A recreation of real brutality, not the usual "action" flick fiction.

Rating: 9/10 (13 January 2000)

I suspect that only a veteran who actually experienced the horrors shown in the film could attest to their authenticity. However, the scenes have the feel of reality as do the reactions of the soldier characters to their situations. The peg of the story that the high brass would sacrifice other men to save one man for public relations reasons certainly rings true. We are shown nothing to make war look attractive as the camera and special effects move from one aspect of bloody death to another without pause. One may carp that Spielberg takes a parochial view of the war in that no mention whatever is made of other allies fighting Hitler. It looks like solely a U.S. war. That's most likely just what it did look like to the grunts facing the krauts and the japs in 1944. He is also accused of taking a middle class view of the war: i.e. officers were teachers or other professionals, while other ranks were not. Well, that is just about the way it actually was so far as officers were concerned, but plenty of educated folks served in the ranks. Nobody in the film talks about the lofty ideals of the war. Again, that's realism. As a non-combat soldier in WW2 who served only stateside, I cannot recall ever being involved in a discussion about "saving the world for democracy". There was a lot of talk about the viciousness of the enemy, though, both before and after the U.S. involvement. I expect the soldiers "over there" were not much different. Lofty ideals are mostly spouted in the speeches of politicians. I doubt that anyone can view this film without being profoundly moved by the sheer monumental brutality depicted. Note that it is a re-creation of brutality that actually happened; it is not the fake horrors of your usual Hollywood "action" flick.