Why ruin a good film with a predictable mess of a story?

Rating: 3/10 (14 January 2000)

Why? It had such potential! It has some of the greatest battle scenes ever filmed! But WHY did they have to include such a banal plot that manages to send dual messages that contradict themselves in the worst way possible. Sure, when speaking of the technical aspects of the film, it is in fact a great achievment, and the acting is above average. But Spielberg packs into so full of repulsive nationalism, especially during the later part of the film, that when the final frame appeared I almost want to throw up in disgust towards the overblown cliches that populate this film. And then we have the thing that has always kept Spielberg off my list of outstanding filmmakers, the film is so sentimental it almost caused me to start yelling obscene words at the screen. Plus, the film is way too long, and VERY predictable. But it is worth seeing for the great cinematography, acting, editing and the battle sequences. Can you guess if I think this is one of the best films about war ever made? Do I really think that about the film? Hell no. It's a pretty good film, all in all, it's better than most films Spielberg has made since "Raiders of the Lost Arc", not nearly as good as "Schindler's List" though. If you compare it to the likes of "Missing in Action" it looks great, but when it faces the likes of "Apocalypse Now", "Full Metal Jacket", "Salvador" and "Bullet in the Head", it's DOA.