I was comparing Saving Private Ryan to Sands of Iwo Jimo a while back, and though the two movies were in history at different locations, I thought Sands had a lot to offer without the gory of the war that Saving showed. If you took out that part of the movie in Saving, and I mean all that graphic scenes, you wouldn't have much of a story.
Think about it.
Saving showed elicit scenes and told a story of the horrors of war. They showed a troop of soldiers searching for a person, one person without knowing where he was and knowing that he was not where he was suppose to be. Then all of a sudden, they tracked him down under terrible odds of survival, and most of the troops survived, then when they find him, almost all of the squad gets killed. Only in Hollywood could you get results like that.
But the vets of WWII say that was realistic, and very touching. I won't take that away from them, but when I asked a couple of the vets of that war about the story of this movie; they didn't see one. They only saw the reality of war and the hell they went through.
I also asked them if they saw Sands, and they said that they did, and liked the story told in that movie. They were disappointed that the graphics of war was not as intense as Saving, but the rest of the movie seem realistic with the training and the squad leader going the extra mile for them til the end.
That to me is the difference between Saving and Sands.
Not to say that Hanks' character was not going the extra mile, but that he'd take an assignment without regard to the safety of his squad. And make some speech that if Ryan can get home then we all can get home, that's why we are going to find Private Ryan and get him home. How touching, but totally unrealistic.
I'm not talking about the war, but the story line. Make sure we get that straight.
Anyway, Sands of Iwo Jimo is much more impressive to me that Saving Private Ryan.
Just an opinion.
Cheers B)
