I saw this film at the theatre when it came out and thought it was pretty good on the big screen.
I have it on DVD and have watched it a couple more times. Unfortunately my opinion of this film has lessened with two repeat screenings.
I'll still rate it a 6 out of 10 because the battle scenes are largely very good.
It's not a bad film but could have been a lot better given the subject material, the historical background and the scale of the battle. I haven't read the book about the real event.
I loved Sam Elliot as the Sgt Major and thought Barry Pepper was good.
With subsequent viewings I have paid more attention to what I think are the overbearing clichés, patriotism and corniness ("I'm glad I could die for my country", "tell my wife I love her", "we'll give 'em hell sir" etc).
While there's nothing wrong with patriotism and I can't speak from experience, I suspect Hoot (Eric Bana)in Blackhawk Down was far more realistic about men under fire when he said "Once that first bullet goes past your head politics goes right out the window" and "It's about the man next to you".
Colonel Moore (Gibson) seems too perfect. An officer, gentleman, historian, wonderful father, husband, religious man and leads from the front. He would be a shoe-in for President. He seemed a bit too gung-ho under fire. All that was missing was for him to be holding an M-60 (heavy machine gun) in one hand and firing it from the hip. Did he not have any weaknesses?
Perhaps Gibson had too much influence over the director in regards to the character of Moore. They have worked together on Braveheart and I think Gibson's company made the movie (I may be mistaken).
Not an Oscar winning performance from Gibson, but it appeared to be a Medal of Honour winning performance from Moore.
Some other annoying bits:
Director Wallace seems to love killing people off in mid-sentence. If I go to war I'm going to keep my mouth shut. I'm less likely to become a casualty.
We are introduced to the Japanese American soldier who informs us that he is about to become a father, it's so blatant that we should endear ourselves to him a bit more just before he is horrifically (mortally?)wounded.
I know that they can do wonders with special effects these days but do the directors judge the success of their project by seeing if they can outdo the last war film by illustrating even more horrific injuries then the last film (Saving Private Ryan, Blackhawk Down, We Were Soldiers). I think we got the blood splatter on the camera lens at least 3 times in WWS.
Remember Elias getting killed in Platoon. Not a limb missing or head exploding in sight (ok, the squibs didn't go off) but still dramatic and moving.
Did the American soldiers carry entrenching tools? I would have thought that in a battle like that soldiers would have been digging in with spades, helmets or even their hands. A lot of them seemed to be relying on vegetation for cover. It's not paintballs being fired.
Another thing that irks me are the next of kin notifications coming in while the battle rages. "The army wasn't ready" says Moore's wife. They seemed right up on ther play with forwarding the bad news home. How could they have had an accurate idea of casualties in the middle of the battle when most of ther KIA were still down in the field. I would have thought it may have been a couple of days or longer before next of kin could be notified.
I realize what the director was trying to do here but he broke up the momentum of the film and the grieving widows after the battle and near the end of the film would have been a far more realistic and poignant ending to the film, especially contrasted with Moore being able to return home to his family.
I seem to be being very negative about the film. However, as stated before, it's not a bad film but it's disappointing because it could have been a lot better.
Worth seeing.
I have it on DVD and have watched it a couple more times. Unfortunately my opinion of this film has lessened with two repeat screenings.
I'll still rate it a 6 out of 10 because the battle scenes are largely very good.
It's not a bad film but could have been a lot better given the subject material, the historical background and the scale of the battle. I haven't read the book about the real event.
I loved Sam Elliot as the Sgt Major and thought Barry Pepper was good.
With subsequent viewings I have paid more attention to what I think are the overbearing clichés, patriotism and corniness ("I'm glad I could die for my country", "tell my wife I love her", "we'll give 'em hell sir" etc).
While there's nothing wrong with patriotism and I can't speak from experience, I suspect Hoot (Eric Bana)in Blackhawk Down was far more realistic about men under fire when he said "Once that first bullet goes past your head politics goes right out the window" and "It's about the man next to you".
Colonel Moore (Gibson) seems too perfect. An officer, gentleman, historian, wonderful father, husband, religious man and leads from the front. He would be a shoe-in for President. He seemed a bit too gung-ho under fire. All that was missing was for him to be holding an M-60 (heavy machine gun) in one hand and firing it from the hip. Did he not have any weaknesses?
Perhaps Gibson had too much influence over the director in regards to the character of Moore. They have worked together on Braveheart and I think Gibson's company made the movie (I may be mistaken).
Not an Oscar winning performance from Gibson, but it appeared to be a Medal of Honour winning performance from Moore.
Some other annoying bits:
Director Wallace seems to love killing people off in mid-sentence. If I go to war I'm going to keep my mouth shut. I'm less likely to become a casualty.
We are introduced to the Japanese American soldier who informs us that he is about to become a father, it's so blatant that we should endear ourselves to him a bit more just before he is horrifically (mortally?)wounded.
I know that they can do wonders with special effects these days but do the directors judge the success of their project by seeing if they can outdo the last war film by illustrating even more horrific injuries then the last film (Saving Private Ryan, Blackhawk Down, We Were Soldiers). I think we got the blood splatter on the camera lens at least 3 times in WWS.
Remember Elias getting killed in Platoon. Not a limb missing or head exploding in sight (ok, the squibs didn't go off) but still dramatic and moving.
Did the American soldiers carry entrenching tools? I would have thought that in a battle like that soldiers would have been digging in with spades, helmets or even their hands. A lot of them seemed to be relying on vegetation for cover. It's not paintballs being fired.
Another thing that irks me are the next of kin notifications coming in while the battle rages. "The army wasn't ready" says Moore's wife. They seemed right up on ther play with forwarding the bad news home. How could they have had an accurate idea of casualties in the middle of the battle when most of ther KIA were still down in the field. I would have thought it may have been a couple of days or longer before next of kin could be notified.
I realize what the director was trying to do here but he broke up the momentum of the film and the grieving widows after the battle and near the end of the film would have been a far more realistic and poignant ending to the film, especially contrasted with Moore being able to return home to his family.
I seem to be being very negative about the film. However, as stated before, it's not a bad film but it's disappointing because it could have been a lot better.
Worth seeing.