MDH
Nanite
I'll go, I'll go, I'll go, I'll go, I'll go when.... I'll go.
Posts: 25
|
Munich
Jan 13, 2006 6:22:48 GMT -5
Post by MDH on Jan 13, 2006 6:22:48 GMT -5
Has a very '70's European espionage thriller feel to it (I mean that as a compliment).
I've heard some people say that they the reason it's so good is because Spielberg had to rush it in order to meet the Christmas release date and therefore didn't have time to overthink it or add any "Spielberg touches" to it. I think there might be something to that.
Hell, the ending of War of the Worlds proves that he hasn't changed that much (For that matter the endings of Saving Private Ryan and A.I. almost ruined those movies for me as well).
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Munich
Jan 13, 2006 11:47:03 GMT -5
Post by Torgo on Jan 13, 2006 11:47:03 GMT -5
I saw this the day it came out. Brilliant film. Everyone must drop what they're doing and see it now.
|
|
MDH
Nanite
I'll go, I'll go, I'll go, I'll go, I'll go when.... I'll go.
Posts: 25
|
Munich
Jan 14, 2006 22:59:54 GMT -5
Post by MDH on Jan 14, 2006 22:59:54 GMT -5
Concerning the ending of Saving Private Ryan.
Basically when Tom Hanks dies he tells Ryan to earn it. We then see Ryan at the cemetary feeling guilty and then being embraced by his family (thus showing that he had "earned it"). My problem was that instead of letting us decide if Ryan had earned it, the movie is trying to sell us on the idea that he had. I don't think Ryan had earned it at all. I actually agreed with what Hanks told Tom Sizemore in that scene where he said that Ryan had "better invent a better light bulb" or really do something special with his life because Ryan's life wasn't worth more than the lives of the men lost to save him. Granted, that's asking too much of anyone (and having a family may the best Ryan would want or could hope for out of his life), but changing the world would be just about the only way his life could be worth the number of lives that it cost to send him home. If Ryan feels guilty, he should. How many guys died so he could get out of the war and the filmmakers want us to believe that he has nothing to feel guilty about? Now in the movie I think the fault truly lies with the Harve Presnell character who gave the order to send him home, but what really upset me was the film trying to sell me on a conclusion I didn't agree with.
As far as "Spielberg touches" go, I was basically talking about how he has to tie everything in a bow so as to send everyone home happy. Its one thing the have it happen once, but when it becomes a pattern.... I mean A.I., War of the Worlds (how was the kid still alive), Minority Report (I know they wouldn't let it happen in such an expensive blockbuster, but if Max Von Sydow had killed Cruise at the end it would have been more honest to who that character was.)
I have no problem with sentimentality when it's earned, but not when it's done just because they don't want to make the audience face where the story really should have gone. Especially when a film tries to have higher ambitions than to just be mindless entertainment.
|
|
|
Munich
Jan 16, 2006 12:55:17 GMT -5
Post by mrsphyllistorgo on Jan 16, 2006 12:55:17 GMT -5
I always had a problem with the soldier being Ryan at the end and telling the family the story... who did he hear the story from? Hanks died and he had no idea they were coming for him at all--how did he know what happened?
mrsphyllistorgo
|
|
|
Munich
Jan 18, 2006 20:32:21 GMT -5
Post by ijon on Jan 18, 2006 20:32:21 GMT -5
Private Ryan pretty well fell apart for me the moment a bunch of soldiers in the field had trouble getting to sleep.
Spielberg's often had a sort of cloying atmosphere that didn't appeal to me, but it sounds like I should maybe give him another look.
|
|