light entertainment with a veneer of sincerity

Rating: 8/10 (12 November 1998)

No one can deny American movie makers, and Spielberg is a king, can produce the best technical effects in movies. This movie also has some wonderfully personable stars. (Tom Hanks is great, and I liked the sergeant, too.) And the human scenes are tastefully understated - no brash posturing here. This is Hollywood art. But under the beautiful technical veneer, is there anything more here than an incoherent collection of cliches?
Is consistent thought or feeling or fundamental honesty too much to ask? What is the point of making another movie about World War II after all this time? What does this movie say that so many others have missed, if anything? War is a serious subject - "serious" is a drastic understatement, if you happen to be in one - one that a new generation knows nothing about. And it doesn't look as if the world has made any progress in avoiding them, since the one depicted here.
I think it's dishonest to play the patriotic sentimentality card with such intensity while claiming credit for condemning war. To show blood and guts is not necessarily to say that war is wrong - only that it is unpleasant, or possibly, exciting. Is shooting prisoners really wrong? Or only what you gotta do, and the mark of a real man? Is war really senseless? Or is it a patriotic duty, well worth giving your life for?
I have never been in a war, but I promise you war is a lot worse than what you will see here.