| B |
|---|
The plot was pretty much silly. Why couldn't they have called around on their radios and found Ryan that way?
I liked the characters (in general) and Tom Hanks was very solid as always. One problem I had though is I think Spielberg wanted to do a big war movie and a character study at the same time and he achieves neither as well as he could have if he had ignored the other. The final scene (which I'm going to assume everyone has seen, so watch out if you haven't seen it) was set up so well technically in terms of laying out the action and strategy but what did that have to do with anything? It gave a chance for the wormy guy to be a coward, but was he supposed to be redeemed for shooting one German and taking a bunch of prisoners who apparently had already given up? To me he seemed like the smallest kind of tough guy, one who does nothing and finds courage only when he doesn't need it anymore and when it serves only himself. When the 12 americans (low on ammo) were faced with an enemy force superior in every way why didn't they just retreat and blow the bridge? They should have done that as soon as they saw the tank. (last spoiler warning! if you haven't seen the movie, stop now!) It seemed like it was just a way to get Tom Hanks (and everyone else) to die. So I thought the plot was pretty lame.
Nonetheless Spielberg has done a solid piece of work here. The battle scenes were done very well and probably captured the confusion and hopelessness of being a soldier on D-day as well as has ever been done. Even the battle of the bridge was done very well technically. The few (too few) moments where characters were allowed to develop were also good (about the middle hour), but they weren't enough to set this movie very far apart from so many other similar movies. I don't think Spielberg broke any new ground, he just used modern effects and a budget that only he could muster to do what has been done in the past, only a little bit better.
Can't give it more than a B.