Not too bad if you didn't set high expectation.
Overall is ok.
Action is nice.

* I liked the CGI special effects and a few of the plot twists they threw in keep it from being too predictable. Cons: Completely neglecting the source material, appropriating the existing character and twisting them to send a message. Capt Marvell was a male super hero and they should have ran with Ms Marvel or made a new super-hero character for this film. Breaking canon - Facts established in previous MCU films were contradicted in this film, so now I don't know which film's telling of history to believe. Handling of Nick Fury's character was poorly done. I won't see him as the gritty, battle-hardened vet that he was in previous films.
Advice - Skip this film. It causes confusion by disrupting everything that came before it. It's like a reboot of the marvel universe ... or a parallel dimension. Save your money for another movie.
* Summary: Decent, but Breaks the MCU

Look, as an actor, it is your duty to make sure that you promote your brand to the best of your ability, it's JUST as important as the work that you do shooting the film. I don't care about the political side of the events that transpired before the release of this movie, but I hope that Hollywood learns the lesson taught by Brie Larson.

It has good visuals, good action, and some decent humour. This movie does what it needs to do by introducing Captain Marvel, although I was hoping Marvel would do something different and unique from their other origin story.

I never watched a movie 2 time but captain marvel is one and only movie that i watched 2 time in my life.Amazing movie.

okay i wanted to see this despite the 'contravercy sexist pig like men have turned this into'so i went to my local theater picked a showtime and picked out some snacks the movie was decent not good not bad just the right amount of each to make it watchable for folks the action had a nice pace and the humor was just right and i think captain marvel herself is a beautiful badass and i adored the cat he was so cute and fluffy i say go see it dont over expect but go see it

Captain Marvel bored the living hell out of me. I'm tired of these special effects laden "event films" where every scene has to be flashy lights and fighting and explosions where nothing of real value is at stake. Not one character in this film has a personality or character arc. It's one big extended buildup to showcase how badly Captain Marvel is going to kick Thanos' ass. I like the character but I did not like what this movie does with her character. I was also shocked at how bad Brie Larson's performance was; she's an incredible actress but I feel Jennifer Lawrence put more effort into her Mystique than Larson did with Carol Danvers.
Also if your idea of female empowerment is a nasty leather jacket biker guy whistling at a girl saying "give me a kiss" and then the girl just goes and steals his bike, you have no clue what real female empowerment is.

I wasn't going to see this movie at all based on the stupid comments made by Brie Larson but I tagged along with some friends anyway. Let me just say it was a massive mistake. I underestimated how difficult it would be to stand looking at the lead actress misogynistic and talentless face for two hours. On top of the train wreck that was her 'performance' the whole story just felt flat and bland, I don't want to spoil the plot for those who have already bought tickets and are going to see it anyway, but let's just say that it was almost as underwhelming in story as it was in acting. DO NOT RECOMMEND!
1/10

Captain Marvel is a hot mess narratively and never really knows what kind of movie it wants to be. Brie Larson is constantly fighting direction and poor writing and losing the battle in the end. The last thing the MCU needs right now is a Mary Sue with no life. The one thing this movie misses more than anything else though is heart. Without a reason or purpose for existing one is left asking…other than explaining pointless MCU plot points and creating a plethora of fresh plot holes…why was this movie made and who was it made for? Kudos must be given to the make-up artists and a lot of the tech guys behind the scenes. C-

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
As a fair and impartial film critic, I need to state this: I don't care about the controversy surrounding Brie Larson or the agendas this movie is trying to push or not. I'm not part of any hate group or factions that hate those hate groups. I just want to watch a good superhero origin film, that introduces me to a new character that I'm supposed to care about and root for. Read my review, sure, but make up your own mind. Go see the movie and be honest. Since that's out of the way, let's keep going ...
It was always going to be a huge risk trying to introduce such an important and powerful character like Carol Danvers into the end of Phase Three. Not only she comes from nowhere (as far as I remember, she was barely mentioned in previous films or even not mentioned at all before Infinity War), but it's the last movie before the climactic, era-ending Avengers: Endgame. She is the one who is going to take our heroes to victory against Thanos, the bad guy who I dare say easily defeated on his own pretty much every superhero we knew until that moment. So, while I was not expecting an outstanding story packed with phenomenal action, I was also hoping for more than just a simple origin film like it came from Phase One.
Unfortunately, that's exactly what I got. Everything is fine. Just okay. There's no exceptional fight scene, but most of it is decent. There's no visual wonder, but it doesn't look bad. The characters' potential feels wasted, but they work for the plot. Everything is frustratingly balanced, which is something I would praise in a bunch of other movies, but this isn't 2008 anymore. Marvel isn't starting its cinematic universe, it is almost finishing a whole arc involving more than 20 installments! I'm going straight to the one character everyone wants to talk about: Goose ... Sorry, Captain Marvel! Jokes aside, this is one of the issues I was worried about going into the film theater. I escaped 99% of the marketing for this movie as I do with every other flick. I didn't watch a single clip/trailer, I know as much about the controversy surrounding this installment as my dog and I kept my expectations realistic having in mind what I truly know about the film and only the film itself. The one thing I was not able to hide from were the headlines giving tremendous praise to ... a cat.
Now, follow me on this: I'm going to watch a superhero origin movie. A whole new character is waiting for me at the big screen. I'm excited to know more about her, where does she come from, what her powers are and so much more. Some headlines show up on my social media feed, and I find that a CAT "steals the show," "deserves a spin-off," and I don't even know what more. Granted, the cat is indeed funny. It provides some chuckles here and there. That's it. I love cats, but I honestly can't figure out why everyone is so amazed by an animal doing animal things. Maybe it's because the rest of the film isn't that entertaining ... or perhaps just because people really, really love cats. Like the movie itself, I think it's a mixture of both options.
Back to what matters and to who everyone should be talking about: Brie Larson. Marvel rarely misses its casting choices, and being Larson an Academy-Award winner, her talent is undeniable. She has everything she needs to consistently deliver a strong performance, so I'm surprised that she couldn't stand out from the film's overall blandness. I repeat, the movie isn't bad, at all. However, I was expecting an actress of Brie Larson's caliber to elevate, at least, her own character, but she's like everyone else: just good enough. I don't know if her performance was limited by bad direction or by her own decisions, but the potential is there, and I'm sure the Russo brothers will give her a much more thrilling arc in Endgame.
The two best attributes of the entire film are, without a single doubt, the buddy-cop relationship that Carol and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) develop, and the groundbreaking de-aging CGI. Story-wise, the interactions between these two characters are so captivating and humorous that the pacing issues of the first act gradually start to disappear. Carol's past is often approached with quick flashes and a lot of cheap exposition, so it's a breath of fresh air to have SLJ and Larson play off of each other. Nevertheless, the de-aging technology used is absolutely astounding. My fellow readers, welcome to the future of filmmaking, where any actor/actress can portray a younger version of themselves and not be visually disturbing. I completely forgot SLJ is 70-years-old! The best visual effects/CGI are the ones you don't even know they're there and Captain Marvel succeeds in delivering mind-blowing, realistic, younger versions of well-known actors.
Character-wise, Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck should have done way better. So much wasted potential in such a crucial moment in the MCU. Carol Danvers has a great backstory, but the way it was explored kind of diminishes its impact. Still, as Captain Marvel, she is indeed a badass woman! There are some cool action sequences, especially in the beginning, but as the movie slowly progresses on its story, the fight scenes got more sloppy, choppy and way too dark. Jude Law (Yon-Rogg) is amazing as he always is, and Ben Mendelsohn is brilliant as Talos. Both characters have interesting subplots that come together well, which is not something that can be said for the rest of the Marvel "villains."
Technically ... You guessed it, it's okay! Taking away the jaw-dropping de-aging CGI, the visuals seem to lack some sort of style. Looking back at Black Panther, Captain America or Guardians of the Galaxy, each movie has a visual aesthetic that belongs to their own stories. Captain Marvel doesn't really feel like it has its own style. I truly feel that with other directors, this film could have been way better. Boden and Fleck already proved that they are capable filmmakers, but maybe they were not ready to lead such a massive blockbuster. That said, the 90s score is awesome and quite adequate to the movie's period. There are a couple of moments where the VFX regarding Carol Danvers's powers are spectacular, but everything ultimately feels like this is a Phase One film, instead of the 21st MCU installment.
All in all, Captain Marvel achieves the minimum requirements: introduce the fans to a new superhero, who is going to be extremely important in the eventual defeat of Thanos. Carol Danvers is a fascinating character with an emotional backstory, but the screenplay isn't structured or explored in the most entertaining way possible. Brie Larson delivers a strong performance, pushing aside her haters, even if I feel that under other directors, she would have reached her character's full potential. Her scenes with Samuel L .Jackson are hilarious and the best part of the whole movie, as well as the groundbreaking de-aging CGI, which is absolutely mind-blowing. The action sequences needed better editing and some more choreography (this is MCU's Phase Three and 2019, so I want to be able to actually see what's happening), but the most prominent "issue" is how the story blindly obeys the superhero origin film's formula. This isn't exactly a flaw or a problem, it's just that I was expecting more. A lot more.
In the end, there's not a memorable fight scene, an emotionally overwhelming moment or even a genuinely bone-chilling, epic scene. It doesn't leave you salivating for Avengers: Endgame, but it also doesn't leave you less excited. Everything is just ... fine. And there's nothing wrong with that. But there's also nothing extraordinary.
Rating: B-

Went in not paying attention to any of the drama surrounding the movie. The movie was just like the trailers, boring. Terrible fight choreography and all in acting by Brie. Cinematography was so bad, way too many cuts. Samuel L Jackson and Goose were brilliant and Mendelsohn was incredible as Talos.
The movie relied too much in 90s nostalgia.
Not great when the main actor is out done by a cat.

I would not pay to see it. I did see it for free already...so at least, I was not cheated of my money ["I laughed, I cried, I kissed $10 good-bye!"--most other movies]. I saw sneak preview a few months back and it was the full-length feature but it was missing music in the end credit section and may have some added additional editing since then. What I did see, it was on par with Thor: Dark World in quality and has higher wokeness than Han Solo and Star War: Last Jedi. Probably worst Marvel movie since the start of this universe started with the great Iron Man...only thing that could have been worse if Inhuman movie was made. So hold on to your money and maybe watch this at 2nd run theater ($1.75 each...maybe $3 at most) or online free...so you know how this added character will lessen the Avenger's End Game plot. The CGI special effects are just okay but the simpleton story, underwhelming acting and almost-no character development are at the expense to make this the tops of any recent movies with its wokeness and identity politics…And Brie Larson character is just boring with no depth…just like Disney did to current Star Wars movies' female lead. DEFINITELY do NOT spend the money to see it on IMAX or any other expensive premium screenings or waiting in line on opening weekend. Maybe newer version (a few years back) Ghostbust(-h)ers was slightly better...which is not saying much. Already seeing highly rated tweets from critics, I am sure these are the same movie critics that gave great ratings to last years movies, "The Favourite" and "Sorry to Bother You". Yeah, Don't see this either!

Awesome movie! See kind of what life would be if you were the last one on it. The problem is battling the evil that took over.

**I Am Legend is not a typical sci-fi action thriller but an excellent deeper story that focuses on a lonely man and the price he pays to try to save humanity.**
I Am Legend follows the story of an isolated survivor still trying to find a cure to a pandemic that turned the world into crazed mutants. The movie's scale and cinematography are impressive, with large wide shots of nature slowly reclaiming the city of New York. Will Smith's performance carries the film (and kind of has to since he is alone for most of it). His emotion and conviction brilliantly convey the cost of his isolation and the toll years of suffering have taken on him. Long before John Wick had his dog, Robert Neville (Will Smith) had his dog in I Am Legend, and their relationship tugs on the heartstrings throughout the film. I Am Legend gives moments of suspense and horror, great action scenes, and psychological drama. I also enjoyed the religious references in the movie. There are really only two flaws I see in this film:
> 1. The CGI is dated and disappointing by today's standards, but it wasn't all that bad when the movie was first released.
> 2. The theatrical ending was decent, but if you can watch the alternate ending, do it! It is significantly better and helps fill some plot holes from earlier in the film (I believe the alternate ending was probably the original ending).
I Am Legend is an excellent story of survival and the breaking of a survivor's hope and mind. Will Smith's incredible performance makes this movie one of the better survival post-apocalyptic films.

Oh this one just hurts. I mean, shout out to Will Smith. In 2022 he might be a beta fool, but he was still charming as all get out in this movie.
It just wasn't what it was supposed to be.
The source material was pretty amazing. Richard Matheson was on a pretty high horse when he wrote it and it came out as a pretty philosophical masterpiece in the way that only science fiction can.
It examined something and then it took that examination and turned it into a story... like science fiction should.
But "I Am Legend" just sort of examines Will Smith and the philosophical musings that made the source material great took a back seat to special effects and monsters and Smith.
It could have been something that people are still talking about instead of something people forgot.

It's getting 10 stars because I have a simple policy that, if the movie entertains, it did it's job.
That being said...it's jarring watching it as a comic book fan. You're constantly fighting the urge to look at the TV and yell "That's not how it happened!"
I don't think Eddie was as much of a scumbag as he should have been...but Hardy was far better than Grace. And they symbiote wasn't exactly as fun as it was in the comics...but then you only really heard one side of the conversation in the comics.
For an origin story, it was fun...but with Venom being one of the best known Spidey characters, and with Spidey being one of the best known comic book characters...was an origin story necessary? Especially one that was going to change so much of the character?
It could have easily started off after the origin and rolled along on its way as to not irk the fans of the comics.
Despite all of that, it was a well balanced mix of amusing and dark, and those combinations usually tend to work...even if it didn't have the blood that gore that would have sent the film over the top in best possible way.
You get your money's worth watching it. And it's not something that you'll regret seeing...that is unless you're one of those people that can't get past butchering the source material.

I loved this I have been a huge Venom fan since he debuted in comics. Tom Hardy did great. Much better than Bane.

The SSU - thankfully renamed from SPUMC - begins!
I enjoyed 'Venom', in short. Tom Hardy is one of my favourite actors and I thoroughly enjoyed his showing here as the titular character. The bonkers nature of the story, if not perfect at all, is very entertaining to watch unfold. I also found the pacing and special effects to be more than solid. Looking forward to checking out the sequel.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/venom-spoiler-free-review
"Venom is yet another missed opportunity to deliver a great movie about the symbiote anti-hero.
This time, the character of Eddie Brock is beautifully handled, with Tom Hardy offering an impressive performance. The actor carries the entire film, which finds its entertainment peak in the interactions between Eddie and Venom.
Unfortunately, the movie is drastically brought down by a generic narrative with an incredibly dull first half, an unnecessary focus on uninteresting subplots, and a disappointing amount of paper-thin characters. The shockingly terrible editing basically ruins any sort of excitement that could be found during the action sequences.
The production issues condemned this film to be a letdown. Let's just hope the next one isn't worse."
Rating: C-

I thought it was pretty cool. Venom was a pretty good villain marvel film.

It’s school holidays here in France which means the kids are at my place which in turn means lot’s of time in front of the screen. Last night it was Venom’s turn to be plopped into my Blu-ray player.
I have to say that I was a little disappointed. Sure it is a good movie and I did indeed enjoy it but not as much as I thought I would. According to the ratings it looked like the majority of the audience liked it a lot and I do like the character Venom. Sure the culture elite and politically correct idiots that Rotten Tomates use as “critics” claimed it to be rotten but, for me, that’s usually a good sign when it comes to my entertainment value from a movie.
The good things are that I found Venom, the creature, really cool. I liked his voice, his appearance and his no-nonsense attitude. The special effects and the action was very enjoyable to watch. Luckily that was my main reason for watching the movie. Actually, it is probably the main reason I want to watch any Marvel movie, especially lately given the poor quality of writers that Marvel has employed.
I guess it is a plus as well that there was not too much politically correct, green or social preaching in it. I am sure those so inclined can find more than me if they go looking for it but most of the movie audience, at least not for this type of movie, probably could not care less.
The main reason I felt somewhat disappointed is that the main protagonist is really not someone I could feel like I would root for. He is such a despicable douche-bag. For starters he is a low life journalist with an overblown ego and disrespect of pretty much everything. The kind CNN would employ. Even when he’s been infected by Venom he continues between being a worthless egoistic coward and just an asshole. Actually the only real difference between the him and the big bad guy is that the bad guy is a hundred times more intelligent. It’s not until the very end scenes that Eddie develops a minimum of likability.
On the other hand Venom is really the star of the movie. Both as a “thing” and as a character. He is a real bad-ass, quite funny and really everything that Eddie should have been as a character. He even develops more as a character than previously mentioned douche-bag.
It’s a shame since otherwise this would have been a great movie. The story is simple but works well for this kind of movie. There are no silly twists and convoluted sub-plots. The main protagonist, as poor as he is, at least do not carry a lot of past history trying to explain God knows what and such stuff.
If the character of the main protagonist would have been more likable this would have been a great movie. Now it is “just” good.

Venom - **SPOILERS**
4/10
There seems to be quite a bit of agreement on what Im about to say about the film. Venom doesnt quite know what it is. It cant decide wether its a goofy, action or a horror movie. Therefore its all of it and none at the same time.
The goofy jokes are pretty lame, which is why they are funny, you dont laugh with the writers, you laugh at them.
The action scenes are meh at best,
car chase : check
motorcycle : check
ridiculous (bad) cgi fight: check
sure, watching Tom Hardy motorcross in San Francisco is quite fun, but its not really action.
Finally, the horror; there are glimpses, glimmers of hope scattered around this movie. Little snippets of what could have been, but as soon as they appear they disappear.
Two scenes really stood out to me due to their potential. After quite a lot of buildup of Venom getting into the building (BY RUNNING UP IT), Eddie decides to take the lift down. Instead of having Eddie walk into the SWAT team, they should have been swarming the building crawling through the floors looking for him. Then, they could have had an ALIEN like hunting scene where Venom slowly takes out the task force one by one, in true horror movie fashion.
The other obvious horror scene could have been using the creepy little girl that delivers RIOT to the Musk wannabe, they could have homaged The Shining, they could have pulled an exorcist, they could have done a million things, but the little girl just has white pupils and a deep voice.
Throughout the movie there are just continuous disappointments because you see what it is missing.
Instead of the cheap love story and all the stupid overdone things they should have been ballsy with their movie. Yes the movie DID make 800+ million, however im sure it was going to do that anyway. Venom is probably one of the most badass characters in comic history, and Tom Hardy is Tom Hardy.
I would have loved to see something along these lines:
Symbiote hunts Eddie.
Symbiote captures Eddie and they become Venom.
Venom starts unleashing hell because he can, hunts SWAT etc.
Venom goes after Musk wannabe and Kills him.
Throw some more horror elements in there, and it would have made for a much more satisfactory watch. I have always adored Venom, and this movie had so much potential, but it was all for nothing. No rewatchability. Nothing worth remembering. Just a flick.
It was funny seeing Tom Hardy being a bit of a pussball, but even he cant help a crap script and an even worse film.

I very much like it if you ask me (;

Venom is a great comic adaptation. I really like what they did with the character and the story. I thought the film was done well. The special effects are pretty good. I thought the characters were cast well, and overall I just enjoyed it. The film is pretty dark and violent despite the PG-13 rating. It didn't have a lot of blood, but there was a bit here and there. Characters are mostly tossed around and beaten, but a lot of them are not shown dead. That being said, some characters are still killed on screen. People are experimented on. A few people are slashed and stabbed. Guns are used, but not frequently. It definitely pushed the PG-13 as far as it could. There is a lot of language throughout, including an f-bomb. There is also a lot of drinking. I definitely recommend this movie. I think it is better suited for teens and up, but older kids that can handle strong violence may be okay.

I honestly don't know what everyone's talking about, _Venom_ is **fine**! I mean... It's not great. There were a few moments I found myself thinking "This bit's pretty bad, why did they do this?" and a lot of moments I found myself thinking "This bit's pretty good, but they still probably should have just made a **real** _Venom_ movie with Marvel."
But it's fine. The absolute best parts are the interactions taking place within Venom himself (between Brock and the Symbiote) and the movie would have been a lot worse if Tom Hardy wasn't capable of pulling that off. Look, a _Venom_ movie probably should have been rated R, and it probably should have taken more notes from current superhero movies than superhero movies from fifteen years ago, but I still had a good time with _Venom_, maybe it's not the best possible version of the story, but I'm still glad we have this one.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

I don't think I can recall any Hollywood film that depicts the atrocities of the D-Day landings as effectively as this does at the start. Indeed, watching it you wonder just how any of the Allied soldiers managed to ever survive the water let alone fight their way up a beach crowded with tank traps, mines and barbed wire - all whilst under constant machine gun fire. Steven Spielberg leaves very little to our imagination and bodies drop left, right and centre with an authenticity that John Williams scores remarkably poignantly. It's during this seemingly impossible assault that we are introduced to "Miller" (a career-best from Tom Hanks) and his squad who are tasked with taking out one of the heavily defended pill boxes. Meantime, the US Chief of Staff - General George Marshall is informed that one particular lady is about to get three telegrams in one day telling her that her sons have died. There is a fourth - "James" - and the reward for "Miller" and what's left of his group is to find this man and get him home to safety. What's also illustrated quite succinctly here is that despite the most meticulous of planning, nobody really has much of a clue who had landed where, who was alive or dead, and whether or not the master plan was working or not! This makes the new task even more difficult as the men, along with the dragooned interpreter "Upham" (Jeremy Davis) set of in search of a man they don't know with feelings that can only be described as "mixed" about the legitimacy of their mission. What now ensues is a potent story of war and of how the pressures and horrors of constant fear and weariness can corrupt the the most decent of souls. We see these men - decent men - turn into things they would never have thought themselves capable of becoming and the acting really rams that home in a characterful and visceral fashion. Brutality and savagery are not limited to the Nazis and again these images are presented to us with an honesty rather from a rose-tinted good v evil viewpoint and the dialogue has a ripeness and vivacity that rings true, too. It's not devoid of some black humour as we progress through war-torn France before a denouement that combines edge-of-the-seat drama with splendid cinematography and all of the ghastliness of conflict. The men valued each other as much as anything else, their inter-reliance and their determination to get the job done - even if they didn't really know why - is a testament to the attitudes that prevailed throughout the real fighting in Europe during WWII and this dramatisation is stunning. Big screen if you can - but it's really a must watch.

Recensie saving private Ryan
Information about the movie
Title: Saving Private Ryan
Regisseur: Steven Spielberg
Most important actors: Tom Hanks as Captain Miller en Matt Damon as Private Ryan
Genre: War, Drama and history
Setting: Normandy, France
Plot: During WWII, Chief of Staff, General Marshall is informed that three of a woman's sons have been killed and that she's going to receive the notifications of their demise at the same time. And when he learns that a fourth son is still unaccounted for, the General decides to send a unit to find him and bring him back, despite being told that it's highly unlikely that he is still alive and the area that he was known to be at is very dangerous. So, the unit consisting of 8 men are sent to find him but as stated it's very dangerous and one by one, they are picked off. Will they find him and how many of them will still be alive?
I saw this movie at school. I think it's a good film because, the director is very good because it seemed like you were really in it because the camera moved with it. In the quiet parts, the image was also quiet and when it became chaotic, the image was also chaotic. The characters were very realistic and felt as if they were really in a war, and for the costumes it looked very real and the same for the decor it looked like you were in war in France. I liked the movie but thought it was a bit too long, so I give it a 9/10.

I watched this movie during a project at school. Saving Private Ryan was a beautiful and, above all, realistic film. The film presented in a realistic way how the war went then. Most of the film was set in Europe in 1944. The story is that American soldiers are being sent to Europe to fight against the Germans. The American boy James Francis Ryan is sent to Europe with his brothers as a soldier. After the invasion of Normandy it appears that all his other brothers have already died and he is the only one left. That is why corporal Miller is instructed to look for him and return him home.
The main actors who play in the film are Tom Hanks who plays corporal Miller and Matt Damon who plays the soldier Ryan. You also have all the soldiers in the group of corporal Miller. I think the characters in the film are very well thought out because they contain characters that are very brave, but also characters who have a hard time in the war. With this they show that not every soldier was as heroic as everyone thought.
The film was made on a set that I thought looked very realistic. In the background you saw the buildings that were about to collapse and the shots. I also really liked the sound that came with the film. For example, when a tank arrived, you heard that it was slowly approaching.

This movie should be known for changing Historical War Dramas as we know them. It was the first to accurately depict the carnage of war, and changed the direction of this genre of movies for all time. The initial D-Day scene was fantastic. Afterwards, Tom Hanks is ordered to chose a team of his men and look for James MacGuffin Ryan from Iowa. In order to achieve this goal, Hanks takes us across the entire back drop of world war 2, all the while making us ask, is all this worth just one man?
Honestly it's a must watch and is on my "Difinitive Movie List"

Great WWII war action in France, but too much of the drama is weak
RELEASED IN 1998 and directed by Steven Spielberg, "Saving Private Ryan" (SPR) is about the Normandy invasion and its immediate aftermath from June 6-16, 1944. The focus is on a Captain (Tom Hanks) and his men who are commissioned to find a paratrooper (Matt Damon) whose brothers have been killed in action.
No one's supposed to say anything bad about SPR. To do so is considered sacrilege, but I have to be honest about what I like and don't like about Spielberg's popular WWII war flick. The initial beach landing (shot at Curracloe Beach, Ballinesker, Ireland) is outstanding, as is the closing half-hour battle at the crumbling village of Ramelle.
In between these two great bookends are a few quality sequences, but I didn't find a lot of the drama all that engaging or convincing. The cast is notable (also including Tom Sizemore, Barry Pepper, Edward Burns, Giovanni Ribisi, Jeremy Davies, Vin Diesel, et al.), but the characters never struck me as real for the most part. I've seen the film three times and each time I was too often conscious of the fact that I was watching actors portraying WWII characters in a movie. When you see a truly great picture, by contrast, you completely forget you're watching a movie, e.g. the original "Apocalypse Now" (1979).
Moreover, too many of the situations in SPR, including the dialogue, simply struck me as unreal or annoyingly treacly. Exhibit A is the moronic dog-tag sequence, which was supposed to be emotionally stirring but just made me roll my eyes. But, like I said, no one can criticize SPR and get away with it, even if the criticism is legitimate. It's like you'll be accused of being un-American or something, which is far from the case with me since I love America; I just can't stand the corrupt government & politicians, particularly the loony DemonKKKraps.
In light of my criticisms, I simply don't get why so many praise SPR as "the greatest war movie ever made." Again, the opening and ending battle sequences are great but the dubious dramatics leave quite a bit to be desired.
I've heard SPR hailed on the grounds that much of it was taken "verbatim from first-hand, eye-witness accounts of the real Normandy invasion." I'll take their word for it, but this isn't what I object to. I object to the contrived, sappy, questionable way Spielberg depicted the dramatics and the fact that I was unable to buy the characters as real. The aforementioned dog-tag sequence is just one example, others include the French father’s stupefying actions and the forced fight at the radar station and how it’s resolved (ooh, the Captain’s a high school teacher, whoopee).
Nevertheless, there IS a lot of good in SPR that makes it worth viewing. You can’t beat the battle sequences, the cast and the convincing WWII visuals throughout.
THE MOVIE RUNS 2 hours, 49 minutes and was shot in Ireland, England and France. WRITER: Robert Rodat.
GRADE: C+/B-