Some length & redundancy problems, but much to recommend. . .

Rating: Null/10 (17 January 1999)

My basic complaint boils down to one word: length. The film would be stronger and just as visually beautiful with the trimming of about 30 minutes of footage. The first scene to go should be the Clooney scene on the beach--completely irrelevant. Second would be the scene where Nolte's character follows Travolta's around (like a puppy dog) aboard ship before the men set off for Guadalcanal. The point could've been made in 30 seconds or less. Next to go should be one, maybe two of the dying scenes. The film would lose no coherence by their absence. I would also shorten some of the "nature scenes", cut a couple of soliloquies (Nolte's "nature is cruel" speech was especially superfluous), and some of Pvt. Bell's misty flashbacks.
That aside, let me say that I liked the movie. It was thoughtful, beautifully photographed, the characters were not the typical soldier outfit which seems to be recycled in so many war films and the movie did a good job conveying the insanity of war. There were many moments and one major scene in which this was conveyed: the taking of the Japanese camp. At what point does one side get to say "We won!" How many people have to die, how many bullets fired, how many buildings burned...just how much is enough? The confusion of bullets, voices, smoke, faces, a soldier's hesitation when surrendering Japanese approach him. . .where does the killing machine end and the human being start? This movie also showed (a point usually ignored) that war is not just a human atrocity--it affects everything in the environment, even the insentient rocks.