fritz

Beautiful film and splendid review. I haven't seen the original, but I really liked the characterization of the tormentors, and similarly the angelic Pitt. The positive aspect of operations like this is that they give, besides the Yankees, many others a chance to see something they missed, like me, who probably would never have heard of it :D
Does anyone know the name of that song that appears in the closing credits and at the beginning of the film? The only piece that isn’t classical music, if you know what I mean. Thank you!

@ Blackdog: African Americans never appear in the film because, in the American army, they fought in units made up solely of Black soldiers, separate from white units. This changed, if I'm not mistaken, after the Vietnam War. So it's not exactly imperialist, at least from this point of view, right? ;)

@ Enbar77: there are tons of volumes on the Normandy landing; the landing shown in the film, the one at Omaha, was the bloodiest of the five since, of all the beaches, Omaha was the only one hit by heavy artillery and was the most fortified section throughout Normandy; the armored vehicles intended to support the infantry sank almost all due to the rough sea. The Americans managed to capture the beach not only because of the number of men but also due to the German defensive forces deployed in Normandy, reservist soldiers without any support from armored vehicles. The bulk of the German forces had managed to be stationed in the Calais area, further north in Normandy, where the Allies led the Germans to believe that the invasion would occur. Without this stratagem, it would probably not only have been the suicide you mention, but likely, whether outnumbered or not, they would not have been able to consolidate any beachhead. The Normandy landing was indeed a surprise, as it caught the Axis on its most vulnerable flank.

Regarding the film's uselessness, seen as a great virtuosic wank by Spielberg, I disagree, especially because in 1998 we had never seen a representation of a battle like this before. For the past 10 years, any battle scene that has hit theaters has been based on those in Saving Private Ryan; to call it useless seems like an exaggeration: the Hollywood war films that followed, like Pearl Harbor and various Windtalkers, might be considered useless, but this one in particular, no. Look at the acclaimed Iwo Jima films by Eastwood from a purely technical standpoint: without Spielberg, they wouldn’t exist from that perspective. I completely agree that a film is not just technique, but if you've also read the previous comment, I think I've been clear about what I mean.

Sorry, Shakespeare in Love without 's :P

Well, it's quite the trend on this site to criticize successful films.
When it comes to Saving Private Ryan, one can throw a lot of shit around, because it is indeed rhetorical; there are the good guys and the bad guys. Yes, even Americans can be violent, but they get disturbed by it, while the Germans are represented as howling apes dressed in gray, stripped of even the slightest humanity, like in the worst films of the '60s. The film itself, which isn't even that great, is, however (and WHAT a however), technically impeccable, to the point that in its genre, with guts, handheld cameras, and various gray filters, it has become a true milestone.
Spielberg may have learned from whoever to shoot his battle scenes, but it borders on the ridiculous to try to downplay even the terrifying battles depicted in the film. Those battles are portrayed far removed from any rhetoric, particularly the landing on Omaha Beach, which is utterly harrowing.
If one really wants to complain about the Oscars and awards, as you do in your review, one should complain more about the Oscars stolen from Spielberg by Shakespeare in Love than about those that Spielberg, alongside the general interest of both audiences and critics, has taken from Malick and his "The Thin Red Line", a true masterpiece.
The film would be worth 2, 2.5 on its own and 5 technically, no ifs or buts.
The average is therefore 3.5, which I round up to 4.

CoolOras, saint immediately. And everyone home.

Interesting review, you made me want to do some research ;)

Well, to be honest, there are various things you can criticize about Poletti, but what he said about Aleksandr Nevsky definitely isn't one of them. I was struck by a scene that reminded me quite a bit of it, with all the knights lined up with their lances in the air, it's absolutely identical to one of those before the battle on the ice. However, frankly, I don't know if we can really talk about "copying."
I mean, it's normal for a film like that to "teach" how to shoot scenes like this. In Braveheart, there are various common points, but to say that it was copied...with this reasoning, starting from 1998, almost all war films copy Spielberg in action scenes, with gray filters, shoulder cameras, blood and guts, and so on, just as he borrows from Kubrick. If we keep going with the idea of copying, there’s really very little that can be saved, in general, it seems to me. I don't believe that a good film necessarily needs to invent something to be considered such.

Review with an unbearable tone and absurd comparisons.
Not a bad movie at all, with all the usual flaws, I enjoyed watching it very much.
The battle scenes aren’t as bad as you describe, although, to be honest, I couldn’t help but notice the quotes from the old Sergeij ;D
It’s rhetorical, oh my, yes it is, but among all those epic films that became so fashionable, this one is definitely among the better releases. Then, well, to wrap up, in your accusations of cheesiness against Gibson, you forgot to mention a few historical mistakes, like saying that the kilt came into use centuries later or the real battle of Stirling, which has absolutely nothing to do with the one in the movie, being muuuuuuch less "spectacular." But whatever.
However, look, if you massacre The Patriot, I’ll give you a 5, I promise :D

Beautiful.

Well.