Cut the preconceived biases

Rating: 9/10 (1 June 2002)

Every review of this movie that has given it any less than an 8 has been filled with one of two things--a) exaggerating the sometimes poor quality, or b) talking about how great this could have been if it had instead given more thought to the politics involved. To both I must say a grain of salt and a pattern of objectivism is needed to appreciate just how good this movie is. I saw it expecting a decent action film, because Ridley is a great action director, but came out feeling utterly overwhelmed because this movie is the epitome of recounting a battle in its horrifying, realistic sense.
The dialogue is somewhat poor. At the end of the film in Hartnett (I think it was him)'s last monologue, especially, people have complained of the lame simplicity and gung-ho-ishness. But, I must say, having read the book for English (and everyone shoud both see this and read the book, for historical/appreciatory purposes involving the soldiers who make such valiant sacrifices) that the dialogue, while admittedly simplistic in intent and uncomfortably gung-ho; is true to the dialogue and feelings expressed by the soldiers who Bowden interviewed. Therefore, cut the bias, and recognize the realism present throughout the movie, even in dialogue.
On the matter of the lack of political motivation the most obvious argument, of course, is that there is no time in the movie, and that is a good reason. Even better, and far more obvious, is that this movie is not at all about those events, as made clear in the sweet dialogue in which a Delta forcer tells Hartnett he'll be able to think about that plenty when he gets back from the battle. Even still, some symbolic stuff has been woven, things that did not happen in the battle, that works in the movie to express some of these motivations fairly well. Also, even further, the book did not occupy itself with these motivations much, either, and fittingly so. For, this movie is about the battle, and does a damn good job of presenting it, but that is so obvious I need not talk of it.
On the biggest qualm people have had with this movie--lack of character development--I, too, felt a certain amount of lack in this. While I have yet to see Saving Private Ryan, I understand how getting to know the characters even further in this film might have served to its advantage. To that problem, the answer lies in a couple of sources. On the matter of editing, this film does a great job, I think, of focusing on the battle at just a long enought time for the events in it (this is after reading the book, mind you, so mock me if you want for that bias). They are especially hard to express because of the totally chaotic nature of the battle, but the movie did as well as the book (which was perfect) within its own timeframe. Which comes to the answer, which is, that having more character development would either a) make the movie too long or b) have to take away some of the events from the battle. A few of the important parts of the battle are not included in the movie, even, so removing any more would take away from the battle even farther. Also, the other thing, is that by not including as much the soldiers become more of a unit helping eachother, sometimes as individuals, creating even further the feeling of responsibility to this unit. IMHO.
Now that I am done rambling about people having biases, all I have left is to say that this movie is perfectly directed and cinemated (not a word) and acted for what it is--a recounting of modern warfare. It is as intense and realistic as movies can go for that objective. The biggest problem is in the sometimes weak dialogue, and it is not only easily forgiven, but somewhat fitting for the people who speak the words. Everyone should see it for that reason (unless you have a weak stomach) and also for the historical fact of the matter.
10/10