Reviews

To see this work is to realize what becomes of a man whose monumental contributions to his craft/art came many decades prior. It's a shame that Jean-Luc Godard, grandmaster of the French New Wave, who once brought unprecedented spunk and verve to his films of the early 60's, all the while shattering and redefining most accepted cinematic notions for a new generation of filmgoers and filmmakers, now is forced to deal with his downfall. Yet he refuses to acknowledge the glaringly obvious fact that his magic touch has just about totally dissipated, for he has become so forlorn in his contempt of accepted societal expectations of film and in his need to further push his musings that the cinema is dead, that he is stuck within himself.

In JLG/JLG, we get many, MANY quotes from philosophers and other high-thinkers, put to what use? Beats me. Juxtaposed with shots of rolling hills, ocean waves crashing onto rocky shores, Godard toying around with rolls of film, writing on large pads of paper, and then playing tennis, it all ads up to a nice variety of static images. Pedantic in tone and crusty in narration, the film nevertheless abruptly dispenses one though provoking moment when Godard explains his take on metaphysics via two interlocking triangles that form a 6-pointed star.

Ultimately, I left the film with just one clear idea, albeit likely not one that Godard had intended - it is evident that for Godard, life does not imitate art; as, unlike his best films, he is going out with a whimper instead of a bang. Final Grade: D

After the box office disappointment of "Fight Club", it seems as if director David Fincher felt the need to pursue less controversial, more rudimentary ground for his next film. Probably the same could be said for Jodie Foster, who after the failure of "Anna and the King", apparently wanted to play it safe and reaffirm herself as a successful female Hollywood star. And so they both settled for "Panic Room". I say settled because perhaps this latest feature is a letdown for fans of both stars, and in hindsight, is probably also for both of those two individuals. After a "so that's what all the fuss was about?" title sequence, the story begins as single mother Meg Altman (Foster) and her daughter Sarah move in to their new home in bustling New York City. A guide shows them around the house, detailing the house's features, including its panic room. Essentially this first act exists so that we the viewers become acclimated to the geography of house, and Fincher does a good job at this. But already Meg Altman is established as a pent-up nervous reck - unlike everyone else, she would rather not have that panic room in her house. Geez, Meg just moved into a new home and already she looks like she could have a heart attack at any minute. Not too much later the three villains of the picture show up, intent on getting a certain amount of money in bonds contained within the panic room, and mistakingly think that they are alone in the house to do so. Thus begins the film's string of unlikely coincidences, and annoying character and story contrivances. Not only is Jared Leto's character frequently misinformed, but he doesn't shut up, and of course he only cares for himself when it comes to the bottom line, partners be damned. Plus it never fails that this type of character will prove himself to be an utter moron when it comes to strategy. For when it comes to logic and fore-thought, that is completely Burnham's (Forest Whitaker) speciality. But he's not just a devious antagonist, he's one with a heart. One who deep down inside cares for others, especially when they are about to go into a coma or when they are being tortured by someone else. Uh-huh. Nevertheless, once both of the Altmans are trapped within their own confines, the story covers their numerous attempts to get out of the room while defeating the three burglars in the process. In one sequence, the three bad-guys try to coerce Meg and Sarah to come out of the panic room by spewing noxious gas into the room via a hose. While this was a slightly inventive sequence, I thought a more foolproof method to do this if I were the one of the burglars would be to instead pump water into the room via the hose. I don't know how the screenwriters would have written their way out of that one, but perhaps that kind of suspense sequence has been done in too many movies already? Overall, most of these suspense sequences are in that kind of mold, but they make-up a major part of the movie and are only semi-gratifying. They are slightly suspenseful, but after Meg and Sarah find their way out of one, it's onto the next one; and none of them particularly advance the story in anyway. They just add to the film's running time and are strictly for entertainment purposes. They're cotton-candy suspense sequences. In fact, the only sequence that is vibrant throughout the entire movie occurs a little past midway through, when a pair of suspicious policemen show up to check out what's going on inside the house. It's only in this moment that Foster lets down her steely intense guard and enjoys having a role in this joyless feature. The dialogue between Meg and the two policemen is comic and subtle and tense, all tightly wrapped together. And it is only then that Fincher discards his heavy, brooding tone that he is known for. A paired down suspense film like this needs some air to breathe, and amid all the over-the-top, unnecessarily explicit violence, it is hard to find. More than any other Fincher film, this is "just" a movie, in structure and in content. So why is the film as unpleasant and unsatisfyingly taught as it is? Expect both Fincher and Foster to go back to more substantial material in the future. Final Grade: B-

In fact, not just funny, but hilarious. I laughed consistently throughout. Now, I know I may just have flushed my credibility down the toilet for admitting to have a fondness for this movie, but we all have our guilty pleasures, right? Having said that, let me explain that this is not a movie for everyone. There is not a moment when there is not some sort of objectionable subject matter on the screen. Whether it is incessant cursing, overt drug use, stereotypical characterizations, or a little bit of degrading of women, it's all there. Nevertheless, I think the reason I laughed so much was because the humor was not aimed at the expense of the characters. If anything, the director, DJ Pooh (of "3 Strikes" fame, haha) is making fun of the characters themselves. He is not using his stars, Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre, to make fun of others. As a result, there is a lightheartedness about the movie and a sense that it is okay to laugh at and with the characters because it is all in good humor. At least, that's my explanation. Let me also point out that the film has almost no plot until the final act, which is when I think the film runs out of steam...go figure. Furthermore, all of the characters basically play there rap star personas (especially Eminem), so obviously characterization is kept at a minimum. It doesn't matter. I kept laughing from beginning to end, and in that way the film is successful. In fact, dare I say it, I think this film is funnier than "Friday." Oops, once again I just jeopardized my credibility as a serious reviewer. Haha. Don't take this one to heart. Final Grade: B

This is one of the most compelling and heart-wrenching films of the new millennium. The real-life struggle of two men trying to capitalize on the "Internet Boom" shows how mistaken everyone was that the Internet was the premiere way to get rich quickly and live happily ever after. But aside from the expose that formulating and operating an Internet business is far less glamorous than potential dollar signs would have one to believe, "Startup.com" is a perfect example of how the lure of riches and the good life can leave behind friendships made along the way; greed demoralizes oneself for the sake of material ownership that may ultimately cease and desist anyway. Filled with many subtleties and slight flourishes of (in)humanity, and telling signs of deteriorating personal relationships on the road to obtaining power and capital, this film contains far more juicy, resonating-with-truth moments than one could find (or even believe) in fiction. Perhaps most importantly, one realizes that with every little company with a numerical representation that he sees in the trade market one day that then disappears the next, there are real people like Kaleil and Tom whose lives are at stake and whom are suffering from the harsh reality that in the "real world," the American dream does not always come to fruition. Final Grade: A

I consider "Final Fantasy" to be a film ahead of its time. Up until this film's release last summer, full-length computer animated feature films had been thought of as strictly kids fare; they were marketed for them and their slant toward light entertainment was apparent in the films' bright colors and jokey characters (let it be known that films such as "Toy Story" and "Shrek" were great films regardless). But the producers of "Final Fantasy" clearly had the forethought to use modern-day technology to tell a ponderous, more mature tale that had not been done previously in computer animation. In this sense, "Final Fantasy" represents a new breed among its kind. I envision that eventually we will see more and more computer animated films aimed at an older age demographic than they are currently. However, with the poor box office this film received (which resulted in the complete shut down of Columbia and Square Pictures' computer animation department), it seems as if people such as myself who anxiously await to see what lies ahead in the ever-evolving computer animation feature film market will have to wait longer than previously hoped for. Therefore, "Final Fantasy" will be one-of-a-kind for a while, even though, disappointingly, when one compares it to live-action films of its type, it is definitely not in a league by itself. It does not contain an original idea in its entire 106 minute running time. From the aliens impregnating one's body, to a devastatingly demolished future New York City, to the sacrificial token black character, it has all been done before. Incoherent and cliched story-telling is the film's achilles heel. Yet, unlike, say, "The Fifth Element," at least the film attempts to be dramatic with its characters - their emotion is genuine. And the film at least tries to distill a moral. No matter, as the animation is truly on another level. While lip-synching and body movement still needs to be improved, when the characters are still, they are a work of art. Besides, after the initial shock that, yes, I am actually watching a complex combination of ones and zeros do THAT (even though occasionally it seems slightly "off"), that effect wears off and the film itself takes precedence. It is just a shame that we will not see for some time how the film makers would have or will take the groundwork laid in this picture and attempt to further it. Final Grade - B+

I mentioned in my one line summary above that this film has a couple of setbacks that detract from this film being a classic fantasy epic. Since so many people have seen and will see this film and will form their own opinions - and since so many people have already written so much about this film - I will get right into the film's flaws. In doing so I will leave its positives to be commented upon by others who have already written about this film. In effect I pretty much agree with them about those aspects of the film. Essentially, there are two problems I have with "The Fellowship of the Ring." First, this is an unnecessarily dark and gory film. Its joyless action and overbearing heroics take away from the audience's enjoyment of what is intended to be a rousing adventure. I liken it to a heavy meal whereby one eats too many thick, dense foods and, while enjoying the food when one actually eats it, he regrets doing so afterwards. It looks like the film makers put too much of a good thing into this film, just like the meal analogy. In relation, this film takes itself way too seriously, to the point where it does not ask us to delight in hating the many antagonists of the film. It just plain wants us to hate them, and because of this quality the "bad guys" are too horrific for their own good. Second, the film is rather long. It does not matter if the film makers wanted to keep to the story line of the J.R.R Tolkien's novel. What seems like a never-ending yarn of excitement as a book does not directly translate into a similarly thrilling experience as a film. The film should have been injected with a greater sense of brevity about the proceedings because the film becomes a tad bit tedious after a while. However, I should mention that the vague homage to the grand Harryhausen epics of the late 50's and early 60's apparent in the fellowship's battles with an assortment of ghastly ghouls in the film's third act is effective and is the best part of the film. Taking into account these reservations (which I should not downplay; they certainly do have a negative impact), "The Fellowship of the Ring" just barely manages to live up to the hype. Final Grade: B+

If anyone deserved an Academy Award last year it was Ellen Burstyn for her portrayal of a lonely old woman who longs for yesteryear. Her obsession to relive that life that she once had leads her down a degenerative spiral of (pharmaceutical) drug-addiction. However, Burstyn was not the only player to put in award-worthy performance. Jared Leto, Jennifer Connelly, and, surprisingly, Marlon Wayans each contribute spot-on portrayals of people down-on-their-luck, whose struggle to overcome their hardships eventually turns them into hopeless, pathetic life-forms on the dark path to death; they are the anti-thesis of the American dream. Darren Aronofsky deftly blends the characters with a yearning for the innocence of childhood and a desire to be appreciated that is at once omnipresent and smooth, but secondary. The film never lags as all four main characters each have strong character arcs. I have heard many people say this is a depressing film, but I think it is this only for viewers whose real-life mirrors that of the characters. As for the normal, "clean-cut" audience segment, shouldn't the fact that you do not act as the film characters do make you glad that you do not? While I was surprised that there was not a twist at the end, the ending is still extremely sound the way it is (the final shot of Ellen Burstyn is chilling to the point that it puts Tom Hank's emaciated body in the second half of "Cast Away" to shame). This is an extremely powerful film, even if this is not the first time we have been warned about the evils of drug addiction. Final Grade: A

The members of Fight Club are hopelessly pathetic junkies who believe self-destruction is the most productive way to counter their failures to be what society tells them they should strive to be, but who they didn't become. In the world of Fight Club, there is no need for aspirations to achieve goals and dreams, so they resort to their counter-programmed, repressed sadistic tendencies for therapy. But what does this accomplish? In the end, the answer is nothing – nothing more than one man's awakening from an eternal dream-state. It is attempting to speak to the dazed and confused among us by way of the ridiculous notion that violence creates an understanding of oneself. The first two hours of "Fight Club" is a stark and vacuous rambling that plays out like a like a wannabe hard-core, tough-guy's movie for Gen Xers who think it's cool to watch grown men smack each other bloody. And herein lies the irony – The film plays up the violence quotient to highlight its characters' worthiness, while we the audience (presumably) cheer these guys on vicariously through cinema, all the while distanced from the film's `your id should dictate your being' holy-otherworldliness. We do not experience what it is like to be Tyler Durden outside the film's reality, and this hypocrisy is something he would frown upon. Those of us not in Fight Club, are we not living? The film gets more ludicrous as it goes, pounding the audience over the head with the idea that an ever-increasing mass audience would continually embrace Fight Club, lead by a loser who succumbs to his dual-personality disorder. But maybe that's the point – we, the audience, are the newest members of Fight Club, and we are the victims of a brutal beat-down on our first night. But we are entertained by it nonetheless. Fight Club is an attack on our senses and sensibilities, one that would make even Tyler Durden jealous. It is a knock on materialism, but a champion of irreverence. Fight Club is an all-encompassing religion-like way-of-life, straight out of the school of hard knocks. It is also a film who's main character must go through an epiphany of violent escapades and unconscious musings before he understands what any `normal' person on the street already knows – that life does offer possibilities and unspecified pinnacles of joy and enlightenment. It does not take a wrong before one can understand productivity and do good. I don't think the film glorifies violence; in fact, it's conclusion puts to rest the edgy leanings that came before it, deploring violence, brutality, and self-destruction as a waste of time and human life. However, morals cannot exist out of context, and the way the filmmakers present them results in an acidic residue inside the minds of the audience. It used to be no blood, no foul; now it's no blood, no self-fulfillment. I guess pain really is love. The film's ultimate effect is one of wanting you to treat it as a non-sentimental, non-preachy statement on human behavior and aspirations, but lacks an excuse for us to do so. Violence brings out the best in all of us, right Tyler?

Seriously, who is there to root for in this film? The three main male leads all live promiscuous lives and horribly treat the females who they know. The guys (who are around 19 and 20 years old) want to become world-class racers, but the things they do on the side are stereotypical of these type of characters. Furthermore, the main female lead (Fientje) is also unlikeable because she just presents herself as cute and "available" to every guy she meets only for his money and as an escape rout from her lousy job. It is only at the end that we actually feel happy that she has made it out of her bad situation. Unfortunately, by that time, after we have seen her immoral tendencies to get what she wants, we don't care if she will live happily or not. I think the same can be said of all the characters in this film, except, maybe, for Rien's girlfriend. However, even she is left behind in the dust for the sake of the story trying to manipulate our emotions via what happens to Rien. The acting was good, I guess. Then again, I only saw this film subtitled, as I don't understand the language spoken by the characters. I also read somewhere that the visuals were pretty good in this film, but I don't remember anything strikingly memorable. If anything, this film is filled with too much gratuitous violence and sexually explicit imagery. But that's Paul Verhoeven for you. Anyway, Verhoeven went on to do much bigger and, in my opinion, better work. Give this a rental if you're a big Verhoeven fan because it certainly is his style (both artistically and plot-wise).

You can always tell if a movie of this type is bad if the audience you see it with laughs at the over-the-top scenes of gore instead of shrieking at them. There are many of those scenes in this movie that are haphazardly strewn together with second-rate special effects and false tension. What makes the movie so bad is that with the lack of a sensible plot and distinguished characters the audience can only look forward to what gross-out will be coming next for them to laugh at. Granted, the acting is not is not atrocious, but it still can not be considered above average. Kim Basinger tries to emote as realistically as possible, but she seems out of her league here. Jimmy Smits gives an agreeable performance. However, the actor/actress with the most potential, Christina Rici, is wasted by being in only two sequences. This should wrap up my feeling on this movie: it makes End of Days look like a good movie. Enough said. Final Grade: D-

"Shanghai Noon", as noted in my summary, has the usual blend of free-whirling acrobatics and physical humor one would expect from a Jackie Chan movie. Yet, do not begin watching this movie expecting to witness the sheer vitality of Chan's previous American blockbuster, "Rush Hour". For one, Chan's team-up partner this time around is the laid-back Owen Wilson, one whose straight-forward, observational sense of humor seems to give Chan less to react to than Chris Tucker's relentlessly manic improvisations. While occasionally funny in a "chuckle-under-your-breath" sort of way, Wilson has some moments where he is grating and irritating on the viewer. This is most problematic when the film cuts away to Wilson's character in the middle of one of Chan's fight sequences (which, despite Chan's middle-age, are still consistently dazzling). It ruins the flow and excitement of the sequences. Rest assured, there are still enough of these action set-pieces to satisfy the viewer. For me, Chan's combat with the Native Americans is most memorable. Sadly, the plot of this film will more than likely not be remembered as fondly. Essentially, it just serves as another scenario for Chan to hook up with a co-star, beat the bad guys, and rescue the kidnapped princess. It even has the obligatory, explain-it-all-to-the-audience scene where Chan does exactly that, tell Wilson his objective in this movie so the viewer knows the film will stray from no tried and true conventions. But if you just want to see more of Chan's brand of eastern action and tireless comedic abilities, this movie is just that. However, be aware that this film is more deliberately paced than the usual Chan film. The "moments" that are contained within every Chan film are fewer and farer between. Final Grade: C

After the well-intentioned but lackluster "Starship Troopers", Paul Verhoeven returned to his old self with this film. Verhoeven, always one for social commentary, makes a strong case for how terrible man may be when not confined by rules and restrictions. The film asks, literally (by one of the characters in the movie), "What would you do if you knew you couldn't be seen"? The answer, in the form of Kevin Bacon's character Sebastian, is quite disturbing. Would we all be liberated and commit haneous crimes of rape and murder? We would hope not, but clearly Verhoeven is not so sure. And this daring statement of human nature is classic Verhoeven, comparable to his critiques of corrupt big businesses and governments in Robocop.

After inventing a syrum that will render any living being invisible to the human eye, Sebastian, whose ego is so inflated that he refers to himself as God, feels the urge to try the secret formula out on a human for the first time. He volunteers himself. The result does, in fact, give Sebastian the opportunity to do whatever he pleases, because he can not be identified or connected with his actions. Then the greusomeness begins. While his lab partners try to make him visible again, Sebastian becomes increasingly demented and dellusional. There was a point about 3/4 of the way through this movie that I feared it would degenerate into just another "Alien"-type/slasher movie sendoff. While this is somewhat true, the last parts of the movie do indeed work. Throughout, the movie is greatly helped along with truthfully astonishing computer effects. These really are groundbreaking effects shots by Sony Imageworks and Phil Tippett Studios. I guess this is to be expected, because Verhoeven films ALWAYS raise the bar one notch further. Another virtue of the movie is the good acting by the main leads, namely Bacon and Elizabeth Shue (a surprisingly effective action heroine). Overall, it looks like Verhoeven had a direction, a vision, for this movie. When he does, despite his crazy dutchman style, he makes very effective satire. Final Grade:A-

Ah, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame". The classic starring horror-legend, and famed "man-of-a-thousand-faces", Lon Chaney. After watching this film now, almost eighty years after its premiere, I wonder why there are no active, present-day horror icons like Lon Chaney has become. Maybe the answer lies in the fact that horror films of this type just are not made anymore. Quick, name a horror character in modern-day film that transcends film itself and is now part of the culture. Aside from the decade old, and increasingly light-weight and irrlevent, Freddy Kreuger, and perhaps Hannibal Lecter (though one can argue his character should not be compared to more conventional horror types like the ones Chaney played), there are none. Or the answer may lie in the fact that never again will there be a performer of the likes of Chaney. His ability to convey emotion through painstakingly applied pounds of make-up set the precedent for Boris Karloff's performances as Frankenstein's monster, and his son, Lon Chaney Jr., both legends in their own rights. And what a make-up it is. Basically operating with only a right eye, a crooked mouth, and flailing arms, his character, Quasimodo, is still an endearing yet tragic hero. His grotesque appearance is made even more appalling due to Chaney's mannerisms, such as his disjointed stride and flickering tongue. Yet, at the same time, the reason the viewer has pathos for the character is because of Chaney's body movements and contortions. Whether it be his rightfully-so mocking of the Parisian townspeople in the beginning of the movie or his reactions to his failing attempts at halting the charge on the cathedral at the end, Chaney is masterful at maximizing the neccessary theatrics that would be obscured under the make-up by any other actor. One of the most touching moments in the film occurs midway, when Quasimodo is whipped as punishment for his master's actions. "I thirst" the intercut caption reads. And just the way Quasimodo appears in that situation, helpless and pathetic, the viewer can almost hear Chaney cry out those words and wants to care for him. Then, he is no longer a "freak of nature" but a misfortunate human who is the only one pure of heart. Like so many "horror" films after it would again emphasize, he is not the "monster", the "normal" people are. This message is timeless. As such, the story, movie, and character are still relevant today - just a few years ago, Disney remade it into one of their feature length animation spectacles. Eighty years from now, heck, even thirty years from now, will the same be true for 90's horror? Will Anthony Hopkins become a deity among horror-movie buffs like Chaney has? This example alone justifies "Hunchback"'s classic status. Final Grade: A

Tarzan is the latest offering in Disney's annual animated feature-film routine. So, based on those Disney movies that have preceeded this one, the viewer knows what to expect going in. And, suffice it to say, Tarzan does not stray from the usual, tried-and-true Disney formula. The plot is nothing new, kind of resembling Superman: the title character is born normal and is such until he is suddenly deposited in a new environment upon which circumstances his parents are killed. He is brought up in these new surroundings, and then, when he is older, he falls in love with a woman that he is not allowed to love or be with because he is too different from her. He ultimately tries to become like her to be with her, but this fails, and he returns, once and for all realizing his true self, to what he actually is (in this movie, an ape-man, not a civilized human). There are also the obligatory bad guys around to disrupt our hero's plans, but really are not essential to our hero's journey from the beginning of the movie to the end. Oh, there is also the one-note, "for-the-kids" character (this time voiced by Rosie O'Donnell) to provide comic relief; it wouldn't be a Disney summer offering without one. Sure the movie looks good, but the CGI does not blend seemlessly with the traditional animation. There is basically one eye-popping sequence in the middle of the movie where Tarzan rescues Jane from baboon-types. He does so in magnificent fashion: swinging, gliding, and careening from tree to tree, that plays out like a roller coaster ride at a theme park. This sequence alone makes the movie above average, but not much. Final grade: C+

This movie was a strong directing debut for Luc Besson. Unlike, say, his The Fifth Element, it tends to emotionally connect with the viewer, which is rare for an action movie. However, the characters are well drawn out, which explains the viewers connection with Leon and Mathilda. It is conceivable why this movie may not be liked by all; its European style is not for all tastes. But there is more emphasis on development of situations, granted they are average run-of-the-mill at that, than there is on the action, which is refreshing. Gary Oldman is over-the-top, but that's to be expected. And the Lolita-esque subplot between the two protagonists is intriguing. Besson should be more proud of this film than The Fifth Element. His attention isn't overconsumed by the action to give too-little time and care to the other aspects of a motion-picture like this. As thus, its succeeds as it wanted to back at the drawing board stage.

From the moment the viewer hears Bernard Herrmann's classic use of the theremin for the film's opening music set against the image of a wild galaxy, you know you're in for a treat. The movie continues this sense of awe and excitement through its subsequent use of fantastic special effects (set in the daytime, which makes the effects unnoticeably easy on the eyes)to set up the movie's main premise. The film's scenes move with a lightingly quick pace, though, and so the viewer is never allowed the chance for him/her to be bored with what turns out to be a film more concerned with morale than intergalactic carnage. The acting is appropriately right on in its earnestness, while the script always lends the feel of the film building up to its tremendous climax. It is here where the emotional wallop is felt, and Klaatu's ultimate intentions are brought forth. Nice touches throughout the movie include the exchange between the little boy and Klaatu concerning war, and the explanation of how and why Klaatu looks so human-like. It's anti-nuclear weapons message was very impactful back in the fifties, but the movie also works just as well now, in the late 90's. I guess this is why great science fiction movies such as this are great in the first place.

This movie has it all. Great photography, solid acting, splendid editing (using sound links and other ingenious transitions), masterful directing, legendary music, lavish production design, and a completely engrossing script. What more can be said? If you haven't seen it, then do so. And if you have, see it again for a reminder of how great movies used to be made. Absolutely worthy of its classic status. The only gripe may be that the story may not be comprehensible to first time viewer's if they have no prior knowledge of the actual events the movie is based on. Otherwise help yourself. Enjoy.

Coming out of Saving Private Ryan, one detail was surprisingly clear. This is not as gruesome or violent a movie as most make it out to be. The violence occuring onscreen is realistic, but never is it gut-wrenchingly unbearable. For example, many images of soldiers being shot in the middle of their forehead look completely convincing, but at the same time are not disturbing. I suspect this is due to the fact that the violence itself is not gratuitous or dwelled upon for long periods of time. In Schindler's List, there is a scene were an old man is taken out of a line and has a gun pointed to his head by a German soldier, while the viewer gets a closeup of this cruelty. A couple of seconds pass where we just await the man to be shot dead. And it is in these few, passive seconds where the viewer is viscerally shaken because he or she has the preoccuring knowledge that the man is about to be killed. Whereas in Saving Private Ryan, every soldier is either shot down quickly, or the act of violence is not as closeup in the viewer's objectivity. The violence is not there to be just flat-out disgusting but to reflect upon its effect on the characters and the film's ideals. Although is this the film's virtue or disadvantage? Anyway the hype is undeserved. Never do you see a soldier's head blown away from his torso or the like. If you can handle award-winning pyrotechnics, then you can sit through this film. With that being said, perhaps something more important should. Saving Private Ryan just is not the best war film ever made, or even Steven Spielberg's best directing effort. It is bogged down by a number of cliches (it begins to rain right when our protagonists approach danger, one soldier accidentely reveals the enemy simply by sitting down, the band of soldiers is comprised of the usual wide-range of character types, etc). It lacks the thorough plot and execution of theme that Spielberg accomplished so easily and satisfactorily in his own Schindler's List. The tears and awe of the experience people had when they left the theater after that film was not there so much this time. Maybe that's the exact point the film is trying to get across, though. Perhaps its purpose (and only idea achieved) is to simply show that war is hell and what it is really like--to settle the look of the war film once and for all. If this was the movie's objective, then it does so in flying colors. But that's about all. The spiritual aspect is missing, and this is why the film could have been better. Schindler's List told the horrors of the Holocaust, but left the viewer with lasting images and lessons on basic humankind--the kind of secondary impression Saving Private Ryan lacks.