness and pretension of the story line become more pronounced. In short, it looks a lot more impressive when first viewed than when repeatedly examined.
Rating:
Summary: A challenge to us
Review: This movie brings the reality of war right into one's living room. My initial reaction was how can we as humans resort to such savagery. The reality is that war seems to be a necessary evil where freedom is threatened. One asks if there couldn't be a better way - I don't know if there is an answer to this question. The last few lines of the film were deep - it calls us to ask of ourselves the same question - are/have our lives been worthy of the sacrifice made on our behalf - by men and woman who have gone before and fought for freedom and then by the sacrifice of Jesus trading His sinless life for our sinful one. We will need to give an account for our lives one day. Please spend your life building something that will last, that you may have an offering that has lasting (eternal) value. All in all a good movie - the violence is quite graphic but I guess this is how it was and therefore is not gratuitous.
Rating: 
Summary: One of the greatest movies of all time
Review: The opening 20 minutes or so of "Saving Private Ryan" are among the greatest ever put on film Ask anyone who's seen the movie about the assault on Omaha Beach and you usually get a response in a hushed voice filled with awe. I think that people always thought that the fighting in World War II was less violent than it was in, say, Vietnam, because of the way combat in those two wars were portrayed in the movies. Compare the "bang, you're dead" fighting in classic WWII movies with the special effects in movies like "Platoon". This movie utterly destroys that perception in the first few seconds of the assault on Omaha. That sequence, as the landing crafts holding Capt. Miller's (Tom Hanks) company unloads, is in my opinion the most horrifying scene in movie history. Horrifying for its graphic violence, for its claustrophobic terror, and for the fact that men actually died this way. It is almost unbearable. That some of the men get off the boats and on the beach is a miracle, and that any survived long enough to engage the enemy is another. The combat scenes are frantic, exhilarating, of course terrifying. When Miller and his men finally pull out their weapons you can see the insane pleasure of combat that soldiers often experience, a chance to hit back and kill those who are trying to kill them. The combat scenes are unforgettable, men running through rubble for better firing position, blasting away with their rifles as fast as they can pull the triggers, sandbags exploding under the impact of the bullets. No quarter is asked or given, Americans slaughtering Germans as ruthlessly as the Germans did before the tide of battle turned. The movie settles down somewhat after that into a more recognizable war-movie plot. Miller's squad is sent to find a soldier trapped behind enemy lines who has a ticket home because his three brothers have all been killed in combat. The movie presents the question, is the life of one man worth risking the lives of 8 other men?. The decision to rescue Pvt. Ryan is, however, not a moral one, but a political one, made by General George Marshall back in Washington, who doesn't want the papers to print the morale-sapping story of a woman who lost all 4 of her sons to the war. He makes this choice perhaps in part to mitigate the suffering of a grieving mother, but more so for the war effort as a whole. The fact that other mothers may lose sons because of his decision is, sadly, irrelevant compared to the war effort as a whole. As Hanks' squad marches through Normandy looking for Ryan you get some feel for the enormous scope of the invasion, and the confusion of it all. Thousands of men, all heavily armed, a terrible sight. Every encounter with the Germans turns to chaos. A sniper forces the squad to watch impotently as one of their friends dies just beyond their reach. A falling pole collapses a wall, revealing a room full of armed and very surprised Germans, and the resulting standoff, with Americans and Germans pointing guns at each other and screaming for the other to surrender, is almost absurdly funny, until the standoff ends with an inevitable massacre. The battle at the end of the movie is as terrible as the assault on Omaha. The fighting is savage and cruel, and the violence is so graphic that it is difficult to watch. You almost get the feeling during the fighting that the world is coming to an end, that the gods are coming down to destroy the world. When the battle finally ends, with the squad's sole survivor walking around in circles, seemingly looking for his lost comrades, there is an overwhelming sense of loss. Not triumph, or relief, or anger, just loss. Spielberg and Kaminski do brilliant work here. The world of the battlefield is shown with terrible verisimilitude. Hopefully future war movies will not feel the need to be as graphic in depicting combat as this film is, but in this movie its absolutely necessary. The colors in the movie have a faded, washed out appearance, and the camera runs along right next to the soldiers, adding to the powerfully realistic feel. The only problems I had with the movie is the way it's framed. You see an older man in the present day visiting a military cemetery in France. The man kneels before a grave, and as he begins to remember the events that make up the film, the scene switches from the old man to Miller in the landing craft. You get the impression that Miller is the old man, which he's not. I thought that was confusing and not well-done. And at the end, when you know who the old man is, and his family is standing behind him, a family that wouldn't exist if not for Miller and his men. The man breaks down and asks his wife, "Tell me I'm a good man." This is pure Hollywood, all wrong. After all that's come before there is no need to resort to such blatant tear-jerking appeals to the audience. It would have been far better for the old man to quietly ask that question of himself, or, better yet, to say nothing at all, and let the scene stand by itself. What words can convey the thanks and gratitude for the sacrifices made?
Rating:
Summary: Just askin' a question, actually....
Review: I loved the movie, but i had a question about a cast member or two. i dont know if i can get a response this way or not but i figured it was worth a try. I'll make it quick: Im wondering if the same actor played the role of the captured soldier, (in the scene when T/4 Medic Wade, Giovanni Ribisi, died), and the role of the soldier who killed Private Mellish, Adam Goldberg. Were those two parts played by one actor or two? If anyone can respond with the actors' names that'd be SO great, or at least a yes or no. In any event, I thank you all very much for your time! God Bless! Jay Bitler
Rating:
Summary: One Of The Greatest Movies Ever Made
Review: To think that this movie did not win Best Picture is a crime. Director Steven Spielberg used all his talent and recources to give the world the greatest most realistically made war film ever produced. Though its true this is not the type of movie you want to sit down with the family and watch and eat popcorn, the emotional drive of the Picture, the story's poignant messages, and the fantastic acting of the cast draws into a world that is both extremely dangerous and unpredictable. Spielberg is able to take you into action and make you feel as if you are a participant in the movie and not just the viewer. This is by far Tom Hanks' best movie he ever did. Forget his performances in Philly and Forrest Gump (Though they were also very good); he should have recieved another Oscer for the role of Capt. John Miller, a leader who must act strong in front of his men but must also hide his emotions from them. I give this movie my high recommendation. Saving Private Ryan is a movie that makes you realize how life is precious and honor and duty, though they are deep philosophical concepts that are praised in war, can put you in jeopardy of losing your life for something you may not believe in. Also look into purchasing other great war films like Apocolipse Now, Full Metal Jacket or Braveheart.
Rating: 
Summary: You have to see this simply for the amazing DTS soundtrack !
Review: This is not my favourite genre but if you want to hear a DTS movie soundtrack that simply rules then this is the movie to see. I had to remind myself every now and then that I was only watching a movie and not participating in the action. If you did not enjoy this movie from a story point of view, you must watch it if you want to hear DTS at its best ! Don't forget to turn up that subwoofer though !
Rating:
Summary: Deserves 3 1/2 stars
Review: this movie wasnt bad at all. and to tell the truth that begening battle was one of the best I had ever seen. 3.5 stars to me isnt a bad movie.. I just dont feel its worth the own, I got this movie right when it came out and have only watched it once and did a partiel viewing of it another time. I think you will be satisfied with renting this movie.. buying it however, well maybe if its on sale.
Rating:
Summary: Great Production - Cornball Story
Review: Steven Spielberg is a proven master of movie making - providing he does not stray from the path of producing movies with a capital E for entertainment. When he wanders into the field of history he does not seem to be able to resist taking Indiana Jones with him. In Schindlers' List - where I feel he came closest to making an historical classic - he absolutely destroyed the finish by trotting out the survivors in full sun drenched colour having shot the balance of the movie in a cleverly washed out hue. In Saving Private Ryan he starts off promisingly. The landing is handled with a gritty intensity and it was refreshing to see ( if you can call murder refreshing ) that GI's too are not above shooting surrendering troops. All very credible in the heat of battle. Given that the director was always going to introduce the 'human element' to pander to the soapie fans I also felt that the uncovering of the Ryan casualties was also tastefully done. As was the scene depicting the breaking of the news to their mother. My major beef was with the last half hour where Spielberg reverts right back to the B grade matinee. Tom Hanks - AKA John Wayne - fights off the evil empire. I kept on waiting for Donald Sutherland and Telly Savalas to appear! Or at the very least a peppering of Sieg Heils! or Banzais! Reality check - The D-Day landings were notable for the sluggish initial response the Allies encountered from the Germans. So the landing, per se, was not as difficult as it might have been. It was the thereafter, despite complete air superiority and limitless resources, that heavy weather was made. Hanks and his cronies - if we are to accept the Spielberg version - lured in all likelihood one of two SS divisions to their party. Either Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler or Hitlerjugend. Assuming it was the Leibstandarte - which had been resting and refitting in France following their exertions on the Eastern front - then I have a huge problem with their performance in this movie. These were canny operators of the highest order and, with the greatest respect to Hanks and his band, would have 'eaten them for breakfast' given their combat experience. Strangely - despite other reviewers' comments to the contrary - the sudden ( and timely ) intervention of air cover at the end of the action - was the most factually plausible aspect of the sequence. If the director wishes to continue presenting cartoon style history to modern viewers who - particularly since 1989 and the demise of Soviet Russia are gaining access to more and more archival material - then I must suggest he changes his name to Schmaltzberg.
Rating:
Summary: Gripping but inaccurate
Review: No one doubts Spielberg is a master filmmaker, and few directors are so adept at manipulating the audience's emotions as he. He's also a master image-builder and storyteller. These skills he pushes to the limits in SPR and the result is gripping and entertaining for those who can deal with the film's often stomach-churning violence. There is everything here - intense drama and suspense, heroes overcoming incredible odds, humor, pathos, internal conflict within the good guy camp, plenty of shooting and explosions, a main character we identify with and care about. Viewed as pure action film this movie has few equals and I would gladly award it five stars if it billed itself as such. However, Spielberg instead marketed this film as an almost documentary-style account of Overlord. He justified the film's unprecedented level of gore by pointing out that he was making the first truly "realistic" war movie in history and we needed to see it like it truly was. By taking this tack, he surrenders the right to have his film judged by its story and style alone. Unfortunately, SPR gets a lot of stuff wrong in the realism department despite having Stephen Ambrose vouching for it (or perhaps because of it - Ambrose is a controversial historian to some). What's worse, many who see the film and are impressed with its claims of "this is how it really was" will walk away misinformed but convinced they know the truth. None of the historical flaws of the film are fatal in and of themselves. After all, most American war films take gross liberties with the facts for the sake of story. When war films do strive to get the facts exactly right, the result is often wooden (Midway), so directors are to be excused for taking some license. But as I stated before, if Spielberg is going to set the bar higher for his movie's sake, he has to be prepared to be judged by a higher standard. Take the famous opening battle scene. Viewers are left with the impression that the first wave of infantry (under Hanks's leadership) secured Dog Green in about 20 minutes of fighting. Blow up some concertina wire, pick off a single machinegun nest using a sniper, and suddenly the whole beach's defenses crumble to the point where Tom Sizemore's Sgt Horvath has the time and security to gather French dust into a can as a souvenier. In truth, the first waves (and second, third, etc) did little on D Day morning except cower below the seawalls for several hours. There were certainly officers like Hanks's Cpt. Miller present that day, and through simple dogged courage they did force open the draws under heavy fire. However, Spielberg wants it both ways here. He wants to show Cpt. Miller's company hitting the beach first, but he also wants it to be the company (now a short platoon due to attrition) that singlehandedly secures the heights. In reality these two things didn't coincide on Omaha. The result is the viewer is left with the impression that sure, there were some horrific casualties, but "our boys" gathered themselves quickly and knocked out those German positions in time for an early lunch. This is jingoism more fit for a John Wayne epic than one supervised by a respected historian (though jingoism is a rap on Ambrose from some circles). Another moment, even more hard to swallow, comes halfway through the picture when Miller orders his squad of six to help him reduce a German machinegun nest that guards a radar site. Now the wisdom of this, given the squad's mission, can be debated. But the main flaw of this scene is the complete lack of small-unit tactics. Miller fails to scout the area to the flanks to see if other guns or troops are supporting the nest. He simply assumes the machinegun is alone. He fails to deploy his supersniper Jackson into one of the numerous trees in the area to pick off the three gunners from a distance even though this is the tactic he used in the beach scene where it made much less sense. He fails to even consider moving around the flanks to a better assault position. Instead, he immediately decides on a blind three-man charge into the teeth of the position - probably the single stupidist tactic one could come up with given the situation. Luckily the German gunners, despite being behind sandbags and armed with the superlative MG-42 machinegun, seem to have been trained at the Stars Wars Stormtrooper School of Marksmanship and they only manage to kill one of the squad's members before they are despatched themselves. Incredibly, after the action is over, despite the fact the squad is ten miles behind enemy lines and near an installation the Germans are obviously guarding, the men make no effort to adopt a defensive posture nor scout the surrounding area for other troops who may have heard the firefight and start coming to investigate. Instead, Miller heads off to a hillside alone to dramatically cry while his men mill about and smoke cigarettes. No wonder we liberated France so quickly, the film seems to say - there were only three Germans every five square miles defending it. It's hard to imagine anyone who has experienced actual small-arms combat viewing this scene and concluding that Cpt Miller knows a thing about leading infantry. Yet, we were told that this is "how it was", so I guess it must have been just that easy. ...............
| 
