Very effective filmmaking

Rating: Null/10 (5 July 1999)

After scanning some of the other comments, I think I'm more disturbed by some of them than I am this film! First of all, the battle scenes are spectacular, particularly the invasion sequence. (None other than John Keegan, famed war historian, has said that it is as realistic as your going to find on film.) Some here have criticized it for being to "amero-centric" (I guess that's a word?) because the soldiers are all American. This is not a fair criticism -- the soldiers landing on Omaha and Utah beaches WERE all Americans. The other beaches, Gold, Juno, and Sword, were landed upon by British and Canadian soldiers mostly. If you're going to criticize a movie, do it for it is, not what it is not. Of course, many other nations participated in WWII, but because they're not seen does not invalidate this film. The men who landed at Omaha beach were by far the hardest hit. The Normandy battles were not as large as Kursk, for example, but celebrating one battle does not somehow invalidate the rest. Criticizing it for that is childish and petulant. The movie does slow a little in the middle, but I did not see any "mushy Hollywood" type movie making. Your stereotyped Hollywood picture has a big soundtrack and lots of gratuitous pyrotechnics -- this movie had none of that. I have often criticized some of Spielberg's films in the past, but I have none to offer this film. It's not perfect (no film is) but its very good. An indirect kudos to Stanley Kubrick, whose influence I saw in a couple of scenes. Maybe that's just me, but it seemed "Kubrickian" in a quiet, indirect sort of way.