Editing Saving Private Ryan (section)

===Critical response===
{{multiple image
| total_width       = 300
| direction         = horizontal
| footer            = [[Steven Spielberg]] (pictured in 2017) and [[Janusz Kamiński]] (2014). The pair earned critical acclaim for their respective direction and cinematography of ''Saving Private Ryan''
| image1            = Steven Spielberg by Gage Skidmore.jpg
| alt1              = A photograph of Steven Spielberg
| image2            = Janusz Kamiński (cropped) 2.jpg
| alt2              = A photograph of Janusz Kamiński
}}

''Saving Private Ryan'' received critical acclaim,<ref name="FarOutIntentions"/><ref name="THRSPRCast"/> and audiences polled by [[CinemaScore]] gave the film an average grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale.<ref name="CinemaScore"/> Critics generally agreed that ''Saving Private Ryan'' presented the grim and brutal reality of the "Good War" in a way previously unseen on film.{{efn|Attributed to multiple references:<ref name="ReviewSalon"/><ref name="ReviewSiskel"/><ref name="ReviewEbert"/><ref name="ReviewNYTMaslin"/><ref name="ReviewTimeSchickelPage3"/>}} Writing for the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'', [[Kenneth Turan]] described the film as darker and more pessimistic than any of Spielberg's previous works, dispelling the mythos of WWII as staunchly good heroes fighting against evil forces, to depict the reality of combat where, "American soldiers mock virtue and shoot surrendering Germans, where decent and altruistic actions tend to be fatal, where death is random, stupid and redeems hardly anything at all".<ref name="ReviewSalon"/><ref name="ReviewLATimesTuran"/> Some reviewers said this exploration of the limitations of morality in combat asked audiences to consider that the lives lost during the conflict were as valuable as those saved by their sacrifices. Writing for the ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'', [[Gene Siskel]] lauded the film's ability to discuss the "brutality and madness" of war while "believably" celebrating the sacrifices and courage of those fighting it.<ref name="ReviewTimeSchickelPage3"/><ref name="ReviewEbert"/><ref name="ReviewChicagoTribune"/> ''[[Salon.com]]''{{'}}s Gary Kamiya concluded, "it will forever change the way people imagine the most important event in 20th century history. That is no small achievement."<ref name="ReviewSalon"/> In ''The New York Times'', [[Stephen Holden]] said "it's a safe bet that ''Saving Private Ryan'', a powerful but flawed movie, will be revered as a classic decades hence."<ref name="NYTimesSumRevSep98"/>

Many reviewers focused on the film's two major combat sequences, particularly the opening on Omaha Beach.{{efn|Attributed to multiple references:<ref name="NYTimesJuly271998"/><ref name="ReviewEbert"/><ref name="ReviewSiskel"/><ref name="ReviewEW"/><ref name="ReviewSalon"/><ref name="ReviewLATimesTuran"/>}} Focus was on the "horrifying," "visceral," "brutal," "shocking," and "fierce" violence present in the opening battle, described by ''[[Entertainment Weekly]]''{{'}}s [[Owen Gleiberman]] and ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]''{{'}}s [[Richard Schickel]] as one of the most revolutionary film sequences ever made.<ref name="ReviewEW"/><ref name="ReviewChicagoTribune"/><ref name="ReviewEbert"/><ref name="ReviewSalon"/> [[Roger Ebert]] of the ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' and Schickel compared it with the energy and dread of similar scenes in the Vietnam war film ''[[Platoon (film)|Platoon]]'' (1986), but with a grander scope depicting masses of men killing each other from afar, drawing the "horror" out of a lengthy, sustained sequence, without the audience being allowed to become desensitized.<ref name="ReviewEbert"/><ref name="ReviewTimeSchickelPage1"/><ref name="ReviewNYTMaslin"/>  Some reviewers believed that the scene was so impactful and thought-provoking that it overshadowed the rest of the film.<ref name="ReviewChicagoTribune"/><ref name="ReviewSalon"/> Although there was some criticism toward the realistic violence and gore, Turan believed it was done purposely and dispassionately, conveying the chaos and despair experienced by the soldiers, and not done for the sake of entertainment.<ref name="ReviewLATimesTuran"/> Spielberg rejected this criticism, affirming he wanted the audience to understand what real combat was like and what the soldiers experienced, not observe it from afar as spectators.<ref name="NewsComAU"/><ref name="ReviewSiskel"/> Some reviewers believed the concluding battle in Ramelle was more violent than Omaha Beach, particularly the slow death of Mellish as he is stabbed through the chest.<ref name="ReviewSalon"/><ref name="ReviewEW"/> ''[[The New York Observer]]''{{'}}s [[Andrew Sarris]] criticized the "pornography of violence and cruelty" depicted in severed limbs and rivers of blood.<ref name="ReviewObserver"/>

Turan and [[Jonathan Rosenbaum]] found that, outside of the combat, the script was effective but uninspired and derivative of war films by other directors, such as [[Oliver Stone]], [[Stanley Kubrick]], and [[Francis Ford Coppola]].<ref name="ReviewLATimesTuran"/><ref name="ReviewSalon"/><ref name="ReviewChicagoReader"/><ref name="ReviewObserver"/> Others criticized "manipulative" oversentimentality, particularly in the modern day [[frame story|framing device]] featuring the elderly Ryan.<ref name="ReviewLATimesTuran"/><ref name="ReviewObserver"/> Even so, Kamiya described it as "enormously moving, it serves as a kind of redemption, a necessary if eternally fragile answer to the hell he witnessed".<ref name="ReviewSalon"/>

Hanks's performance was generally praised, with some reviewers calling it the best of his career to date.<ref name="ReviewSalon"/><ref name="ReviewChicagoTribune"/><ref name="ReviewTimeSchickelPage3"/><ref name="ReviewNYTMaslin"/> Many reviewers agreed that his [[everyman]] persona allowed him to portray Miller with a gentle weariness, empathy, and vulnerability beneath a surface of strength and decency, but also cynicism toward the war.<ref name="ReviewSalon"/><ref name="ReviewTimeSchickelPage3"/><ref name="ReviewLATimesTuran"/><ref name="ReviewChicagoTribune"/> Ebert and Schickel wrote that he offered a quiet reserve "hinting at unspoken competencies" that convince his men and the audience to follow along with him.<ref name="ReviewTimeSchickelPage3"/> Turan believed that Hanks's "indelible" performance represented how the audience would hope to be when confronted by the same situations.<ref name="ReviewLATimesTuran"/> The other main cast also generally received positive reviews, particularly Davies, with Ebert saying that his transformation from inexperienced interpreter to soldier was the conclusion to "Spielberg's unspoken philosophical argument".{{efn|Attributed to multiple references:<ref name="ReviewNYTMaslin"/><ref name="ReviewEW"/><ref name="ReviewEbert"/><ref name="ReviewSalon"/><ref name="ReviewTimeSchickelPage3"/><ref name="ReviewChicagoTribune"/>}} Gleiberman and Turan also highlighted the performances of Pepper, Ribisi, and Sizemore, who Turan believed delivered his career's "best, most controlled" performance.<ref name="ReviewLATimesTuran"/> Ebert praised the cast for not devolving into cliché or "zany" archetypes and effectively portraying the bonds between them.<ref name="ReviewSalon"/><ref name="ReviewEbert"/> However, Kamiya wrote that Damon's performance was "jarring", believing both his more cinematic aesthetic and speech about his brothers to be artificial. The review concluded that Ryan was not very compelling, which made it difficult to care about the mission to save him.<ref name="ReviewSalon"/>