Saving Private Ryan

This is one of those movies where it seems like everyone is in it. The main cast of soldiers trekking across France is full of guys you recognize even if you don't know your names. Hey, Tom Sizemore! And Vin Diesel! And Adam Goldberg! And Giovanni Ribisi! And Ed Burns! And Daniel from Lost! And it doesn't stop there. There are plenty of other small roles without a lot of prestige but still played by famous actors. It's Bryan Cranston with one arm! And Paul Giamatti! And Ted Danson! And Dennis Farina! And one of Nathan Fillion's first roles! It honestly gets fairly distracting when you're playing spot-the-guy in the middle of an epic, dramatic war movie, but that's one of the only flaws in an otherwise quite remarkable film.

The two most significant parts go to Tom Hanks as the leader of the unit sent after Private Ryan to bring him home after his three brothers are all killed in action, and Matt Damon as Ryan himself, the object of the film, although he only shows up for the last hour. It's funny, he was cast because he was basically unknown, but by the time the movie came out he was already a celebrity. Remember that distraction thing? I spent a fair amount of time thinking "So when is Matt Damon gonna show up?" But yeah, the film itself is a remarkable one. Just a great combination of drama, acting, cinematography, and editing. The film has a washed out look to it that someone sets the tone of a period war film without having to say anything. The production values are pretty outstanding; even when nothing is blowing up, the bombed out, rubble-filled city streets and rolling countrysides always look amazing and authentic. There are many scenes of the soldiers arguing about the mission, hazing the new guy, or just killing time that always have a natural feel to them, making you believe that these men have grown used to each other through so much time training and fighting together.

And of course there are the battles. The film is bookended by two sequences nearly half an hour in length, including the famous Normandy landing scene, filled with bullets, screaming, and severed limbs. The stark brutality of it might seem exploitative to some, but I thought there was power in the harsh, blunt way it was presented. War isn't pretty, and few sequences have captured it as well as that. Besides that and the climactic final battle, there are multiple other sequences, although they're relatively brief. They're still well filmed and choreographed, and throughout all of them the different soldiers get their chances to shine, although the unit's best marksman gets a lot of the best moments. As you might expect with a war movie things don't end well for everybody, and there's actually a scene where an earlier act of good will has negative consequences, which made me wonder for a bit what exactly the script was trying to say. Although in some ways the film romanticizes heroic sacrifice, it's still effective at conveying what it really does to people. One of Steven Spielberg's best films, and an effective jumping off point for the HBO miniseries that followed.

Avatar

I was in a bit of a conundrum here. James Cameron was possibly the best action director in Hollywood for about a decade, but that decade ended fifteen years ago. The only film he made since then was one I very much did not care for, and I was very unsure about Avatar based on what I'd read and seen. I went into the theater hoping it would be awesome and expecting it to be mediocre, and it ended up being somewhere in the middle, which I probably could have foreseen.

Just to get this out of the way, yes, a disproportionate amount of the film's appeal hinges on the visuals. And they are mighty impressive, both from looking at the quality of the computer effects and the effectiveness of the 3D. I haven't seen any other movies with anything more sophisticated than the blue and red glasses, so I can't honestly say how good or bad it is by modern standards. I will say that it looked pretty awesome, though the film still would have looked very nice without it. What the 3D was attempting to do was further pull you into this world Cameron created from scratch, and for better or worse it mostly succeeded. It's not really hype to say that you mostly forget you're watching something that beyond a few pieces of set in the human encampments only exists at all digitally, and you're left to focus on the story. Whether you actually like that story is a different question. But the visuals avoided gimmickry with jumping out at you for the most part, and spent a lot of time just letting you enjoy looking at it. I feel like this will hold up a lot better with time than effects laden pictures from earlier last decade, but only time will tell if that's the case.

So to answer whether the film beyond the special effects worked for me, the answer is: sorta. It's not really a great original story beyond the setting. It is very competently constructed, though. The film makes perhaps too great an attempt to justify everything, answering a lot of questions I had about the basic premise. Important elements are introduced properly before coming back later. Despite what you may think about the long running time, and it did feel a good twenty minutes too long, there is very little that happens and doesn't serve a purpose. It's not the most elegant script Cameron's ever written, but I guess it didn't have to be with his budget, and for the most part it all fits together and works to some degree.

None of the characters will impress you with their originality or uniqueness, but they're generally likable or easy to hate where required. For some reason Sam Worthington seems to be in every big action movie now, and I thought he was fine if not too remarkable. He was much more expressive in his alien form than as a human, but I thought that worked - he's becoming increasingly detached from his original life, and his whole character is driving towards being one of the natives. People have made a lot of disparaging remarks regarding the whole noble savages thing, but I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with how it works here. The movie's fairly funny too, providing some really nerdy laughs (the MacGuffin mineral that entirely explains the human presence on Pandora is actually called Unobtainium) as well as some much broader ones. The action sequences are sprinkled throughout, with the only major battle happening at the end, and they're all suitably exciting and well laid out. Say what you want about Cameron, the man still knows how to do this sort of thing. I don't know how excited I am for sequels, but I totally respect him for crafting an entire world and story out of whole cloth (and maybe a few bits from other stories), making an extremely expensive movie with it, and successfully selling it to the world. If I'm not mistaken it made the whole budget back worldwide in the first two weeks, and this was the third straight weekend it made about seventy million bucks in the US alone. I don't really dislike adaptations, but I do like to see original work as well, and if this means more is coming, then I'm happy.

Public Enemies

Pacing and technology issues prevent Public Enemies from being a really great film, but as a depression-era version of Heat it's quite enjoyable and will probably hold up pretty well. I haven't seen a ton of Michael Mann's movies, but I'm always impressed by the quality of the acting and plotting in addition to the unique realism of the gun fights that still manage to be really exciting. This movie has a huge cast and pretty big scope, as it covers not just John Dillinger's life but everything that was going on around him, from the law enforcement ramifications of all the bank robberies to the rise of organized crime. Johnny Depp is good as always, showing he's not just limited to wacky roles these days, and besides the somewhat lame accent Christian Bale plays an interesting and nuanced antagonist. Oscar winner Marion Cotillard brought more to her part than I expected of it, and really helped to humanize Dillinger as more than just a jovial dangerous criminal.

The one thing that kept me from totally liking the movie the most was the slow pace. At about two hours and twenty minutes it wasn't terribly overlong, and very few scenes ever dipped below the pretty high standard of quality Mann set, but I couldn't help feeling it was stretched a little too thin here and there, and the final act just went on for entirely too long before the inevitable conclusion finally occurred. The other issue was the use of digital camera for the vast majority of the shooting. When the camera's standing still, the picture it takes is pretty damn stunning. But if the camera is moving rapidly, which is pretty necessarily the case in a movie full of violent bank robberies, it can get distractingly blurry and inhibit the film. Because of the way it was shot and edited together so well, it doesn't hurt comprehension like it might in the hands of a lesser production team, but it does show that the cameras we have aren't quite up to the task of this sort of movie just yet. All issues considered, I had little problem with what was ever actually happening on screen at any given moment, and mostly liked the film quite a bit.