Good But There's Better B+

Rating: 6/10 (5 July 2012)

Before there are any misconceptions, I do like this movie. I find it one of Spielberg's best, one of the unforgettable period films of the 90s. With the likes of Tom Hanks, Barry Pepper, Tom Sizemore, Edward Burns and a surprisingly good performance from Vin Diesel (can't believe I said that), the acting is pretty damn good. It's recreation of D-Day is probably its strongest scene by far, setting the tone perfectly: sacrifice. The many battle scenes are done without a hitch and there are great strides in the history of war film effects. John William's music is encompassing and well done, not one of his best but still very good.
I have but a few problems with the movie. One, its moral quandary is supposedly the sacrifice of many for one. However, the question honestly seems self-defeating. Why, you probably ask. Because the movie seems to seal this moral lesson in quite frankly one of the most obnoxious characters ever: Upham, played by Jeremy Davies . I'm not sure what the point of his character was. For some time he's a morality tale lifeboat who boast about the indecency of killing soldiers who surrender, fine and dandy, living up to the codes of conduct and what not. However, during the big finale, this character proves to be little more than a coward who's failure to act cost the lives of many. And I know, I know, it in a way simply portrays tragic irony and the confusion battle brings. But the end result, with Upham finally doing what he should've done in the first place seems, dare I say, pointless. After the whole movie seemingly supporting mercy, what was with the sudden redundancy of the message? It seemed the majority of the characters died for reason not even our film makers understood or mixed up.
I've been told this is what you call a 'pro-war' movie, and to an extent it is. All in all, despite its mixed up morality, the film is still one I enjoy though.