Weak plot and uninspired characterisations betrays special effects and cinematography

Rating: 5/10 (10 May 2017)

I've been put off writing this review for many years because I feared it would turn out to be a negative pile of invective directed against a man whose work I have largely admired for many years. Now though I've mellowed and with the film coming up to 20 years old and there being already more than 2000 reviews already on this website I'm confident nobody is going to waste time reading this review anyway.
So, what can you say about the first 25 minutes? Probably the finest piece of action film making ever. This opening ruined every war film I saw before and every war film I've seen since; nothing comes close (apart from BoB of course). Exceptional! And for me that is the strange thing about this film – part of it fills me with rapture, while other parts make me cringe and irritated.
But let's get onto the story. Well I'm no military expert but sending a handful of men, some of them high value experienced soldiers, out into the French countryside to find a Unit with a certain individual in it – well I'm not sure I buy it. No, the story is weak and disappoints, as do the over familiar characterisations.
Alright then we move onto the inevitable, and the source of all the carping from all the other non-US reviewers of this film - the lack of representatives from other allied nations. Well the answer the great man gave is very much the same as many defenders of this film provide on this website – that this is a war film concentrating on the US sectors and their German adversaries. Sounds reasonable enough – doesn't it? It's also sound film making as well as keeping it simple ensures audiences don't get confused with all those different uniforms and dodgy accents.
The only problem, well only if historical accuracy of real events bothers you, is that Historians tell us the demarcation between the sectors wasn't that clear cut. As James Holland of CNN states by quoting the actual resources provided respectively by the US and the British, if you were a GI there was a very good chance you would leave the English coast in a British Royal Naval vessel. You would more than likely transfer into a British Royal Naval Landing craft. If you needed air support it would be almost definitely provided by the British Royal Air Force or Royal Canadian Air Force. While the night time air drops apparently deposited paratroopers all over the place and not necessarily where they should be. (Remember, this was the reason given for not knowing where Ryan was.) The statistics tell us this, these are facts. So, although it is possible a 'Yank' could fail to encounter a 'Limey', 'Canook', or 'Free French' on June 6th 1944, it would be very unlikely.
I'm reminded of an interview the great man did to promote the film in the UK for the BBC. When he was challenged about this point he gave the example of 'The Dambusters' as a British war film that just concentrated on the double header of Brits versus Germans. Sorry 'Steve' not a great example. Unfortunately the young interviewer either didn't know his war films or didn't fancy irritating his esteemed interviewee.
The Dambusters features Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, and Rhodesians along with the English/Welsh/Scots/Irish. There's a scene where they are selecting crews for the mission when Colin Todd, as Guy Gibson, exclaims: "Hang on, don't forget the English!" Even the jingoistic extravaganza that was the 1969 film 'The Battle of Britain' included a Polish fighter squadron in recognition of the brave and resolute contribution they made to the defence of the UK.
There is also a plot problem with omitting allies from the story in that you have nobody to portray as inferior, incompetent, and cowardly (tick as appropriate) to compare with your own brave square jawed heroes (Think: The Hurt Locker and those useless Brit mercenaries). You don't want your enemy appearing pathetic, evil yes, but they have to be a worthwhile foe to legitimise the struggle towards victory. So this film tries to get around this restriction by including a dig at the British General Montgomery, the overall planner of Operation Overlord (D-Day), but not a man universally popular even within his own nation.
While it is entirely realistic that troops from one Army criticise the performance of another the way it is done here – out of the blue exposition and with no supporting evidence, exposes this line for what it actually is: a cheap shot.
So perhaps these facts explain why many reviewers have been disappointed about others nations' exclusion. In order to allow US audiences to identify with the film, and others around the world (Some French and Germans both have their own reasons for depreciating the role of the British, but that's another contentious point!), history has been bent for commercial purposes to produce what looks to some (including me), a mean spirited and self-centred production.
This film gets so many things right, and gets them excellently 'right' so the areas where they get things wrong stand out as really, really wrong; and that is the chief problem with this film. It goes to great trouble and expense to present realistic events and situations for certain parts of the film, but in other parts it is lazy and dismissive.
I wonder if Mr Spielberg was ever the slightest bit bothered by this international hoo-hah? I wonder on cold winter evenings when he's at home polishing his 'Knight of the British Empire Medal' for taking advantage of the lower production costs in the UK, erm I mean services to the British film industry, he feels the slightest bit guilty. Of course not, that is a ridiculous image; cast it from your minds immediately. He will have a professional come in and polish all of his awards!