?????? The characterization was very important in Saving Private Ryan. The interpreter that didn't want to kill people, Tom Sizemore's grizzled veteran, Barry Pepper the sniper, the guy with Brooklyn on his back, the German that they let go that came back to kill people, Ryan himself, the Jewish soldier who got killed by the German, Vin Diesel's character with the letter that keeps getting passed on after his death...
Agree. For a non-stop action-packed war movie, it was surprisingly legit on characters. I'll never forget some of those scenes, and my memory is for crap. Not even sure I love the movie, but the landing, and some of the character's scenes, really stuck with me.
Right? Them sitting around talking about their careers, the powerful moment where Tom Hanks reveals what he was back home, the Brooklyn guy melting down about saving Ryan to begin with, etc. etc. etc. The movie was all about characters in the midst of the great big war.
I dislike calling SPR my "favorite" film but it certainly ranks up there among my most respected films primarily because it was honest in its portrayal of men under stress in war...this one particularly because my father was a glider trooper in WWII. I believe that's why these scenes "stick" with folks the way they do. It certainly is the case for me as I have a personal connection to the movie with my own father's participation in that massive world changing war..
You're right. I guess I'm unfairly comparing it to the character development of Band of Brothers, which is an unfair comparison since BoB had much more time to develop. I also remember being disappointed in the purpose of the last act bridge town battle. But you're right, there were many scenes on the way that I wasn't remembering, hence my question regarding comparing to Dunkirk in the context of possibly not remembering much of the characters afterwards. I should have left out my critique of SPR and merely asked for a comparison of characters, aside from Tom Hanks, himself.
SPR is better than Dunkirk. Dunkirk was different. I liked it. Just needed more time on characters. Navy Officer is a badass.
I thought the point of the movie was to not draw attention to the characters, a love plot, or even individual scenes. Rather the feeling of desperation and impending doom. I saw a few reviews on RT complaining about not being allowed to emotionally invest in any one character, which isn't really the point of the movie.
Don't get too worked up over 70mm . Greenway is the closest theater to where I am so I paid the extra dollar but I wouldn't go out of my way for it. I would go out of my way to see it in the theater. Worth it. Also just ask the rogue one apologists, war films don't need characters. Actually this one purposefully had that aspect, star wars was just written by hacks.
That's a valid point and noble effort. Here's something that I was hoping for ... this is a spoiler Spoiler: Dunkirk Spoiler Inside Yeah, it makes sense that what they tried to give us was a movie from the perspective of the soldiers knowing little, and from the perspective of a few of the rescue ppl, who also didn't know much. So, human drama as it unfolded with little info to go by as part of the drama is a good movie plan. That said, I didn't get any sense that this lasted 8 days on that beach. Seemed like just one day. So, did they fully pull off their goal to make us feel the fear and complete lack of hope....was it worth choosing not to use more historical info in the plot. Going in know nothing of the movie, I kinda wanted expected some history. Although, now I see how that goes counter to the movie's plot to focus on fear and lack of info from the soldiers' perspective. But I like war movie's with some tactical insight. I expected more time with high command explaining the military decision-making going on from the side of British rescue efforts. Maybe tactical decisions wrt where the Germans were, and why the saving-grace pause occurred. Think about it,,,,without any knowledge of Dunkirk, hard to even know what was happening. In line with having the audience experience how the soldiers knew little, all we got was the flyer dropped from the air about being surrounded and a few comments from the Navy commander on the pier about how high command "needs their army back" but don't want to risk much aircraft or destroyers. I also expected to see a much larger armada of civilian rescue boats. Not a long scene...just a bigger scene with the actual 800 civilian ships. That, I just think they missed on. No reason why the ship rescue couldn't have looked much larger ... which it was.
This wan an amazing film. What cinema is all about IMO. 5/5 This was "Good" Terrence Malick on steroids.
Just got through seeing it. I'm a huge fan of anything related to WWII (and Korea - my Uncle was a Marine Lt. at Chosin, one of those who fought his way out), particularly WWII, fiction or non-fiction. It's a hobby, I guess. I grew up surrounded by veterans of the war. My father, uncles, older cousins, and their friends. My southeast Houston neighborhood was largely built for vets getting their first homes thanks to the GI Bill. I was looking forward to this. Spoiler If I have a complaint, it's how the film jumps back and forth in time. You mentioned not getting the sense that it lasted as long as it did - the epic rescue at Dunkirk. That the film jumped around only added to the confusion, in my opinion. Still loved it. Terrific acting throughout.
The flash backs were not at all confusing. There are obvious visual clues. Also they are not included to be fancy, just to get a complete story. The sound in this movie is amazing. Better than Arrival in dynamic range. Unbelievable. I hope this starts a trend.
my quibble is it never felt like an onslaught; just a half dozen planes and some unseen gunfire (also we only see maybe a dozen private vessels, doesn't give the impression of a massive evacuation effort)
I like how you don't see the germans and they are basically unbeatable monsters. makes it far more scary. the beach scenes look almost identical to news reels which I guess he took for inspiration. I love not having a million cgi people to make it look more epic, you don't need that when you have RAF Bane.
Saving Private Ryan is the Forrest Gump of war movies, blaaahhhhhhhhhhmehhhhhhspliffffffffpffff! Give me The Thin Red Line, overlooked like a motherfukkker.
Then that's a good thing. every war movie after SPR felt like that. Give me a new scope for god sakes!
If viewers want a truly immersive experience, then that is what 70MM experience in a theater brings. Shooting a movie on 65MM negative print with IMAX cameras is precisely what Nolan's vision is for presenting Dunkirk. Don't sell it short unless you have seen it this combination in it's truest format. The movie is also equally terrific viewing in standard 35MM.
"truest format" yeah whatever I saw it in 70mm, it looked great, it sounded better and the actual movie was the part I loved. I'm not crapping on a superior image. I love that a bright clear image is now the marketing approach instead of 3D, my only point was it's not THAT big of a deal. The movie is the main attraction. I hate comparing this to vinyl because vinyl actually has less resolution unlike big film but people are getting crazy about it in the same way.
