Very Good, but flawed film about WWII

Rating: Null/10 (30 July 1998)

OK. It's one of Hank's best performances. It has lots of realism. It took more risks (graphically) than most mainstream Hollywood flicks have done. I cried in anger at the waste of lives because of lessons not learned at Dieppe and Anzio.
But...... Ultimately the film to me seemed edgeless and empty. Typical Spielberg: all surface and no content. Things were too clean, too neat, too "packaged". The biggest directorial risk he took was in presenting the film as a thread snipped at both ends...we didn't see what came before, and we don't get to see what happens after. The two present -day sequences that open and close the movie are just pretty bookends.
The opening was spectacular, and full credits to all for an incredible production. It is as close as any of us are likely to get to war, and the senselessness of the slaughter that is mass war was (as it should be) appalling. Unfortunately, once we moved off the beach, the movie got lost in its own metaphors and cinematic history. I saw too many pieces of older movies and cliches presented. I will admit I didn't see too many gaffes (but why did that paratrooper have a full beard?), and that is good, but lack of goofs does not compensate for lack of imagination. By "edge", I mean taking risks. For example: "Apocalypse Now" had an edge, and too much imagination. Portions of "Platoon" had an edge and imagination. "Titanic" had no edges, but a lot of imagination. "The Crying Game" had lots of edges, and some imagination.
So. The opening half-hour gets 4+ stars, the rest, 3. Awards for special effects, Hanks, and cinematography; but that's all.