MovieChat Forums > Saving Private Ryan (1998) Discussion > Great action, but unconvincing and treac...

Great action, but unconvincing and treacly dramatics

posted 6 years ago by Wuchak (8733)
15 replies | jump to latest

No one's supposed to say anything bad about "Saving Private Ryan" (SPR). To do so is considered sacrilege, but I have to be honest about what I like and don't like about Spielberg's popular WWII war flick. The initial beach landing (shot at Curracloe Beach, Ballinesker, Ireland) is outstanding, as is the closing half-hour battle at the crumbling village of Ramelle.

In between these two great bookends are a few quality sequences, but I didn't find a lot of the drama all that engaging or convincing. The cast is notable, but the characters never struck me as real for the most part. I've seen the film three times and each time I was too often conscious of the fact that I was watching actors portraying WWII characters in a movie. When you see a truly great picture, by contrast, you completely forget you're watching a movie, e.g. the original "Apocalypse Now" (1979).

Moreover, too many of the situations in SPR, including the dialogue, simply struck me as unreal or annoyingly treacly. Exhibit A is the moronic dog-tag sequence, which was supposed to be emotionally stirring but just made me roll my eyes. But, like I said, no one can criticize SPR and get away with it, even if the criticism is legitimate. It's like you'll be accused of being un-American or something, which is far from the case with me since I love America; I just can't stand corrupt government & politicians, particularly the loony Left (speaking as an Independent).

In light of my criticisms, I simply don't get why so many praise SPR as "the greatest war movie ever made." Again, the opening and ending battle sequences are great but the dubious dramatics leave quite a bit to be desired.

I've heard SPR hailed on the grounds that much of it was taken "verbatim from first-hand, eye-witness accounts of the real Normandy invasion." I'll take their word for it, but this isn't what I object to. I object to the contrived, sappy, questionable way Spielberg depicted the dramatics and the fact that I was unable to buy the characters as real. The aforementioned dog-tag sequence is just one example, others include the French father’s stupefying actions and the forced fight at the radar station and how it’s resolved (ooh, the Captain’s a high school teacher, whoopee), not to mention the unconvincing old Vet at Captain Miller's grave (yes, I realize that scene was based on a real-life incident, but the acting was weak).

Nevertheless, there IS a lot of good in SPR that make it worth viewing. You can’t beat the battle sequences, the cast and the convincing WWII visuals throughout.

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 6 years ago

I think the action is some of the worst part of this movie and that is saying something. The washed out colors and shaking camera are borrowed from Michael Bay which is ironic since Michael Bay is produced by Spielberg rather than Spielberg produced by Michael Bay. Spielberg is a radical leftist billionaire who tried to force Hillary Clinton on us twice. He funded her campaign and even helped design it with the slogan that she was the most "experienced and qualified". We heard that many times in 2016 but it was actually from 2008 when she had zero executive experience so far. Spielberg made a movie for her celebrating war called "A Timeless Call". Spielberg also gave her acting lesions. Spielberg is not honest. He deliberately uses the flag as a shield for criticism. This movie is not patriotic. It is very hateful toward the people who lost their lives so that Progressives could use world wars to justify command economy, and to create Israel as promised to Lord Rothschilds.

[–] Wuchak (8733) 6 years ago

So I take it you didn't vote for NObama and HeyLIARy? That's awesome.

Anyway, I appreciate your feedback, but I think the action in the two extended battle sequences -- the Normandy beach invasion at the beginning and the village of Ramelle combat at the end -- were thrilling. It was the artificial and eye-rolling dramatics with which I take issue.

[–] Jehosaphet (1063) 6 years ago

Spielberg was trying to recreate the "fog of war". When your senses go ballistic on you during times of extreme tension, life/death stuff.
I was in the Marine corps when the movie was released, I'd never seen battle, but it was widely agreed by my colleagues that this was the best capture of it to date.
Not trying to sway your opinion, but I think there was more to it than Spielberg being gimmicky here.

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

The washed out colors and shaking camera are borrowed from Michael Bay

Literally nothing like Michael Bay. Spielberg and Kaminski stripped the protective coating from the camera lens so the colours appeared subdued and sepia-toned to mimic 1940s news reel footage. The handheld, cinema veritè camerawork was a nod to the French New Wave as well as news reel footage. If anything, SPR caused a huge shift in the war film genre and was copied by filmmakers for years afterwards (which Bay most likely attempted - unsuccessfully - with Pearl Harbor).

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Spielberg doesn't know how to make grown up films. I know, I know "What about Schindler's List?" Even that is just a simple emotionally wrought film. Everything is very simple.

The opening scene of course is very good and graphic, the scene where the GI is stunned carrying his torn off arm is very powerful. As is the soldiers getting shot before they can even disembark from the landing craft.

I'm not a Tom Hanks fan but his everyday man persona works in this as he is clearly not an action hero ready to Rambo it up. It works well.

But as you say a lot of the drama between battles is ordinary. The story itself though is overwrought. So to save one man you put so many others in danger? And they are ordered to do something like that? To go so far ahead of your main group like that would be a Commado's job not line soldiers, it would be on a voluntary basis too if it were being asked of line soldiers.

And in either case they certainly WOULD NOT hanging around to fight one last battle just as they reached their mission objective being Private Ryan himself.

Imagine this - "Errrr yes General we found him. Ummmmm.... no General he died. Ummm how? Well... we engaged an armoured group..... yes... yes I know.. we shouldn't have engaged the enemy like that. We should have hidden... I know...."

Special task forces like that actually try and avoid pitch battles not fight them.

[–] Wuchak (8733) 6 years ago

I rewatched it a few months ago and, surprisingly, found myself enjoying the squad's journey through war-torn France, despite the valid weaknesses cited above. It was the first time I 'got' why everyone raves about this movie, not that it cancels out those flaws.

But, to address your final point, the reason they didn't simply snatch Ryan and go back was because Ryan refused to leave his comrades just before the big battle. This was infuriating for the viewer, let alone Miller (Hanks) and his remaining crew. Yet there was little Miller could do in the awkward situation beyond threatening court martial or whatever. Ryan stubbornly refused to leave his mates at that critical point, so Miller & Co. stayed and fought.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Yeah I know Ryan refuses to leave. I guess in that situation especially in that time period, you knock the kid out and offer the others to go back with you as well?

Or, you lie and report back that you couldn't find him at all quite plausible given the situation? I know, it makes for a good finale.

[–] Wuchak (8733) 6 years ago

When I posted my previous comment I considered the possibility of Hanks & his remaining men knocking Ryan out, but (1) you can fatally injure someone doing that, unless maybe you held him down and gave him a sedative, which would take several men, and (2) Ryan was obviously loyal to his platoon -- to the point of wanting to risk his life -- and I'm sure the feeling was mutual, which means Ryan's buds wouldn't likely allow Miller's guys to knock him out once it was clear Ryan's mind was made up. No matter how you slice it, someone (or more) could easily end up dead if Miller's group made the radical decision to try to knock Ryan out.

Ryan took this stand for one of two reasons, or both: (1) He wasn't going to let his mates fight & die in the oncoming battle while he got a free pass home, which he would've considered cowardly, and (2) he traveled and fought all that way to German-occupied France and -- What? -- he's just gonna drop everything and go home because his brothers died? In other words, he needed to fulfill some sense of purpose: He would fight side-by-side with his comrades and -- if he survived -- then he'd go home.

I thought it was an interesting stand-off and it struck me as a believable (I'm sure situations like it happened in real life). Despite my criticisms, the movie definitely did some things right.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

It is interesting and I do get the dilemma. I guess in the end though they were only fighting a delaying action and it was kind of a battle fought purely on pride as it was a small unit of Germans they were up against.

The P-51's coming in at the end also highlighted the pointlessness of the battle. It reminded me of the ending to Das Boot.

So in that sense it sent the message well. Just depends on what aspect you look at.

[–] Wuchak (8733) 6 years ago

Thanks. I forgot the actual reasons for the battle and the details thereof.

Still, combatants in the field aren't always aware of the significance or irrelevance of a particular engagement, not to mention the bigger picture. The importance -- or not -- often only surfaces after the fact wherein strategists and historians debate the data.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I can understand that in film scenes sometimes exist not for a literal purpose but for a metaphorical one. So I get that the idea is to portray a state of mind where these guys (Ryan's group and Hanks group) have reached a mindset of utter doggedness. I doubt that they even cared if they would make a difference, they just had reached that point where they weren't going to back down.

It sets the tone well. As I mentioned those P-51's with armour killing rockets flying in overhead at the end blasting away, really drove home the pointlessness of their efforts. But that also is the idea of the scene.

Reminds me of a much lighter war film Kelly's Heroes. The scene where Kelly's gang is in the heat of battle far behind enemy lines, the General listening on on the radio thinking these men are driven by some kind of sense of duty when their only mission is to pull a bank heist!

[–] Wuchak (8733) 6 years ago

That's a good point about the "mindset of utter doggedness." Well said.

[–] Stratego (30501) 6 years ago

Yes, most of Spielberg's movies have an infantile quality. Even the few I can stand to watch have moments that are ruined by it.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

They all have an underlying theme of little boy lost in some aspect ET being the most obvious where he has 2 little boys lost Elliot and ET. The innocent "infantile quality" comes out somewhere no matter what.

[–] Stratego (30501) 6 years ago

I guess that appeals to a lot of people.