UKC

You don't have to hate them. Just to be "unmoved" by them.

I give you:

Psycho. Maybe very impactful in 1960 but as a standalone film, I don't really rate it. Hammer's cheapo rushed knock-off, "Scream of Fear", actually plays out its storyline rather better!

The Wicker Man. One or two powerful scenes don't mask the nonsense going on in the bulk of the film.

It's A Wonderful Life. When the angel shows George the alternative high street full of whores and drunks, I thought "that looks better fun", which I don't think was the intention

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Debbie does Dallas.

In reply to peterjph:

Have you tried the ones that just have boys?

In reply to Blue Straggler:



I hate this film. Firstly because it takes so long for James Stewart to understand that people can't see or hear him. Secondly, because there's far too much shouting, especially by James Stewart. And thirdly, I just wish James Stewart's character dead.

Recently watched 12 Years a Slave and I couldn't really see what the fuss was about. But then again I thought the same about Saving Private Ryan so I am clearly wrong about great films!

In reply to Turdus torquatus:

A lot of people agree with you about 12 Years a Slave.

And a fair few agree about Saving Private Ryan.

I fall into both categories. And people will go on about the opening sequence in "...Ryan". Yes it is powerful and well done, but a) it's not the best of its kind and b) one impactful scene does not make a film a classic. Cutting 45 minutes out of "...Ryan" would have helped.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

add me to the list of people regarding Saving Ryan.

By the way, with apologies for not being very clear in the OP, I intend this to be for films really deemed as "classics" and in my book, this means they should at least 20 years old. So no Gladiator, but Driving Miss Daisy and GoodFellas and Thelma & Louise and Dances With Wolves are all fair game. Not that I am out to plant any ideas

But I am not too strict on rules! Just that the mention of Saving Private Ryan and especially 12 Years A Slave, regardless of their clearly having been made with the intention of becoming "instant classic prestige movies", made me think I'd best clarify.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Wings of Desire.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Hate to say it, but Solaris - so slow and obscure as to be quite tedious.

In reply to Blue Straggler:
The Exorcist. Waited many years to see it on re-release at cinema in 2000. Massively underwhelmed.

Any of the "old" Star Wars films. They are, frankly, horrific to watch now.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

sound of music

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Henry V - Laurence Olivier version (Much prefer Brannagh's)
Citizen Kane
Death in Venice
Eraserhead

In reply to Blue Straggler:


What is in your view?

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

+1 for citizen Kane. have tried to sit thru it a few times, never got past 30 minutes. Will raise you Three Colours Blue - theres 3 hours of my life I'll never get back.

In reply to Blue Straggler:


>... And people will go on about the opening sequence in "...Ryan". Yes it is powerful and well done, but a) it's not the best of its kind...

Many people who were actually on the beach at the time seem to disagree with you there, and I'm fascinated to hear you point me to a better example?

In reply to pebbles:

Sorry I quite liked that one

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I have to say that the opening scene of Ryan is probably the best depiction of a fire fight I have seen.

In reply to Blue Straggler:
I've tried many times with both of them but they still leave me cold and I love watching films but, gulp,

Apocalypse Now

And

Blade Runner

Edit...

Silence of the Lambs didn't do it for me either. Hmm, now I'm on a roll: The Godfather.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Citizen Kane and Casablanca. Watched them with my dad a few years ago, and even he admitted his memory of them may have been swayed by "classic" status.

2001: A Space Odyssey. Rubbish fillum. I think people say they get so much out of it just because they feel they're supposed to.

In reply to Bob_the_Builder:

I love 2001, no supposed to about it.

In reply to peebles boy:




Vastly superior to the 'new' ones!

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Indeed. I saw this, age 11 on holiday in London. No video at the time, but I loved the sound-track so much that my nan bought me the album: first one I owned.

In reply to Pyreneenemec:

I like the music. Just not the film. I guess we're products of different generations.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

How about I go straight for Citizen Kane? To be fair it was a while ago and I feel I owe it another viewing.
(If you are saying there is a better opening war sequence than Saving Private Ryan then I'd like to know what you're suggesting as well out of interest).

In reply to Escher:





Wow. The single most influential vision of the future since Fritz Lang's Metropolis and the greatest masterpiece of the final decade of cinema's golden era. You hit the jackpot there!

I admit to being bewildered by Apocalypse Now when I saw it onscreen at 17, but I showed it to my 17 year old son the other day and he was mesmerised. He simply wouldn't believe that they used a real squadron of helicopters for those classic scenes!!

In reply to Mikkel:


and me, I preferred the alternative version; "Shaving Ryan's Privates."

In reply to BnB:
Yeah, I know. I'm kinda embarrassed. I've sat through them both many times and tried my hardest with them thinking I must be missing something and I most probably am but both still leave me with distinct feeling of meh. I wish it was not so! Perhaps I should give them yet another go.

In reply to pebbles:


Weirdos!

In reply to Bob_the_Builder:




I'm in shock here. 2 of the best films ever made. The 3rd, not so.

OK.

The film ended up being a let-down (and a tad daft), but I genuinely thought that the opening scene of Enemy at the Gates was stronger and more brutal than that of Saving Private Ryan. And I offer this as just one example. The Korean film "Brotherhood" had some powerful stuff going on too.

NB when I said "not the best of its kind", I didn't necessarily mean "opening scene of war film" nor "D-Day landing scene". It might well be the best opening scene of a war film that is a D-Day landing scene

Duncan Bourne, the climactic firefight in Kathryn Bigelow's dramatic police thriller Blue Steel, despite being perhaps unrealistic and melodramatic, actually made me feel like I was there (and I only saw it on television) far more than did Saving Private Ryan at the cinema. Again, just a throwaway example.

I am not really knocking that opening, I just think it is worshipped a little bit more than it warrants. I'll admit to an anti-Spielberg bias here though.


(NB not a firefight, but the greatest scene in any war film I've seen, is the lake scene in Predrag Antonijevic's "Savior")

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Anything by Anthony Minghella, Michael Mann or Stephen Spielberg (with the notable exception of Jaws).

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Can't agree about Psycho.
I have bought a few "essential" films recently and have not got round to watching Citizen Kane yet.
What I did find immensely disappointing was Easy Rider. And it's taken me six months to get past the first half hour of Fitzcarraldo.

In reply to Escher:

I am with you on Blade Runner (well it doesn't quite "do nothing for me" but still...)

The Godfather - I like it a lot but I can see where you are coming from. I think, like The Silence of the Lambs, it has suffered greatly from imitation and parody. It is hard to watch Brando and not just find his performance to be comical.

I adore and admire Apocalpyse Now and always have done :-/

In reply to Removed User:

Minghella - I spent 14.5 years actively avoiding The Talented Mr Ripley, then finally watched it earlier this year and loved it! The English Patient does not stand up to a second viewing, I'll grant you.

Mann's "The Last of the Mohicans" is beyond reproach surely. I'll grant you all the rest of his work (even though I like some of it, I can see how it can leave people cold). Already mentioned my Spielberg antipathy.

This thread is looking good so far. Polite differences of opinion. Hurrah!

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Most of the time you and I are on the same wavelength, unless you are talking about Quaid, Hanneke or films about stolen mob money.
But to say that about The English Patient is unforgiveable.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

The Francis Ford Capolla classics generally bored me. Especially Apocalypse Now, but then again I also thought Heart of Darkness sucked.

I got bored of lots of modern films touted as classics. Gravity, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises. All sucked big time

In reply to Tom Valentine:



I adored it on first viewing and really that is the only truly important measure of a film. It is brilliant in all aspects and deserved all its Oscars and more.

But is it something you'd actively choose to watch again? I did, and I found it quite yawnsome. Many wonderful films "fail" the 'second viewing' test, in fairness. And not just the ones that rely on a big twist or reveal.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Never having seen a Godfather film I watched the first two recently and found both dull.

In reply to Tom Valentine:


Of the three in my OP, this is the one that I am most willing to re-evaluate. Love Perkins!

In reply to Blue Straggler:


Glad others have mentioned this. I was distinctly underwhelmed by it. Great on mood, atmosphere, etc., but it left me cold, wasn't thought provoking or entertaining. And I was, partic. then, a big fan of Ridley (for obvious reasons that you probably know.)

In reply to Blue Straggler:


I saw it again recently (for c. 7th time, but not for about 2 decades) in new digitally restored form, and it actually seemed better than ever. A phenomenally well crafted film, with a very clever script that breaks most of the 'rules'. Doesn't seem remotely dated in style of story-telling. Many modern films could learn from it. Hitchcock black humour much more obvious on reviewing. I'm convinced now the final scene with the psychiatrist is pure satire - with Hitchcock relishing the gobbledegook in a very tongue in cheek way. Makes the cut back to Perkins all the more chilling.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

This surprises me, I always assumed you worshipped BladeRunner!

Was it Vincent Canby who, at the time, was right on the button with a politely scathing "it's just old film-noir with some flying cars"? ) If not Canby, then some other high-flying critic.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

What did you think of the Gus van Sant remake in 1998? I was not sure what to make of it. Tarantino thought it was a work of genius. I should see them both again, I suppose

In reply to Removed User:

Really???
The same Michael Mann that directed Manhunter, Heat, and the single most perfect film in cinematic history The Last Of The Mohicans?
Are you mental?

In reply to Blue Straggler:


I didn't see it. How could it be remade better? I thought. Tarantino's opinion is no interest to me, because I think he's vastly overrated, his lastest - Django Unchained - being one of the very worst films I've seen in about the last two years (absolutely childish Hollywood pap, but worse than that, for its Tarantino-style aestheticised gratuitous violence.)

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I think van Sant thought the same...and I think that was his point.

In reply to crustypunkuk:




Love Heat, but Mohicans? Perfect? Surely the only utterly perfect film ever made is Some Like it Hot. We tested it on our teenagers this Christmas and it instantly became the first film they pack for a long journey. Surely the ultimate test of a classic?!

Love this thread.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Pretty much all the Kubrick films. I can never be arsed to finish watching them. I mean what IS eyes wide shut all about. Frankly I dont give a toss, I just wish there was eastenders on instead as that pile of shit would be infinitely preferable viewing...

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Withnail & I
Blazing Saddles

Neither of them very funny

In reply to BnB:

Watch Heat fairly regularly .

What a cast.

Was reading on Wiki last night about one of the Detectives in Pacinos team;

The guy who looks like a Red Indian.Who actually is 100% Cherokee.

Obviously you'll remember him as the Chief Native Warrior in Mohicans.

LFT Mohicans ,for the magnificent Morricone Score alone ,is a brilliant,unforgettable film.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

In general films starring Tom Hanks bore me - Forrest Gump, The Green Mile, Castaway, Big, Private Ryan.. He was good in Captain Phillips, I'll give you that. And the Toy Story films.

And the one 'classic' that I can't stand is A Clockwork Orange. I don't find anything about it worthwhile, enjoyable, thought-provoking, well filmed, or anything really. Watched it twice, bored me both times.

In reply to felt:


Agree with you there. Not bad but not particularly funny. Probably depends how sh*t-faced you were when you first watched it.

I'm not sure anyone would call it a classic but ET was a pile of pap. Despite Speilberg's love of a little schmaltz I've enjoyed plenty of his films, especially those from the 70's.

I went to see it with my parents aged 9 at the cinema and thought it was rubbish then.

In reply to andymac:


Eh?

In reply to andymac:


Which Last of the Mohicans are you talking about? Ennio Morricone didn't contribute to the 1992 film.

I've never understood the fuss about Citizen Kane. I've tried a couple of ties, but it just seems to drag.

In reply to Blue Straggler:


I recall being struck by the battle sequence towards the end of Children of Men - it's been a while since I saw it so I can't quite remember what I thought was so good, but I think it was something to do with the way it flows.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I thought that the violence, where it concerned the slaves at least, was just about the opposite of gratuitous, simply because it illustrated what really happened. 12 Years a Slave was much better as a story, but in a way I thought Django demonstrated the brutality of the system, in spite of Tarantino.

In reply to Removed UserBwox:

Watched 12 Years a Slave.

Cannot belive the horror, cuelty and exploitation that man can do to fellow man.

F**king £8 for popcorn and coke!

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Star Wars didn't hold my interest when I tried to watch it.
Easy Rider I found turgid.

In reply to BnB:

I reckon a measure of how perfect (or not) a film is would be how many scenes/dialogues/aspects of the film you reckon could be improved upon- I cannot think of any single thing about LOTM which could be better, hence my opinion of it as the most perfect film I've ever seen to date.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Back on topic, I don't know if they're classics as such, especially outside of the genre, but most of the horror films from the 80's and early 90's leave me entirely underwhelmed. Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Exorcist etc all leave me distinctly underwhelmed. Even as a young teenager they left me bored. Wes Craven must wake up laughing every day knowing that he still hasn't been found out!

In reply to Turdus torquatus:

I thought the opening 20 mins of Saving Private Ryan was quite shocking and one of the best war film presentations I have ever watched. The rest of the film lacked conviction and the story line was weak.

In reply to crustypunkuk:



The very same. I always thought Manhunter and Heat would have been good films if someone else had directed them. Last of the Mohicans did nothing for me.


Probably. I've been called worse

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Can't believe nobody has mentioned Shawshank Redemption. Like drowning in worthy treacle.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Some more came to mind, not so much classic but well thought of.

Anything by Wes Anderson. His films seem to be very much right up my street, but try as I may to like them, they just annoy me. I did enjoy The Grand Budapest Hotel, but only just.

Tarantino. Enjoyable but there is only so much homage and slapstick violence/oh look I had my actors say repeatedly say Nigger one can watch until it gets boring, ususally about ten minutes into the film. The exceptions being Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction.

Thomas Crown Affair. Wanted to like it, left me cold.

Fire Walk With Me and Mulholland Drive. I wasn't inspired to think about what either film meant.

Calvary: brilliantly acted (I'm a huge Brendan Gleeson fan), lots of points to make, but I thought they did it clumsily and it was like a great big gratuitous misery fest. Everyone else I went to see it with liked it though.

Dances with Wolves and anything with Tom Hanks except Captain Phillips, and even then I couldn't distract myself from watching Tom Hanks acting as opposed to someone playing Captain Phillips. Awesome filmmaking though.

In reply to Trangia:


Couldn't agree more. Opening scenes were totally visceral, rest was a tired schmaltzy American zzzzfest.

In reply to Chris Harris:


Good call. Dreadful tosh.

In reply to crustypunkuk:

I thought LOTM was okay, nothing more than that. Obviously I'm missing something.

Perfection (to my eyes) in modern movie making would probably be Goodfellas, although I'm not blind to the fact that it is more an object lesson in perfect movie making than a perfect movie, if you get my drift.

In reply to Removed User:


Yes. And a very, very stupid plotline, as far as I can see. It's D Day plus 2, people are getting blown to bits left, right, and centre, and some general thinks it would be sweet if manpower was diverted to ensuring that Mrs Ryan doesn't lose her last son? Come off it. Generals are not this sentimental. They can't afford to be. Especially not in the middle of one of the biggest battles in the history of the world.

Of course, someone may tell me that Saving Pte Ryan is based on real events. In that case, I think the general who organised the saving was a moron, and that his superiors were morons for letting him get away with such completely unsoldierly behaviour.

In reply to BnB:

Okay? OKAY?!?!?! It was pure comedy! The haircuts! The white-man-becomes-a-native tropes! The awful acting! The awful storyline!

Brilliance in cinema. But I'll never watch it with less than 6 beers in me...

In reply to Removed User:


>> and anything with Tom Hanks except Captain Phillips, and even then I couldn't distract myself from watching Tom Hanks acting as opposed to someone playing Captain Phillips. Awesome filmmaking though.


coincidentally I watched Captain Phillips last night with the lass. She fell asleep through most of the latter half (but this is not a reflection on the film, she just seems to fall asleep as soon as she has the combination of moving pictures on a screen and me to cuddle up to. Can't complain).

I found it fairly boring, vaguely of interest during certain scenes, and other than an astounding bit of acting at the end of the film by Tom Hanks (like wow) totally missable.

In reply to Bob_the_Builder:

RE LOTM - nah not even 6 beers. Utter dross.

D

In reply to tony:



Yeah Me getting mixed up again.

It happens.

In reply to Fredt:


I may well need to recheck this, but aside from the aforementioned examples I think Clint Eastwood's "Flags of Our Fathers" has some more impactful scenes. There's a firefight in there involving a very vulnerable chap with a delicate flamethrower rig. It doesn't end well.

And I forgot the obvious Black Hawk Down. Yes, a bit "shakycam" etc but it's just NEAR-RELENTLESS and brilliantly so. Really puts you THERE.

Eastwood and Scott were obviously influenced, inspired and motivated by Spielberg, but still people hark back to SPR. As I've said, it's very good, just overly revered.

Peace

In reply to Blue Straggler:

2001. I've attempted to watch it. 3 times but every time I
Fail to get through that trippy psychedelic shit in the middle - it just goes on and on!!!

Clockwork Orange. About as ultraviolet as In the f*cking nightgarden...

In reply to Blue Straggler:


Now that we have had the UKC suggestions, here are some more suggestions to agree/ disagree with

http://movies.amctv.com/movie-guide/tim-dirks-top-100/

In reply to Jim C:



Is it just me or are all of them American studio productions (possibly Nashville, The Birth of a Nation and Bonnie and Clyde are exempt)

I'd displace almost anything from the top 20 in order to put All About Eve in there, it is BRILLIANT

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Loads of them are not American studio productions. None of the Lean or Kubrick, and only about half of the Hitchcock. Plus quite a few others.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Ok, try a European films ( with clips)

http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/10-favorite-classic-european-films-03-2...

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Lean - OK I got confused and thought Kwai and Lawrence were Columbia rather than Horizon. I am aware of the distinction between production and distribution but I am also aware of the shared "responsibilities". OK not an American production as such (despite the company being owned by Spiegel), but without a pre-planned distributor, it would have amounted to nought.

2001: A Space Odyssey was MGM. The non-American-produced Kubricks still had US distribution fingers on them but I take your point gracefully. I hope you haven't missed MINE. No Malle, Godard, Wenders, Herzog, Rossellini, Murnau, Lang, Bergman....

Hitchcocks...which of those were not American studio productions?

The Graduate looks quite independent. Ditto Apocalypse Now. OK yes a fair few others and maybe I am being mean about the distribution thing, but let's put it another way. All these films are white people speaking English

In reply to Blue Straggler:


This is a very tricky subject. Yes, as so often in movie history, most of the money for 2001, and the distribution, was American, yet it was based in a 'British' studio i.e. MGM Borehamwood (NOT the same as nearby Elstree Studios, nor BBC Elstree). Now, I haven't a clue how Borehamwood Studios (I think Gaumont previously??) were taken over by MGM/what the financial deal was, but it was surely a very big UK film production base, and actually called MGM British. Production company was v independent of MGM, being 'Stanley Kubrick Productions' and entirely UK Based. Certainly 2001 was nothing like a 'movie shot on location in England', and c 95 % of the crew were British too. As far as I know, nothing creative was done in America.

No, I haven't missed your point at all about all the other wonderful directors you name, most of whom should be near top of any best 100 list ... but sadly, almost none of them have ever been v mainstream in terms of British public. Always 'art cinema', sadly. The British public being mostly to blame for this, frankly.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Indeed!

And that is before we even broach "Europudding" territory. Not that any Europudding film would feature in a Top 100

In reply to Tim Chappell:



Since no-one else is biting - it was based on real events. I can't remember the specifics, but I think it was just one Army chaplain tasked with finding the last son, not a whole platoon. And I expect it was more an exercise in bureaucracy than a cat-and-mouse struggle with the Wehrmacht

In reply to Removed User:


The battle at the end was pretty grim as well

In reply to nufkin:


I thought it was really good, and less "violence as weird porn" than the opening scene

In reply to Blue Straggler:

butch cassidy and the sundance kid.

reservoir dogs.

scarface.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Yes, I thought so too. But Tim is (amusingly) right about the whole plot, or the real people if in fact the plot is based on reality. I really rate Tom Hanks, when he is in a good film. Apart from Captain Philips, his best, I think, was that one where he plays a boy in a man's body. I loved that film. Unlike self-regarding rubbish like Withnail and I, in which I didn't laugh once, and was left wondering what on earth Richard E Grant thought he had been dining out on all those years, I laughed a lot at Tom Hanks, throughout, especially when he was eating an ice cream. A wonderful, heartwarming film. But has he ever played anyone really nasty? In The Green Mile, which I truly hated, and would not have gone to see had I read up about it first, any person in his character's position - prison officer on grizzly US death row with addded hokum and a dash of voyeurism for the punters - could not have been truly nice and compassionate, if they were they would have been outside after 5 minutes and protesting about the whole thing, yet Tom Hanks came across as such. That didn't work.

Butch Cassidy and The Sting are both superb.

Raging Bull would be my answer to the OP. I switched off before the end, having had enough of Joe Pesci and de Niro playing nasty characters mouthing off ten words where one would do. It was like watching Eastenders.

In reply to mbh:


I don't think so. I haven't seen Philadelphia but I am given to believe that his character at the start of the film is a mean homophobe, but changes throughout the film of course.

One thing that put me off Hanks was reading that he demanded that in Road to Perdition, his character is not seen on screen killing anyone purely for money (he plays a killer-for-hire). He wanted only to be seen killing in the film when it was part of his quest to find his kidnapped son. Essentially he was demanding a script change because he was worried about his own image. I thought "just let someone else have the role instead".
I haven't seen Road to Perdition.

Sherman McCoy in The Bonfire of the Vanities might be said to be "not a nice guy" (medium-level Wall Street broker, swanky apartment, beautiful wife and daughter, but is having an affair and tries to cover up a hit-and-run accident) but in the end he's the hapless sap and everyone else is nastier.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I'd forgotten that film [Road to Perdition] and didn't know that about him. Hey ho. In contrast, I do like it about Brad Pitt that he can play both good baddies (Ocean's 11) and bad baddies (Killing Them Softly, Thelma and Louise), as well as smart baddies (er, Ocean's 11 again) and dumb ass baddies (Burn After Reading).

In reply to Blue Straggler:


Point of order; I think you're describing Denzel Washington's character there. Tom Hanks plays an HIV-positive gay man throughout the entire film.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

On The Waterfront

In reply to Captain Fastrousers:


Whoops! That's what comes from confusedly commenting on films I have not actually seen! Sorry

In reply to Bob Hughes:


Sounds an interesting contender

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Nice to know I'm not alone on Citizen Kane. Am I right in thinking that a large part of it's acclaim is based on the groundbreaking techniques employed?

In reply to DaveHK:


I imagine so (I have not even seen it!). Also the fact that Welles wrote, directed and starred, at the age of 24. Probably counted for some of its impact.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I thought Alien was a bit boring and dragged on.

In reply to Nath93:


Agreed. I like it but it only really picks up right at the end when just Ripley is left, there is a tension insofar as you wonder "how long will they dare string this out" (this is GOOD). It takes forever to get there though.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Anyway, back on topic;

2001: A Space Odyssey for, but I think that has already been mentioned.

Lawrence of Arabia. I enjoy the film and its undeniably visually stunning, but it seems a bit thin

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Anyone who thinks the opening of Ryan is the 'best' battle scene ever filmed should go check out the 2007 Chinese war film The Assembly.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Anything of Kubrick. I tend to find his films generally tedious with a coupe of good scenes in each (such as the beginning of Full Metal Jacket, the HAL bit in 2001, and a few Strangelove moments).
Barry Lyndon was pretty good I suppose.

In reply to mbh:


A couple of his characters in Cloud Atlas were bad 'uns but I don't think he pulled it off, it was a little "wow, it's TOM HANKS, look, he's being MEAN"
and in a multi-story ensemble piece which includes him playing at least one "heroic" character, perhaps this just doesn't count.

I saw the end of The Terminal, where Catherine Zeta Jones explains that no, she's not going to be his girlfriend, and his character was being a bit of nob about it, but I don't know if that means he'd been nasty at all before. I doubt it.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Godfather trilogy.

Don't think I'd be bothered if I never seen them again.

I watched Ice Cold In Alex last night ,which to me, is a classic.

I am not seeing much defence of the D-Day scene from SPR vs. suggestions of stronger similar scenes from myself and others....

In reply to Blue Straggler:
Blue, I think the similar type scene (crossing the river Volga?) in Enemy at the Gates isn't as good, the CGI is pretty poor and it reminds me of the woeful Pearl Harbor. Enemy at the Gates, coming later than SPR would have had that benchmark to aim for and in my opinion it falls short. Of the similar scenes we're comparing Enemy at the Gates is good but it's not very good and Saving Private Ryan is. Overall neither film has stuck accurately to fact either - Enemy at the Gates takes as many liberties with the truth as SPR does.
I haven't seen Brotherhood, your other suggestion, so can't comment on that.

In reply to drmarten:

Thanks for the reply! I did acknowledge that overall Enemy at the Gates is the inferior film, I think - and indeed its "imagination" is more far fetched and exaggerated than SPR. But I was only comparing certain scenes. I have not done a back-to-back comparison...again I think I already said that I have only seen each film once, at the cinema, so that's 16 years ago and 13 years ago if memory serves....

In reply to felt:

HERESY! Burn Him!!!