99.7% entertainment, 0.3% realism...9 out of 10!

Rating: Null/10 (21 January 1999)

I was taken to this movie by my 79-yr-old grandfather, a World War II veteran who had read the reviews declaring this movie to be "based on a true story", and a truly epic movie about WWII. He couldn't wait to see this movie that was heralded by Spielberg and others as a bonafide docudrama, a true story based on a young man in WWII who lost three brothers to death behind enemy lines, and the most stunning war movie to ever hit Hollywood's silver screen.
Both he and I were shocked by the brutal reality of the scenes on the beach. That was truly amazing cinematography and imagery by Spielberg. Sure, both he and I noticed the many unrealistic aspects of even these scenes, minor errors in small details, but my grandfather said those scenes were closer to the reality than any movie had come yet.
But both my grandfather (a veteran and retired military historian) and I (a hobby historian) noticed the movie soon changed. While the movie was without a doubt strong with feeling an imagery, the realism is soon gone. The soldiers are out of character, the special effects overdone, and the military equipment (particularly the Tiger tanks) used/referenced incorrect. The worst part was that this movie, heralded as a "true story" didn't have enough truth in it to fill an eye-dropper.
This movie was not, however, a failure. Spielberg did an excellent job at creating a fictitious storyline that almost seems like it was real, and then used the Hollywood glitz and glamour to create his version of WWII. This movie is extremely well done for a war movie, and well worth watching as long as the viewer remembers two important things: 1) This movie is NOT real. 2) This movie is NOT a true story. There was no Pvt. Ryan. This movie is *extremely* loosely based on the losses of two families in WWII -- the Nilands, who lost two of their four sons (one was MIA and later found, and the other wandered around in enemy territory for 18 days before finding his way back to camp and being told he was being sent home), and the Sullivans, who lost all five of their sons in a 1942 loss at sea. (For more on those five, watch the film "The Sullivans".) Neither situation involved what was seen in the film.
This movie should be rated on three separate scales. The only true rating for this movie can be on it's ability to entertain and hold the viewers interest (nine out of ten by both my grandfather and I). For its rating on realistically portraying the general conditions on WWII, it measures about a six and a half, and on its realism as far as "based on a true story", this movie deserves a zero, because it is entirely fictionalised.
Definitely see this movie, but if you're looking for realism in a 1998 war film, check out "The Thin Red Line". Both its storyline and its basic cinematography is more "realistic" and "true". It is only for true war buffs though -- the movie rates high for both realism and truth, but fairly low for entertainment value because of Malick's attempt at keeping it realistic.