Most over-rated movie of our time.

Rating: 5/10 (4 February 1999)

Let's begin with the "in your face" gore. Guts on film don't bother me and I'm sure it was historically accurate. But as a movie, it played out like a predictable horror film after the first few heart-pumping minutes. Who didn't see it coming from a mile away when a guy Tom Hanks is dragging gets blown in half? Pure shock value, not story value.
Also, the film doesn't look good. From scene to scene we endure a barrage of styles--everything from choppy POV (whose?) to grand panoramics. I assume the drastic changes in cinematography are meant to represent character experience, but I found them a major distraction to becoming absorbed in the film.
Characters are poorly defined and even stereotypical: the hothead who doesn't want to follow orders, the 98 lb. weakling who's never shot a gun. We've never seen those before! The only thing that really surprised me was that he didn't find his "inner strength" by the end.
The modern-day bookends were quite bothersome as well. This device rarely works because it does nothing more than hinder the audience from being in the moment. I also had a VERY hard time empathizing with the character who appears in those scenes (I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't yet seen it). We're not given a reason to believe he would feel so strongly later in life, so I simply couldn't share in his drama.
There were certainly some great moments in the film, especially in the final battle sequence--the stabbing death of one of the soldiers, and another shooting at a tank with his pistol in desperation. Overall though, the film just didn't flow and I wasn't drawn in.
I think audiences are confusing what they think was a shockingly realistic war movie with what was actually just plain shocking for a Spielberg movie. For a good war movie, I'll take Platoon anyday.