Change Your Image
Tet-5
Reviews
Redemption: The Stan Tookie Williams Story (2004)
Interesting story, bad script
The story of Stan Tookie Williams is really interesting, immediately after watching this movie I tried to find more about him on the Internet. But unfortunately, I think the movie is very superficial. It is nothing more than a accumulation of disconnected scenes, of which only a few give some insight in this man. I'm sure there is so much more to tell about him, so much unused interesting material. I consider this movie to be a missed chance, it could have been a lot better considering the material. If you are interested in Stan Tookie Williams, check his Internetsite or read his books. But skip the movie, it just isn't worth your while. It leaves too many questions unanswered.
Arlington Road (1999)
If you like plotholes, watch this movie, otherwise: skip it!
This is an awful movie. I have never seen so many plotholes in a movie that takes itself seriously. I hardly ever say that a movie was a waste of my time, but this time there is nothing else I can do: Arlington Road is a complete waste of anyones time!!
SPOILERS: It's the intention of Oliver Lang, that Michael Farraday will go to the pay phone, sees the truck, realizes that this truck has got something to do with his son, follows the truck, DOES NOT GET INTO TROUBLE WITH THE POLICE DURING HIS CHASE (!), sees his son, gets away from his car, goes back to his car, knows where the bombing will take place, IS ABLE TO GET IN THE BUILDING (!)(despite the fact that this is a highly guarded building, and that Farraday doesn't have permission to enter it). Every one of these actions could NOT have been predicted this accurate. And these are just a very few of the many, many unbelievable things in this movie.
The Grey Zone (2001)
Very interesting story told in a very uninvolving way
"How can you know what you'd really do to stay alive, until you're asked? I know now that the answer for most of us is--anything."
Any movie searching for the answers to moral questions like this can easily 'go over the top' sentimentally. I think the director of The Grey Zone wanted to avoid falling into this trap. But unfortunately, he held back on emotions and character development too much. It's strange to watch a movie like this without getting emotionally involved, without getting interested in the characters. Too bad, the story had so much potential.
The dialogues were poorly written, and the fact that every character spoke English (even though in some scenes the fact that several characters used different languages is essential), undermines the strenght of these scenes. The accent Harvey Keitel used was annoyingly bad.
I've never seen a movie with such great potential seen ruined like this. What a pity.
A Simple Plan (1998)
If I would have been in their place, what would I have done?
SPOILER WARNING!
I knew this movie would be about three guys finding a bag full of money, and I knew they agreed on keeping it. I had no idea what would happen after that.
The idea applied to me a lot. And because the Bill Paxton character was such a nice, ordinary guy (it could have been my husband, my neighbour, my brother), it wasn't hard to identify with him. You can't help but asking yourself, "What would I have done?". Maybe you say "I wouldn't keep it", just as Bridget Fonda said as long as she thought the question was just hypothetic. I guess none of us knows what we would do if the question was for real!
But then, there was the incident with Dwight, the guy who seemed to have been (accidentally) killed by Billy Bob Thornton. When Bill Paxton discovered that Dwight was still alive, he killed him anyhow! And this is where my identification with his character abruptly ended. No, if I would have been in his place, I would never have killed this man. Not even for 10 million dollars! More people got killed, and there was this subplot with the fake FBI-agent. These twists in the plot were way over the top, I think.
While the plot was disappointing, the characters were absolutely great! Lou was so real, it felt as if he wasn't acting, as if someone just picked a guy from a bar and told him to be himself in front of the camera for a while. The way Billy Bob Thornton played Jacob was very impressive as well. His dialogues were really touching, especially when he told about his former girlfriend, and how she still said Hi to him every now and then.
This movie would have benefited enormously if the problems the three guys encountered wouldn't have been so big. The greed, the suspicion towards each other, the fear of being discovered, that would have been enough to make this a great movie.
Kes (1969)
I almost forgot I was watching a movie. It feels like reality.
You can actually feel the grimness of life in this coalminer's city. How meaningless future must have looked for young boys who lived in places like that. David Bradley played his role so natural, it was as if he wasn't acting, as if the camera just was shooting how real life was for him.
SPOILER WARNING!
The bird gave him something to life for, something to care about. As someone already wrote: the bird was representing hope. And when Kes died, the hope for a better life for the boy died, too.
This movie made a very deep impression on me.
Of Mice and Men (1992)
Touching
This movie really touched me. The scene with Ray Walston, concerning his old dog, deeply moved me. The acting is superb, the cinematography is wonderful. Gary Sinise made one of the most sensitive movies ever. I recommend this movie to everyone who appreciates a character-movie. My vote: 9 out of 10.
The China Syndrome (1979)
The China Syndrome scores on every level
I wish Hollywood would make more movies like The China Syndrome. Because this one scores on every level.
It has an intelligent, believable script. It shows you that it's not only nuclear power itself, but the money involved in it, that causes danger. And the movie also gives you a great behind-the-scenes look of how television is made.
It scores as a thriller: the first time I saw it, it kept me right on the edge of my seat. And it scores as a character-movie: I really cared for the main characters. Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas, Wilford Brimley and, most of all, Jack Lemmon are great.
The English Patient (1996)
Boring
My expectations were high, because of the good reviews this movie received, and all the Oscars it got. And I really loved "Truly, Madly, Deeply", made by the same director. Yes, there were some good things: the cinematography and the acting. But that isn't enough to make a good movie. The story didn't interest me at all, I never really cared what would happen to the main characters. And, I can tell you, watching a movie this long without getting involved, is boring.. boring.. boring..
The Island on Bird Street (1997)
Mixed feelings
I had mixed feelings, after seeing "The Island on Bird Street".
The boy playing Alex was great, it was a very good choice not to portray him as some kind of hero, but just as a frightened, yet ingenious boy. Watching him really made this movie worth while. But, except for the boy's character, the director only used cliches. It would have been a much better movie if he would have evaded them. My vote: for the movie 6 out of 10, for the boy 9 out of 10!
The Negotiator (1998)
Very skillfully made formula-movie, great acting
The script of The Negotiator isn't really special, it's just a formula-movie. But I voted 8 out of 10 anyway, because it's a formula-movie at it's best! Great acting, interesting dialogue, a story that wasn't great but that nevertheless managed to keep me absorbed from the beginning until the end. Great entertainment!
Patch Adams (1998)
Awfully superficial 'feel good movie'
Why do some 'feel good movies' really work, and why do others fail? One of the best 'feel good movies' is "It's a wonderful Life" (James Stewart). Yes, I know it's overly sentimental, but that never bothers me. Whereas the sentimental scenes in Patch Adams annoyed me constantly. The whole movie has a false ring. Yes, of course it's better that a doctor is kind to his patients, that he takes a real interest in them. And yes, of course laughing is good, laughing will make you feel better. So the 'message' this movie is telling is true. But the way it was presented here was very, very, very superficial. Be funny, and someone will feel better. Gee, a woman will leave her dying husband's bed just to grant him some time with his funny doctor! And very sick children put on a red nose, and they are well enough to go to a courtroom and support their benefactor! I hated this movie because of this cheap manipulation. 4 out of 10.
Courage Under Fire (1996)
Not a bad movie
Courage under fire was an okay movie, the story was good enough to keep me interested. Denzel Washington was convincing in his role, I liked him much better here than in the last movie I saw him in: Fallen. The other actors were pretty good, too, especially Matt Damon (I hardly recognized him, he was so skinny!). But to say that Courage under fire was a GOOD movie would be too much. Except for the fact that the story was about a woman, there was nothing really special about it. My vote: 6 out of 10.
Children of a Lesser God (1986)
Touching scenes and boring moments
When I first saw Children of a Lesser God, about ten years ago, I was impressed. So when I had the chance to see it again, I was really looking forward to it. But this time, it disappointed me somewhat. The movie wasn't as good as I remembered it. That doesn't mean I didn't like it, there were several funny scenes (with the deaf children) and touching scenes (with William Hurt, Marlee Matlin and Piper Laurie). The acting was very good. Marlee Matlin expressed both stubbornness and vulnerability in a very natural way. William Hurt's role was impressive as well.
But there were too many scenes that just didn't work for me. Teaching the deaf children to speak looked too easy. I would have liked to see a bit more about the efforts it takes to teach a deaf person how to speak.
And as for the relationship between William Hurt and Marlee Matlin: there were several scenes that were a bit boring, were the things on the screen just didn't manage to keep me interested.
My vote: 6 out of 10.
Ransom (1996)
Good acting, interesting plot, but not flawless.
Ransom is a good thriller. The plot really kept me interested, thanks to some surprisingly twists, good dialogue and very good acting. Although Ron Howard didn't spent much time giving the villains a background, he succeeded in making them believable, human characters. There are several scenes with lots of tension in it, you really don't need big shoot outs, explosions etcetera to make an exciting movie. The actors and actresses all turned in fine performances, especially Mel Gibson. Although I liked the movie, it isn't flawless. The subplot concerning the bribe suddenly disappeared. I think real kidnappers would have reacted differently on Tom Mullen's unexpected action. And the final scenes weren't as convincing as the rest of the movie. Despite these flaws, I really liked this movie. My vote: 7 out of 10.
Hair (1979)
Delicious!
Take a lot of great songs, add up some exciting choreography, and mix this with very good acting and lots of humor, and what you get is: Hair!
The plot of this movie isn't very special, but that really doesn't matter. There's so much else to enjoy. Listen to the fantastic soundtrack, to songs like "Walking in Space" and "The Flesh Failures". And pay special attention when the first song "Aquarius" is sung. What a great voice this woman has (and I don't even know her name!). Another absolute musical highlight is Cheryl Barnes' performance of "Easy to be Hard". Listen how this woman accuses people who don't seem to care about others, at first she's sad and modest, but later on she gets more passionate and powerful. Experience her cry for real friendship.
And watch those thrilling, marvellous choreographed dances, performed by a group of fantastic dancers. Even the policehorses join in, during "Aquarius"! The choreography of "White Boys" is exhilarating, don't miss it!
Treat Williams is responsible for another fantastic moment, when he astonishes everyone as he starts dancing on the table at the rich people's party. I adored how he played Berger, the charismatic leader of the hippies. The other hippies, Don Dacus, Dorsey Wright and Annie Golden, were very good as well. I especially liked Annie Golden, she made pregnant Jeannie such a lovable, kind-hearted girl. I saw two different versions of the 30th anniversary-play on stage, but the two Jeannies I saw there didn't even come close to Annie Golden's performance.
Casting John Savage as the shy farmboy who came to New York and became friends with the hippies, was another perfect choice. Through his eyes, you see and feel how close disapproval and attraction lie together. Berger and his friends do everything he believes is wrong, and yet part of him wants to join them. Savage plays Claude exactly right, it couldn't have been done better.
Hair can't beat my favorite musicals "Singin' in the Rain" and "West Side Story", whom I both voted 10 out of 10 for. But it does come close: for Hair I voted a well-deserved 9 out of 10.
Fallen (1998)
Great story, boring characters
Fallen is a good movie, and I really enjoyed watching it. But unfortunately there is one thing wrong with this film, so it shall never become one of my favorites.
During the greater part of the movie, the plot was surprisingly good. The scene in which Denzel Washington meets Azazel in the police-station and on the street is absolutely great, the chase-scene is fantastic! Fallen is often compared with Se7en. This too was a thriller with a very good script, a movie that absorbs you from the beginning till the end. But Se7en offers the viewers something more: interesting characters. Morgan Freeman, Brad Pitt, Gwyneth Palthrow and, of course, Kevin Spacey make you really believe in the persons they play. I wish the scriptwriters of Fallen would have paid as much attention to their characters as the writers of Se7en did. I never really cared for Denzel Washington, his brother or his nephew. And the part of Embeth Davidtz wasn't interesting either. Denzel Washington is a very good actor (he was fantastic is Glory and Philadelphia). But in Fallen, his talents haven't been used as good as they could have been. The character he plays is very flat. This goes even stronger for the role of Donald Sutherland. This was a supporting part completely played on the automatic pilot, and therefore very boring. Luckily there was John Goodman. It's always a pleasure seeing him in a movie. The best role no doubt was for Elias Koteas, who gave a very strong performance as the first Azazel. I doubted whether I would vote 7 or 8 out of 10. I guess it was the music that made me decide for the 8: it's been weeks since I've seen this movie, and I still catch myself humming "Time is on my side"!
Airborne (1993)
How is it possible that someone dares to call this a movie?
I promised someone that we'd watch a movie together, and she came home with Airborne. Gee, how I managed to sit this one through, I still don't know. Because this hotch-potch of stupid, incoherent scenes is probably the worst I've ever seen. Whoever did cast the actor who tried to play Mitch? This guy really doesn't know a single thing about acting. I've seen children on primary school doing a musical, and they acted a lot better than he did! Well, the only 'good' thing about Airborne is that it gives me the opportunity to vote 1 out of 10, for the first time!
Absence of Malice (1981)
Good, but not great
Absence of Malice is a skillfully made movie, with an interesting story and several very fine actors. The part of Wilford Brimley is small, but it's obvious he took a lot of pleasure in playing it. This movie is really worth watching, although it never quite peaks. I gave it 7 out of 10.
Dog Day Afternoon (1975)
Main character Sonny is fascinating
Why do I like Dog Day Afternoon so much? First, because it contains one of the most fascinating movie-characters I've ever seen: bankrobber Sonny, wonderfully played by Al Pacino. Yes, he robs a bank (or tries to, that is), but that doesn't mean you'll dislike him. I felt sorry for him, the way he was jammed in between all those people who expected different things from him: the hostages, the police, his partner Sal, his wife, his mother, his lover. And, not to forget, the audience outside the bank. Sonny really fascinated me, and every now and then I still wonder how the real Sonny is doing nowadays. Second, I liked this movie because of the way the atmosphere in and outside the bank was presented. It's great to watch the New York crowd. And the humoristic elements all just had the right touch. Third, the casting was perfect. The woman playing the hostages were very good, Chris Sarandon was great. And I especially liked the way John Cazale played Sal, you'll always wonder what is going on inside that man's head, whether he will become violent or not. Although this movie is almost 25 years old, it's still one of my favourites (in fact: it was my first 'favourite movie' ever, I started to become a movie-fan thanks to this one!). My vote: 9 out of 10.
The Deer Hunter (1978)
One of the most powerful, moving pictures ever made.
During the first hour of this movie, you are drawn into the lives of Michael, Nick, Steven and their friends. I can't think of another movie in which a close community has been represented so real, so convincing. The Deer Hunter really takes its time observing these people, living their ordinary lives. Some viewers complain that these scenes are much too long, that there isn't happening enough. I don't share their opinion. The strength of this movie lies in the fact that you know the three friends, that you empathize with their feelings and their way of thinking. And all this is accomplished thanks to this first, absorbing hour.
The Russian Roulette-scene is very famous. When I first saw it, not yet 20 years old, I was extremely shocked by it. Never before had I seen such brutal violence in a movie. The tension is so perceptible. The confusion, felt by Nick. The heart-rending fear of Steven. The almost maniacal determination of Michael to get them out.
I'm twice as old now. Lots of movies I liked when I was 20, lost its power of attraction as I grew older. But not The Deer Hunter. The Russian Roulette-scene still is one of the most compelling pieces of movie I've ever seen.
When Michael returns to the United States we witness several other great scenes. Because the first hour gave us the opportunity to get to know the friends who stayed behind in the US, we now understand the enormous gap between them and Michael. Although it never becomes overly sentimental, Michael's coming-home is an emotionally shattering piece of movie.
The actors all are sublime. Lesser actors never could have shown us this much, with so few means. It's absolutely great how they created these real, convincing characters. I'm still amazed that Jon Voight won the Oscar for best actor. I'm sure lots of actors could have created his role in "Coming Home" as good as he did. But very few are capable to do what Robert De Niro did in The Deer Hunter, it's his best role ever. I also was touched by the hardly ever mentioned part of George Dzunda, who played John. It was small, but great!
Unfortunately, I also do have some comment. I really can't understand how Nick could possibly have sent money to Steven. Neither of them knew the other one was alive. Nick never could have known where Steven was staying. I think this is an enormous blunder in the script. I also had some difficulty with the last scenes in Saigon. When you consider what chaos Saigon was in at that moment, the events happening there weren't very realistic.
If these flaws wouldn't have been there, I surely would have given The Deer Hunter 10 out of 10. Now, unfortunately, I only gave it 9 out of 10.
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
A disappointment
In lots of movies and documentaries war is being depicted as something glorious, as a time and a place where (mostly good-looking) young men can prove how brave they are. SPR would be different, so I expected. In this movie Spielberg really would show his audience that war is horrific, not heroic.
The first half hour of the movie really was shattering. People who still believe war is an exciting event for young would-be heroes (think: Tom Cruise in Top Gun) should be obligated to watch the Omaha Beach landing-scenes. Because it really makes you experience that war is hell, a sickening, horrible hell.
Of course you can't fill a three hour movie solely with scenes like that of the Omaha Beach landing. To make a good movie, you need more, like good actors, a capable crew, convincing special effects and, the most important, an interesting story. Well, no one will dispute the fact that SPR technically is a masterpiece. The camerawork, the special effects, the sound, they are all overwhelmingly good.
In spite of all these plusses, I really was disappointed by at least two hours of SPR. Because it missed the most important thing a movie needs: an interesting story! The characters weren't convincing. I don't blame the actors for that, they all did a good job. It was the script that I blame, I never forgot I was watching a movie with made-up characters. When a movie is really good, I tend to get so absorbed by the characters that they become real to me, that I start to symphatize deeply with them. This never happened while I was watching SPR. I never felt anything more for Captain Miller and his men then I felt for all the other, anonymous soldiers you see in this movie. And the story, the search for Private Ryan, even bored me sometimes. There were just a few scenes, like the one in which the men were reading the name-tags of the fallen soldiers, that were really compelling.
Three things about SPR I really disliked. First there is the way the German soldier known as "Steamboat Willie" was portrayed. Why is the only German we got to know a little bit such an awkward, silly guy? I'm pretty sure lots of German soldiers were ordinary men who didn't want this war any more then anyone else did. They must have been just as afraid as the American soldiers, they must have felt the same pain and horror. But that's not the way if feels like in SPR. The overall feeling you get is "Americans are good" and "Germans are bad". Second, there is the fight for the bridge. This kind of stuff, the brave heroes who, against all odds, succeed in defeating the enemy, well, this has been done so many times before. This kind of cliche was exactly what I expected SPR to avoid. Third, there is the 'point of view'. You are made to believe that the Omaha Beach-scenes are seen as the memories of the old man on the graveyard. Then, in the last scene, you learn that this man never set foot on Omaha Beach. I felt manipulated in a negative way!
It was very hard for me to grade SPR. Technically, it's an absolute 10. The Omaha Beach-scene was extremely good, and I think it's a real homage to the veterans who were there. But there were too many things I did not like. I decided to give this movie a 7 out of 10.
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
A disappointment
In lots of movies and documentaries war is being depicted as something glorious, as a time and a place where (mostly good-looking) young men can prove how brave they are. SPR would be different, so I expected. In this movie Spielberg really would show his audience that war is horrific, not heroic.
The first half hour of the movie really was shattering. People who still believe war is an exciting event for young would-be heroes (think: Tom Cruise in Top Gun) should be obligated to watch the Omaha Beach landing-scenes. Because it really makes you experience that war is hell, a sickening, horrible hell.
Of course you can't fill a three hour movie solely with scenes like that of the Omaha Beach landing. To make a good movie, you need more, like good actors, a capable crew, convincing special effects and, the most important, an interesting story. Well, no one will dispute the fact that SPR technically is a masterpiece. The camerawork, the special effects, the sound, they are all overwhelmingly good.
In spite of all these plusses, I really was disappointed by at least two hours of SPR. Because it missed the most important thing a movie needs: an interesting story! The characters weren't convincing. I don't blame the actors for that, they all did a good job. It was the script that I blame, I never forgot I was watching a movie with made-up characters. When a movie is really good, I tend to get so absorbed by the characters that they become real to me, that I start to symphatize deeply with them. This never happened while I was watching SPR. I never felt anything more for Captain Miller and his men then I felt for all the other, anonymous soldiers you see in this movie. And the story, the search for Private Ryan, even bored me sometimes. There were just a few scenes, like the one in which the men were reading the name-tags of the fallen soldiers, that were really compelling.
Three things about SPR I really disliked. First there is the way the German soldier known as "Steamboat Willie" was portrayed. Why is the only German we got to know a little bit such an awkward, silly guy? I'm pretty sure lots of German soldiers were ordinary men who didn't want this war any more then anyone else did. They must have been just as afraid as the American soldiers, they must have felt the same pain and horror. But that's not the way if feels like in SPR. The overall feeling you get is "Americans are good" and "Germans are bad". Second, there is the fight for the bridge. This kind of stuff, the brave heroes who, against all odds, succeed in defeating the enemy, well, this has been done so many times before. This kind of cliche was exactly what I expected SPR to avoid. Third, there is the 'point of view'. You are made to believe that the Omaha Beach-scenes are seen as the memories of the old man on the graveyard. Then, in the last scene, you learn that this man never set foot on Omaha Beach. I felt manipulated in a negative way!
It was very hard for me to grade SPR. Technically, it's an absolute 10. The Omaha Beach-scene was extremely good, and I think it's a real homage to the veterans who were there. But there were too many things I did not like. I decided to give this movie a 7 out of 10.
Heavenly Creatures (1994)
Fascinating
Fascinating, that is the first word that comes to my mind when I think of HC. I saw this movie four or five months ago, and somehow the images just keep coming back to me. There are three reasons why HC made such a deep impression on me. At first, there is of course that fascinating story of the friendship between Pauline and Juliet. From the first scene on, you know that something terrible is going to happen. This knowledge influences your feelings while you are watching the sometimes cheerfull, joyous fantasies of the girls. It certainly gives the story an extra, awkward dimension. Second, there are these two great actresses. The characters are so important to this story, that lesser characters easily could have ruined the movie. But Melanie Lynskey and Kate Winslet both are just right to personate Pauline and Juliet. You feel that there is so much going on inside Pauline's mind, and that Juliet is just a bit too cheerful. The supporting actors and actresses are very good, also. Third, there are those amazing special effects. Never before have I seen such a perfect mixture of the real world and a fantasy world. I especially liked the imaginary run from Orson Welles, and the scenes in which the clay figures came alive. I don't want a give a 10 to easily, but I decided that HC is one of the few movies that really deserves this figure!
Parenthood (1989)
A delightful combination of humour and seriousness
Did you see Singin'in the Rain? Then try to recall that hilarious song Make 'm laugh, by Donald O'Connor. Do you smile, remembering this? I do! I think this is the best way to describe how I felt when I was writing this user comment about Parenthood. There are so many delightful little moments in this picture, so much humour. And, although it's been at least one year since I've last seen this movie, I still find myself smiling at them. Parenthood is a masterpiece. And I don't use that phrase easily, I think only 10 of the approximately 900 movies I've seen deserve this qualification. I'm someone's daughter, I'm someone's wive, and I'm someone mother. In every three of these capacities, I recognized the feelings of some of the many, many characters in this movie. Ron Howard gave us a mirror in which anyone of us can see herself or himself. And it's not only yourself you see, you also recognize a lot of people who played (or still are playing) an important part in your life. The fact that you can really relate to the characters is one of the great assets of this movie. I want to give an enormous compliment to the guys who wrote the script. There are so many important characters in this movie, it's amazing how they managed to give everyone of them enough attention, without letting the story break into little pieces. Everything just fits in perfectly! I would like the Academy to introduce a new award-category, namely an Oscar for 'the entire cast'. If there had been such an Oscar in 1989, the actors and actresses of Parenthood surely would have won it. All the performances are just right, it wouldn't be fair to single out one or two of the performers.
Schindler's List (1993)
Very impressive
Everything about Schindler's List is impressive. Never before have I seen a more painful portrayal of the Holocaust. The horrible images about the humiliation, the fears and the pain of the Jews are combined with the extraordinary absorbing story about Oskar Schindler, great camerawork, music and acting, both from the principal characters as the minor characters. A quiet, but nevertheless very impressive scene was the one in which the personal belongings of the Jews, who just had been put on transport, were sorted out. The first time I saw Schindler's List, this shot just seemed to go on and on, and thus gave me an idea of the enormous extent of what happened to the Jewish people. We witness how war can bring out the worst in men, like it did in Amon Goeth. Men like him were given the power, the opportunity, to develop the evil qualities in their characters. Luckily, Spielberg didn't portray only the evil side of Goeth, he also showed his audience that this horrible man still was capable of feeling something for another human being, even though he didn't want himself to. Thanks to the superb performance of Ralph Fiennes, the Amon Goeth character is in every way believable. We see how war also can bring out the best in men, like it did in Oskar Schindler. Spielberg very subtly develops the relationship between Schindler and Stern. They both know Schindler's feelings changed during the war, but neither of them talks about that. But still, the audience knows, just as Schindler and Stern know. Liam Neeson was very impressive, Ben Kingsley gave one of the best performances in movie history. Many people say that Saving Private Ryan is Spielberg's best movie, but I don't agree. Schindler's List has much more depth, and touched me far more deeply. It's a real masterpiece. A tip: Read the book! It gives a lot of details Spielberg couldn't show us, because of the limited length of the movie. It's worth your effort.