(March 4, 2016 at 10:11 am)abaris Wrote:(March 4, 2016 at 9:52 am)Brian37 Wrote: Now to be fair, regardless of your problem's with the plot, that real event we had no choice to do, and as much as I hate parts of our history in how we have treated minorities, that is one war even I support looking back. And I personally knew a vet, who didn't land on the beaches that day, but saw violent combat in Europe later in the war. That guy was also an atheist. He has since died, but it still was something we needed to do.
It's not about having a problem with history. It's how it's presented. Something like John Wayne riding into the sunset. You can present history while staying true to what war actually is - the ultimate horror. Private Ryan did that for about 20 minutes. The rest deteriorated into propaganda aboout doing ones duty.
That's why I said to look up the war films from the early 70ies. Most of them don't sugarcoat any issue. Compare, just to give one example, the US/japanese coproduction Tora, Tora, Tora from 1970 to Pearl Harbor 25 years later.
Schindler's list was a masterpiece which I watched three times on the big screen. There's nothing at all to criticize about that movie, but that's 23 years ago. Hollywood produced a lot of good movies since then, many of them featuring Tom Hanks, who is one of my favorite actors anyway. But it never produced any war movie, or any moving using war as a backdrop, coming even close to what they did in the 70ies, or Schindler's List. The newer ones always transport a rather dubious agenda.
I don't think I was disagreeing with you as much as you think. Yes "the way it was presented" which is why I said you could criticize that aspect of the movie. Could they have done a better job of avoiding those flaws? Certainly, but for me that did not take away the other aspects of it I think they did get right.
