Unjustifiable exploitation film masquerading as "art"

Rating: 3/10 (21 August 1999)

What if this film had been made exactly as it is seen today by someone other than Steven Spielberg? What would the critics be saying? I have a feeling they would be telling the screenwriter to go back to college and learn about dialogue, story thrust, plausibility, and characterization - four things that this awful, exploitive drivel singularly lacked. I feel they would also be telling the director that if you open a film with 40 minutes of sickening violence that you had better be prepared to justify it later on. The most disheartening thing about all of this is that Spielberg no longer seems to care what his films are saying, only that they make a big enough noise to be "important". Following the unwatchable opening, we get extremely trite symbolism, poor dialogue, and wooden acting in service of a badly presented story, all leading up to another unwatchable sequence, followed by a coda which suggests that all of this unnecessary carnage is a great, noble, and patriotic thing. In doing this, Spielberg aligns himself with the Nazis that his own "Schindler's List" abhorred....remember, the Nazis were the kings of patriotism and nationalism. The most offensive aspect of this film, then, is its utter pretentiousness. At least exploitation movies don't pretend to be anything but what they are. This one, sadly, has delusions of grandeur (and although this criticism can't be levelled at the film itself, Spielberg's utterly arrogant acceptance of his Oscar for best director confirms all of my worst suspicions - compare it to his humble, tearful acceptance of the well-deserved Oscars for "Schindler's List"). Since no one around Mr. Spielberg seems to have the courage necessary to tell him when the emperor has no clothes on, the responsibility falls to the critics and audiences. Let him know you're tired of his version of "reality".