Re: I've seen it!

Posted by woods01 from 139-142-113-213.islandnet.com on March 08, 1999 at 13:47:57:

In Reply to: I've seen it! posted by Brett Lambert on March 07, 1999 at 08:02:46:

I think that Saving Private Ryan had a terribly boring mid section whose
talks on the role of soldiers in a war were pretty familar. Also I thought
it was pretty contrived that the same office would recieve news of brothers
dying all over the world at the same time. Did they email those casualty
lists to them to get them that fast? Its still a good movie but I think
its not as great as all the hype says. Still its best movie of the past
year.

As for Paths not getting a lot of credit in film history books. Bridge on
the River Kwai came out the same year had was box office and Oscar hit.
Paths of Glory was not a big hit. But it used many long tracking shots
which I think are pretty effective. Also I think that scene where that one
soldier admits to "not having one sexual thought" throughout the whole ordeal
was pretty advanced for a 50s movie. The films portrayal of the French army
in WW1 made the film banned in France for many years. Also its interesting
to see the contrast of the muddy trenches the soldiers live in and the
French Palaces that the generals live in. They were completly out of touch
with the war they were waging.

Maybe I'm over praising of the movie but I think its a shame that few
people have seen it.

: I saw that film in the fall of 1997. Yes, it's an excellent movie but I wouldn't place it above The Bridge on the River Kwai or Saving Private Ryan (two of my favorite war movies). I don't think it was nearly as innovative. I don't remember reading any film history books and praising it as groundbreaking. I think what helps that movie the most is its performances, in particularm Kirk Douglas, he is the reason it is great.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL: