We Were Soldiers (2002) User Reviews

A New Perspective on Vietnam

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 2 October 2010]

Short review: I typically do not care for Vietnam War movies. Some, like Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" are good. "Platoon" is alright, "Casualties of War" is okay... "Hamburger Hill" is blah, "Good morning Vietnam" too happy. The running theme is either firefights (which is good eye candy but poor storytelling) or the futility of war.

"We Were Soldiers" has a different take. First, Mel Gibson plays a colonel with a degree, allowing him to not only think like a soldier but an academic. He understands military history and why strategies have or have not worked, and why Vietnam is as pointless as Korea was.

But what really stood out was the focus on the wives. The story is almost always about the boys becoming men in the battlefield. We rarely, if ever, see their parents or spouses. Here is an exception... the wives are their own squadron, bonding together and keeping strong. And that's the reality of war: people don't just die -- someone else has to feel that loss.

Into the heart of a movie battle like no other

[hall895 · 8/10 · 29 August 2005]

It is hard to stand out and be a unique war film. They've been making war films pretty much since the invention of film it seems. So you would think by now that it's all been done before, and for the most part it has. Yet We Were Soldiers manages to separate itself from the pack and give us a unique take on one particular battle in one particular war. Depicted here is the first major battle involving American troops in the Vietnam War. The fact that this battle takes place in what is known as the Valley of Death tells you all you need to know about what awaits the men who head into combat.

The central figure in the movie is Lt. Col Hal Moore, played by Mel Gibson. Moore, leading the 7th Cavalry, will train his men and lead them into whatever hell awaits them. The film begins back home as Moore assembles his new unit and begins to whip them into shape. Here we learn much about what makes Hal Moore tick and begin to see him for the true leader of men he is. These opening scenes are important as they show many of Moore's motivations and also the obstacles which are placed in his way. The time back home also allows us to see Moore the family man with his strong, stoic wife, played by Madeline Stowe, and their young children. We also meet other key characters. There is Moore's second-in-command, battle-tested Sgt. Maj. Plumley, played with wonderful gruffness and all the appropriate seriousness by Sam Elliott. There is helicopter pilot Bruce Crandall, played by Greg Kinnear, and young Lt. Jack Geoghegan, played, surprisingly well for someone who came to prominence in a silly farce like American Pie, by Chris Klein. But the key figure throughout is undeniably Moore and Gibson's strong, confident portrayal is a key to the movie's success.

While important in establishing the key characters and the emotional ties that bind them to each other and those whom they are leaving behind, the opening scenes back home have a feeling of just biding time about them. The film really takes off when the 7th Cavalry is dropped into the Valley of Death and confronts the overwhelming enemy force which awaits them. The rest of the film deals with this one epic, unrelenting battle. It sounds clichéd but the battle scenes are so well choreographed and photographed that you do truly feel as if you are there. The intensity of the conflict jumps off the screen. The focus is on the valor and heroism of the American soldiers but unlike so many war films which present a nameless, faceless enemy we also get to see things from the Vietnamese perspective. We see the enemy leaders detailing their strategy and also are presented with reminders that the Americans are not the only ones with loving, concerned families back home. We see the toll on both sides, not just for the soldiers but perhaps most poignantly in scenes inter-cut from home where soldiers' wives wait to learn the fates of the men they love.

We Were Soldiers is a brutally honest, unflinching look at the hell that is war. It is a story which begged to be told. Seeing as it is adapted from a book by two of the central figures in the conflict, Hal Moore and reporter Joe Galloway who found himself thrust into the middle of the conflict (and who is played wonderfully by Barry Pepper in the film) you can rest assured that unlike so many other war films this one would focus on "getting it right." The film tells it as it truly was. It is at times invigorating and inspiring and at other times truly heartbreaking. All in all it is a fitting tribute to, as the film states at the beginning, the men on both sides who died in that place.

Finally, somebody got it right about Vietnam!

[TOMASBBloodhound · 8/10 · 7 June 2003]

Over the years, the movie going public has been subjected to film after film after film about the Vietnam War. Unfortunately, most of them are largely philosophical and don't paint the American soldier in a very positive light. The film makers usually take a leftist position towards the government and try to use the conflict on the ground as some sort of metaphor for the existential purpose of life. Thus, we get subjected to films like Apocalypse Now, Platoon, and Casualties of War. Although those film makers are certainly free to show us these interpretations of Vietnam, it gets old seeing our military trashed and our brave soldiers painted as drugged up sadists who were fighting for an immoral cause.

From the beginning, you could tell We Were Soldiers is something different. It clearly shows the American soldier as what he/she usually is: Professional, brave, intelligent, and resourceful. There are no higher moral questions draped over this film. We simply see war as what it truly is. It is a conflict built up in the minds of our governments and carried out on the battlefield by our soldiers. Nothing more. Nothing less. Ultimately it is just about the man next to you and the men you're fighting against. We Were Soldiers focuses on this and this alone.

The Ia Drang battle scenes (which take up most of the screen time) are ferocious. Mel Gibson shines as Col. Moore. He is the ultimate personification of masculinity. He ignores repeated requests for him to leave the battlefield as his troops are cut off and outnumbered. He seems to take the loss of each man personally as each commander should do. The combat footage is very graphic. This is not a film for those with weak stomachs.

This film also gives us another thing other Vietnam War films are reluctant to even touch. It shows us behind the scenes footage of the North Vietnamese Army planning their assaults and evaluating American tactics. It's about time some movie showed the human side to the NVA. They are usually portrayed as heartless, soul-less savages. This is ridiculous. They were family men who took just as much pride in a job well done as our own troops.

We Were Soldiers is an experience you won't soon forget. It is the pinnacle of what a war film should be. Not much time wasted on politics or existential philosophy. It is simply a graphic a realistic portrayal of war. For the soldiers on the battlefield, it isn't a matter of politics or a question of should we be here or not. What it comes down to is this: you have to kill your enemy or he will kill you!

4 1/2 of 5 stars

So sayeth the Hound.

I've been waiting over 30 years for one

[chimoves · 23 March 2002]

Ever since 1970 when I finished my third tour of combat duty with the Marines in Viet Nam I have been waiting for a film that reflected the American Fighting Man in the Viet Nam war as an American Fighting Man; not a drugged-out, anti-war whiner. Well this is it. The movie is non-stop action after the first fifteen minutes of character development is finished. Having experienced what it is like to be over-run by the NVA during the third week of my first VN tour I can tell you that this movie does an excellent job of showing the excitement, tension, exhaustion, chaos, and courage of an extended battle. While this is by no means the best war movie I have ever seen, it is the first Viet Nam war movie which has provided me with a sense of satisfaction after leaving the theater. Mel Gibson turns in a good performance, Sam Elliot is a bit stiff. The wives of the soldiers are believable. Including a bit of the NVA's attitude about the war adds a balanced flavor to the film. Overall I would say that you will experience at least a small part the intensity of war if you go to this movie. I took my female companion and she was shocked, touched, and thrilled with it. As Americans, we need to remember that freedom is not, and never has been, free. It is always paid for with the blood of those who fight to get it, sustain it, or expand it. The politically correct may not like this film, but then who cares what they like. Thanks for making this film Mel. I've been waiting over 30 years to see it.

Portent of Things to Come

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 7 June 2003]

I wasn't expecting much from this film because many of the reviews I'd read at the time of its release argued that it, and the book it was based on, were retrograde. The US soldiers provide the heroes and the North Vietnamese the villains. But it wasn't nearly so simple as that.

Obviously it's been heavily influenced by "Saving Private Ryan", at least in one respect. It's even gorier than SPR. If a phosphorous grenade explodes, we see the Grunt with the flaming stuff stuck to his skin and clothing, burning holes into him, and we see a buddy cutting away the burning flesh of his cheek with a knife. When a Grunt is caught in a friendly-napalm blast he really burns and afterward his charred flesh is blackened, so that when a buddy tries to take his legs and pull him towards a Medivac the flesh of both legs from the knees down peels off into his buddy's hands. And of course there is squib charge upon squib charge exploding in slow motion, an unfortunate cliché by now.

One wonders just in passing how far this trend towards realistic gore can go -- and what the purpose behind the trip is. Well, it can't go much farther than it has. It seems just a short time ago that "M*A*S*H" had one shocking scene in it -- a wounded soldier in a hospital whose arterial blood pumped out of his body towards the surgeon. Actually it was more than thirty years ago. But our cinematic carnage has progressed by leaps and bounds. "M*A*S*H" was an early milestone. So was "Bonny and Clyde," which introduced slow-motion death to American movies. "Saving Private Ryan" was a shocking blood bath. Now we have "Blackhawk Down", with a still-living soldier whose lower half has been blown away. And now there's "We Were Soldiers."

As for WHY there has been such an increase of realism in violence, well, that's a different question whose answer can only be guessed at. Many cinematic movements like this one seem to follow a trajectory in which each film must out-do the previous examples of the genre. If gore is good box office, then more gore is even better box office. There may be a sincere desire on the part of the producers to show combat as it really is, but like all motives this one may be mixed, with some commercial interests thrown into the stew. And the motives of the audiences who turn these films into marketable products? It would be nice to think that they leave the theaters having learned something about the results of combat. But if that's the case, we don't seem to be showing much evidence of having grasped the lesson. In a sense, sensational gore cheapens and degrades the experience of the men and women who have lived through these extreme situations. So much suffering brings tears to the eyes, especially when we see the survivors visiting graves and monuments after the battle, as we do both here and in "Saving Private Ryan." And then, having wept, the audience leaves the theater and embraces the next war. The arousal jag is over. Good intentions, when viewed from a slightly different angle, have an uncanny way of resembling exploitation.

Okay. Enough philosophy. The movie is better than I'd expected it to be, the excess of gore and the slow-motion clichés aside. (I was also confused by the topography, although locations are clearly labelled. Where exactly is the creek bed?) There isn't much in the way of home-front scenes, but what there is neatly reflects the anxiety and pain of those left behind. The combat scenes are exhausting. A few hundred Americans opposed by some four thousand regulars of the North Vietnamese army. (About the same ratio of Americans to adversaries as General Custer faced, only he had no air support. Custer is brought up several times.)

But, most important, this is the first film I can remember seeing about the Vietnam war in which the enemy is presented as something other than outright evil. There is a good deal of irony in the movie. Mel Gibson prays before the battle. Take us under your wing, and so forth, he asks. Then throws in, "Ignore those pagans praying to a different God." Much later in the film, long enough for us to have forgotten Gibson's racist plea, the commander of the North Vietnamese army is also seen praying -- presumably to the same God. And one of the NV soldiers is humanized to the extent of keeping on his person a diary written to his wife. (The soldier wears glasses so we can tell him from the other North Vietnamese and remember him.) He dies heroically and when the Americans take the diary from his body and flip through it, they find a picture of his wife, a woman who bears an uncanny resemblance to Gibson's wife, played by Madeleine Stowe. We win the battle (Ia Drang) of course, but even this is undercut by irony. The NV commander looks at the piles of bodies after the Americans leave. He shakes his head and says, "What a tragedy." The worst part of it, he muses, is that the Americans will treat this as a victory and the war will go on to its necessary end, although now it will mean just that many more deaths.

Should you bother watching this? I think so. This one would have been a true original if it had appeared twenty years ago.

A Vietnam Veteran Contemplates WE WERE Soldiers

[gftbiloxi · 10/10 · 17 May 2005]

I live with a Vietnam Vet who served in the late 1960s with 1st Cav. Medivac. During service he earned two Purple Hearts, the Distinguished Flying Cross, and the Air Medal. Since WE WERE SOLDIERS concerns the 1st Cav., Randy wanted to see it. I reluctantly agreed; I am not partial to war films and I dislike Mel Gibson, and Randy is very hard on Vietnam War films. He dismisses PLATOON as a Hollywood 8x10 glossy; says APOCALYPSE NOW is an interesting movie that captures the paranoia, but all the technical details are wrong; and describes DEER HUNTER as excellent in its depiction of the strangeness of coming home but so full of plot holes that he can hardly endure it. And about one and all he says: "It wasn't like that."

He was silent through the film, and when we left the theatre I asked what he thought. He said, "They finally got it. That's what it was like. All the details are right. The actors were just like the men I knew. They looked like that and they talked like that. And the army wives too, they really were like that, at least every one I ever knew." The he was silent for a long time. At last he said, "You remember the scene where the guy tries to pick up a burn victim by the legs and all the skin slides off? Something like that happened to me once. It was at a helicopter crash. I went to pick him up and all the skin just slid right off. It looked just like that, too. I've never told any one about it." In most respects WE WERE SOLDIERS is a war movie plain and simple. There are several moments when the film relates the war to the politics and social movements that swirled about it, and the near destruction of the 1st. Cav.'s 7th Battalion at Ia Drang clearly arises from the top brass' foolish decision to send the 7th into an obvious ambush--but the film is not so much interested in what was going on at home or at the army's top as it is in what was actually occurring on the ground. And in this it is extremely meticulous, detailed, and often horrifically successful. Neither Randy nor I--nor any one in the theatre I could see--was bored by or dismissive of the film. It grabs you and it grabs you hard, and I can easily say that it is one of the finest war movies I have ever seen, far superior to the likes of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, which seems quite tame in comparison.

Perhaps the single most impressive thing about the film is that it never casts its characters in a heroic light; they are simply soldiers who have been sent to do a job, and they do it knowing the risks, and they do it well in spite of the odds. Mel Gibson, although I generally despise him as both an actor and a human being, is very, very good as commanding officer Hal Moore, and he is equaled by Sam Elliot, Greg Kinnear, Chris Klein, and every other actor on the battlefield. The supporting female cast, seen early in the film and in shorter scenes showing the home front as the battle rages, is also particularly fine, with Julie Moore able to convey in glance what most actresses could not communicate in five pages of dialogue. The script, direction, cinematography, and special effects are sharp, fast, and possess a "you are there" quality that is very powerful.

I myself had a criticism; there were points in the film when I found the use of a very modernistic, new-agey piece of music to be intrusive and out of place. And we both felt that a scene near the end of the movie, when a Vietnamese commander comments on the battle, to be improbable and faintly absurd. But these are nit-picky quibbles. WE WERE SOLDIERS is a damn fine movie. I'll give Randy, who served two tours of duty in Vietnam, the last word: "It may not be 'the' Vietnam movie. I don't think there could ever be 'the' Vietnam movie. But they pretty much get everything right. That's how it looked and sounded, and that's what I saw, and this is the best movie about Vietnam I've ever seen." Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

We Were Soldiers is uneven but a moving tribute to Vietnam Warriors

[writerasfilmcritic · 7/10 · 7 August 2005]

This movie unfolds slowly, beginning with a somewhat corny attempt to build a picture of the soldiers at home. Mel Gibson seems to be a likable sort, although he is a bit much as the gung-ho, Bible-thumping colonel in the Air Cavalry. His wife at first seems rather unsympathetic. In fact, she looks as if she were stung in the upper lip by a bee. Her performance, and that of the other officer's wives, comes off as rather stilted. Once orders come through and Gibson's regiment are deployed to Vietnam, things pick up considerably. A wave of helicopters takes the first sixty men to a hot landing zone in the Central Highlands. The photography is impressive and the action ratchets up very quickly. Right after landing, some dope decides to chase an enemy scout up a hill into the jungle, leading his squad after him. This foolhardy act comes off as a bit absurd, but the results form an important part of the story. The small group of soldiers are cut off from the rest of the regiment, and for the next day and night, they are under continual attack from an enemy determined to annihilate them. The surviving NCO displays a coolness under fire that saves the lives of at least some of his fellows. Down with the main body of the regiment, which has been steadily reinforced, the colonel and his tough-as-nails sergeant have their hands full fending off wave after wave of enemy combatants. While some might contend that the movie is a bit over the top here and there, it does a good job of depicting the confusion, excitement, and fear of a pitched battle. Many of the scenes are gruesome and seemingly realistic, with the minor criticism that support of US troops from artillery and from the air seems a bit too instantaneous and precise. At one point, the NVA and Viet Cong are overwhelming the surrounded and outnumbered Americans and yet are cut to pieces by machine gun fire and napalm from the air. At the same time, however, some of the Americans are killed or seriously wounded from friendly fire simply because the targeted enemy is right on top of them. The guy who plays the determined North Vietnamese commander does an effective job, sending so many of his troops to their deaths in trying at all costs to defeat the Americans in their first major battle and win an important psychological victory. It might be said that "We Were Soldiers" attempts to honor the enemy nearly as much as it does our own forces. They certainly died in much greater numbers than we did and this skirmish was no exception. Regardless of the outcome of the war, any vet who survived a struggle of this intensity should hold his head high, while those who died deserve every honor accorded them.

An eery dirge punctuates the action at certain key moments in the battle, and after it is over, the field littered with corpses, the colonel (it is said) finishes his tour of duty and finally returns home to be reunited with his family, one of the lucky ones who came home physically and mentally intact. When he rings the door bell and his wife, fearing the worst, sends the kids to bed and opens the door, it is a very emotional moment. The credits then begin to roll to a moving anthem. So, although the movie takes too much time to get rolling, it has a strong patriotic finish and seems to be a fairly accurate, if somewhat propagandized depiction of battle in the Vietnam era. On balance, it is a good, stirring war movie much more like those about WWII than the usual cynical offering about Vietnam. Worth watching more than once.

Powerful and moving, not a film for everyone however

[Mike-575 · 10/10 · 24 February 2002]

I was privileged to see a preview of Mel Gibson's new film "We Were Soldiers" based upon the book written by his real life character, Lt. Col. Harold Moore, along with Joe Galloway. I attended a showing along with numerous other Viet Nam vets and it would seem that there were as many opinions about the movie as there were viewers. Like the war itself, each person in attendance probably had some personal experiences that the movie brought back from that deep, and sometimes distant, place we have put them.

The movie was almost overwhelmingly graphical, but afterwards I realized this was instrumental in the telling of the story. For the movie is truly about the leadership that Col. Moore brought to his men of the 1st of the 7th, and his determination that they would not suffer the fate of the French in Viet Nam, nor his own unit's most infamous battle, that of Custer's Stand at Little Big Horn.

It was his determination and commitment that his men be as highly trained, as strongly molded as a unit, and most importantly as well lead as possible that stands out. This determination is obviously rooted in his deeply abiding belief that military leaders shall never forget that when they lead men into war, many of those men will never come back alive, but that those who lead shall never abandon them, even in their shared darkest hours.

And while the movie highly succeeds in conveying the horror and tragedy that war is....has been...and always shall be, it was more difficult for me to realize that our War Department and Army could have been so callous as to have delegated the responsibility of notifying next-of-kin of the death of their loved ones to the local Yellow Cab company. Then I realized that in late 1965 it was all so new and no one knew that this war was going to grow and consume so many young American lives over the next nine years.

The two most significant scenes in the movie for me were firstly, the scene when the course of the battle teeters on the brink of either disaster or success and the most important communication that Col. Moore's superiors have to convey is that General Westmoreland would like for him to leave the battlefield and fly to Saigon so the general can have a briefing. This more than anything pointed out how tragically we were doomed to failure in Viet Nam due to the political will, not the military will, being in control. The second most significant scene was in the airport where one soldier is pushing his buddy through the concourse and the voice over says..."They did not fight for God.....country.....right. They fought for each other", a fact that every Viet Nam vet would attest to.

This a movie worth seeing. It is another testament, with a worthy cinematographic effort, to the futility and absurdity of war, and how that among madness can be greatness. It is a movie that will unlikely leave the viewer devoid of emotion. What those emotions may be are as likely to be as highly personal, as the strength of their feeling.

Great Movie

[[e-mail] · 7/10 · 6 September 2002]

I found this movie to be very good. I had refused to see it in the theater because I figured that it would just be another bad war movie. I was wrong. Mel Gibson delivers a powerful performance. I especially enjoy how his frankness, and compassion feel believable for the character he protrays.

Also this movie is different in how it depicts the enemy. They aren't shown as overly inferior, or ruthless. I don't like how many movies show the Vietnamese as a bunch of blood thirsty animals. The enemies leader is shown as being high intelligent, and if anything overly confident.

Yes, this movie is bloody, but it is impossible to depict the harsh realities of war without violence. I think that everything is shown in a manner that does not take honor away from the soldiers.

"They Finally Got it Right!"

[bsmith5552 · 9/10 · 22 August 2002]

"We Were Soldiers" is based on a real life battle of the Viet Nam war that took place in 1965 in a remote part of Viet Nam. It is based on a book by Harold G. Moore and Joseph L. Galloway who are portrayed in the film by Mel Gibson and Barry Pepper respectively.

The film opens with a depiction of the 1954 slaughter of French troops by the Vietnamese army. Twenty one years later Lt. Col Moore (Gibson) and his battalion of 395 men are thrust unknowingly into the same hornet's nest consisting of some 4,000 battle hardened Viet Nam regulars who have been fighting their enemies for many years.

Director Randall Wallace tells the story from three perspectives. Firstly from the viewpoint of the Americans. Outnumbered ten to one they face impossible odds. How Col. Moore rallies his troops and gets them to pull together as a team is a central theme of the picture. Secondly, the story is told from the viewpoint of the wives and families left behind and the problems they have to deal with. Lastly, the Vietnamese army is shown not as unfeeling monsters, but as a professional army defending their beliefs and territory.

The battle scenes are as realistic and convincing as any war movie that you will ever see. We suffer through the casualties both on the battlefield and at home along with the participants. The special effects are seamless and exciting.

Mel Gibson gives a convincing performance as Moore and if you watch the DVD, you can see the amazing similarities between the two men. Madeleine Stowe plays Julie Moore and Keri Russell plays Barbara Geoghegan two of the wives who take on the unenviable task of delivering those dreaded telegrams to the widows from the War Department. Chris Klein plays Russell's husband Jack a new officer and father. His scene with Gibson in the base chapel is memorable. Greg Kinnear plays Captain Crandall the head of Moore's helicopter fleet. Don Duong is very effective as the Vietnamese commander. But acting cudos go to veteran Sam Elliot as the crusty Sgt. Major Plumley.

"We Were Soldiers" is a gripping Viet Nam war drama told in a way that reflects ALL of the participants in an impartially realistic way. As Hank Moore says on the DVD, They finally got it right.

Great battle scenes but pretty weak in many other areas

[grantss · 6/10 · 1 May 2016]

Great battle scenes but pretty weak in many other areas.

A telling of the 1st Battalion, 7 Cavalry Regiment, 1st Calvary Division's battle against overwhelming odds in the La Drang valley of Vietnam in 1965. Seen through the eyes of the battalion's commander, Lt. Col. Hal Moore (played by Mel Gibson), we see him take command of the battalion and its preparations to go into Vietnam. We also see how the French had, years earlier, been defeated in the same area. The battle was to be the first major engagement between US and NVA forces in Vietnam and showed the use of helicopters as mobility providers and assault support aircraft.

Very gritty battle scenes. Captures well the chaos and confusion of battle, plus the desperation and terror involved when things aren't going well. Mostly accurate, by most accounts, though some minor liberties are taken for dramatic effect.

The problem, however, lies with just about everything else. Dialogue is quite over-the-top, as if just about everybody is played by John Wayne. Many simple passages of dialogue are turned into speeches, and cliché-filled speeches at that.

In keeping with the cheesy dialogue, some pretty heavy-handed, overly gung ho scenes too. Once again, reminded me of a John Wayne movie.

Overall, quite entertaining, just uneven because of the mix of gritty battle scenes and cheesy dialogue and other scenes.

Among the best war films in recent memory

[FlickJunkie-2 · 10/10 · 23 September 2002]

`Saving Private Ryan' redefined the war genre and opened the floodgates to a new generation of war movies. It pushed the boundaries of acceptability by frankly showing war in all its grisly glory. As such it gave us a better understanding of how terrible and frightening war is. `Black Hawk Down' took the graphic violence to a new level, with an intensity that matched the beach landing of SPR, but of a duration that was almost unbearable.

`We Were Soldiers' is the latest big budget war offering from Hollywood. In many ways, I consider this to be the most complete of the three. Writer/Director Randall Wallace (who wrote "Braveheart", "Pearl Harbor" and the screenplay for this film), takes the understanding of war to the next level, by offering more than one perspective to the events. Of the three films, this film has the best workup, the best character development, and the most nuanced look at the battle. He brings all the sustained intensity of BHD in the action sequences, but introduces the NVA perspective, the wives' perspective and a far more charismatic and heroic central figure in Lt. Col. Hal Moore.

Based on real events, this film shows war as being horrendous and heartless to both sides. It expands outside the combat zone to visit the ramifications on the families as well. The scenes with the wives getting the telegrams are poignant reminders of how war reaches beyond the battlefield. Wallace's treatment grabs us on an emotional level and shocks the senses. Unlike BHD, which presented the characters in a very anonymous way, we come to know these characters and their families and identify with them.

Of course, the film lacks the hard edge that would make it starkly believable. It is after all a Hollywood production and not a documentary. However, Wallace pours enough realism into the depictions to assure that this doesn't turn into another sappy melodrama like `Pearl Harbor', which was really nothing more than a romance with a long battle scene in the middle. Wallace finds the optimal balance between engaging storytelling and the brutality of combat.

The acting is excellent. Mel Gibson offers the right combination of hard nosed officer and father figure (both to his children and his men). Gibson is steadfast and courageous without being harsh. His portrayal of Moore is so well played, so charismatic and heroic, that it is impossible to believe that such a person could actually exist.

Sam Elliot follows an outstanding performance in `The Contender' with this gem as Sergeant Major Plumley, the tough as nails warhorse who serves as Moore's non commissioned adjutant. Elliot plays the intransigent career soldier to the hilt, where nothing including life itself is more important than honor and discipline. Barry Pepper also turns in a fine performance as Joe Galloway, the photo journalist who hops on a helicopter to take pictures in the center of the battle and finds himself with a rifle in his hands fighting for his life.

This is among the best war films in recent memory and probably the best film on the Vietnam War film since `Full Metal Jacket'. I rated it a 10/10. This film is not for everyone. It contains graphic violence and disturbingly realistic battle scenes. It is a gripping and distressing film that should be required viewing for statesmen and generals alike.

Choppering into the Little Big Horn

[pc_dean · 7/10 · 3 May 2002]

If LtCol Harold Moore did not actually exist, it would be necessary for Hollywood to invent him. A tough-talking, straightforward leader of men, equal parts swagger and heart, he loves his troops like his own children, refuses to leave the combat zone while his boys are in the sharp end, and sheds tears for the fallen in between barking orders into a radio handset and shooting charging enemies through the head. The crazy thing about Moore, and about "We Were Soldiers" in general, is not how much is Hollywood hokum, but how much seems to be but isn't. Moore is a real person and he was by all accounts (including, but not limited to, his own) a tough soldier, a shrewd commander, and the kind of crazy SOB who would be the first to go in and the last to leave.

"We Were Soldiers" is the story of Moore and his 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry (Custer's old unit) in the Ia Drang valley, the first major confrontation between American and Vietnamese troops. This alternately brilliant and exasperating movie is based on a book by Moore and UPI reporter Joe Galloway, with the cumbersome but oddly poetic title "We Were Soldiers Once...and Young". It begins with Moore's assignment to the Army's first dedicated air cavalry unit, which is among the first US combat troops sent to Vietnam. What starts as a mission to destroy an enemy force that attacked an American base becomes a brutal siege as the Cav are surrounded and trapped, 395 men pitted against nearly two thousand of the enemy.

Moore is played by Mel Gibson, who adeptly portrays both the paternal kindness of a decent man and the manic glint so common in good infantry officers. Unfortunately, the movie focuses so much on him that it loses some of its big-picture scope. After a while it begins to seem that Gibson is everywhere; no firefight can commence unless he fires the opening volley, no act of valor passes without a shot of Gibson's eyes welling up with pained pride at the sacrifice of his soldiers. A little of this is good, too much of it is bad. Moore probably was larger than life, but Gibson's Moore almost threatens to be larger than the movie.

The supporting cast is led by Sam Elliott, whose Sergeant Major Plumley is destined to take his place among the greatest flinty NCO portrayals in film history. Barry Pepper plays Galloway, and delivers the movie's intro and epilogue, though he doesn't appear until late in the movie. The movie parallels the story of the battle with that of the officers' wives, led by Madeleine Stowe as Julie Moore. The wives' story is given some short shrift (and some very clumsy scenes), though it is in parts so wrenching it is almost a relief to return to the war zone.

One memorable passage in Moore's book likens the sound of a bullet hitting flesh to that of a canoe paddle slapping wet mud, an image that is at once comical and horrifying. We have come to expect graphic carnage from our war movies these days. However, instead of the rapid-fire speed-lapse photography seen in "Saving Private Ryan's" unforgettable Normandy sequence, writer/director Randall Wallace offers more straightforward depictions of the businesslike horrors of close combat: he doesn't use a lot of camera tricks to communicate the concept of chaotic violence, he just fills the screen with chaotic violence and lets us watch it in its unflinching fury. And call me an air-show junkie, but he has some beautiful sequences of Hueys diving over hilltops, flying in through smoke, etc.

Most latter-day war movies give a nod to the enemy, making him human, not a faceless monster. For all this movie's flag-waving sentimentality, it's actually better in this regard than most. The Vietnamese are not fearless stoics; we see a young NVA infantryman panting and wide-eyed with fear as he charges the equally afraid Americans (something even anti-American screeds like "Platoon" never showed). It's also instructive to watch Moore and his opposite number (Don Duong) moving among their troops doing similar things: offering encouragement, making stirring speeches, and plotting the demise of the other.

This is a battle picture, a movie that exhaustively analyzes a single big-picture event in a war. While movies of this type have been made for years, this is one of the very few to come out of Vietnam. The pantheon of great (and not-so-great) Vietnam movies all have one thing in common: they portray specific events that did not, strictly speaking, actually take place. Those movies are more about Vietnam as a general phenomenon than about anything that quantifiably happened there. In this way, "We Were Soldiers" represents something quite daring: Wallace has made an early-40s WWII movie about the Vietnam War.

And that's part of the problem: the movie has far too many places where it goes for overblown sentiment and emotional manipulation, often hokey to the point of embarrassment. The fact that many of the cliches are true and many of the corny Hollywood moments are based in fact does not excuse slathering them in high melodrama. This is doubly a shame because these scenes overshadow some stunning moments that work better for being small: none of the shots of Moore's eyes misting at the loss of his men can match the power of a scene that shows him standing by himself, his back to the camera as his shoulders shake with his unseen sobs. This is a good movie, but it misses its chance to be a great movie because it doesn't trust us in the folding seats to adequately grasp the point.

When "We Were Soldiers" goes wrong, it makes you want to roll your eyes. But when it gets it right, it cuts straight through to you with a sound like a canoe paddle slapping wet mud.

The worst war movie of all time

[AntiSpielbergForce · 1/10 · 7 February 2007]

I don't know where to begin my defilement of this work, because it's really rotten to the core. One word best sums it up, and that is CONTRIVED. Every single scene is fabricated to be sentimental propaganda in step with current trends and political correctness. Even Spielberg couldn't reach these heights of not-so-subliminal American gung-ho, all supported by a vulgar soundtrack that tells you exactly what to feel and when to feel it.

Also, I hear this movie is based on a book. I can't for my life believe that the book is as boastful and self-indulgent as this nonsense. Mel Gibson's character is nothing short of Jesus himself - he's a wonderful father and husband, and a god-fearing Christian who only fights to keep his Family safe from the Twin Evils of Communism (which indeed is a pestilence, but that's beyond the obvious) and Heathendom. On the battlefield, he'll know no fear, will always be the first in line for a bullet, and will gladly sacrifice himself for his imperial comrades. And on and on. Every other soldier is also a family man and Protector of Democracy, Baseball, and Jockstraps. Well, all except Sam Elliott's character, who is supposed to be a Tom Highway/Sergeant Hartman clone, only humourless.

Let's just list some of the most deplorable scenes:

Gibson praying in church with a fellow officer, telling him that God is on their side. Gibson praying with his children, and cuddling with his wife. Gibson explaining to his daughter what a war is, and how they are the good guys (In God We Trust). Gibson's speech about brotherhood in his unit, and how he will sacrifice himself (this scene is really too laughable for words, it has to be seen to be believed). Gibson, after the war, saying that his only regret is that some of the men under his command died, and he did not.

The soldiers' wives are generously portrayed. They are in the movie for the sole purpose of receiving notes whenever their husbands have died. Again, to show that they have sacrificed themselves for their families. A tear spent is a dollar earned.

The scene when Gibson returns from the war, and his wife only sees a cab stopping outside, fearing it is a death note for her. Pathetically predictable and melodramatic.

And then we have the "laundromat" scene, which has probably the most forced PC dialogue I've ever seen. Are we supposed to believe that an American woman in the '60s (and I believe in the South?) had not heard the term "Whites only" before?

As for the war scenes, have you ever noticed how German and Vietnamese soldiers always die instantly, but American soldiers always live on for 30 another seconds? Just enough for a violin piece, his comrades holding his hands as the lights in his eyes flicker and go out, and of course, a glorious parting line.

And the death scenes here are truly fabricated beyond ridicule. Everyone accepts death with a smile, and no fear whatsoever. One dying soldier says "I feel privileged to die for my country", TWO say "Tell my wife I love her", one is dramatically shot dead just as he heroically lifts his wounded comrade onto a helicopter, and yet another has his newborn's name flaunting about - just so we are reminded that he's one of the good guys, and that we should be extra sad when he dies, because he "died to protect them" (another unwritten rule of Hollywood war movies is that whenever someone shows a picture, letter, or something to that effect, of a loved one - he will die).

And propaganda aside, even strictly as a war movie, it falls flat. The movie knows full well that it is dishonest and preys on sentimentality, that is has no plot to speak of, that is has only the most rudimentary strategical and tactical elaborations, and that it is completely devoid of characterization (let alone character development!). So it goes for the graphic and macabre instead - faces burning with napalm, etc. This is what can be expected, because the movie was obviously made for the very easily impressed, the drooling mass that WANTS to be told what to feel and think, because it's easier than doing it themselves.

Pathetic.

Seeing the enemy and home in a different light

[KristinMarie419 · 10 March 2004]

This film is so different from the traditionally cynical (and rightly so) Vietnam War movies. While it goes without question that this film depicts the bloody and gruesome horrors of the tragedy of the first major conflict of the war, it does so while juxtaposing the story with that of stories of the home front and the enemy. The enemy in this film is not the animalistic, silent enemy we are used to. We hear this enemy speak, we see his love for his family and his devotion to his cause. While being bombarded with images of death and destruction on the battlefield, we are brought back home to see the wives as they face the death themselves.

While of course not a flawless movie, it was without a doubt moving, and I highly recommend it.

Not bad but could have been a lot better.

[ColonelFaulkner · 6/10 · 28 June 2004]

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.

Took the Boys

[barbkopietz · 9/10 · 22 August 2002]

I took four teenage boys to see this movie. They said this is the

first movie about Vietnam that portrayed our soldiers as good men similar in age, with the same hopes and fears, and not a bunch of drug addicted babykillers. I wish they would show this movie to all brainwashed high school kids.

A good war movie

[lgilbertom · 7/10 · 2 January 2004]

This movie was one the best war movies that i saw recently. Has a solid plot don't show the Vietcongs something like a demon but just people that fight for their believes just like the Americans. We were Soldiers has also a great supporting cast and good performances of Mel Gibson and Sam Elliot. All right, always that i saw Elliot i think "yes sergeant", this man looks like a sergeant. This is a good movie but has some flaws so i give 7/10.

Behind even a forgotten war lies the memory of the fallen...

[HeatherBreezeMD · 10/10 · 5 November 2003]

Behind even a forgotten war lies the memory of the fallen...This movie is definitely among the top 10 films ever made. It places the viewer right in the middle of the Vietnam War, grabs their emotions and sets them free. This movie commemorates the memories and makes heroes of each and every husband, brother, and son involved in a forgotten war- a war that was dismissed and frowned upon by the American nation as a whole. The film also takes the viewer into the home of the soldier. It invades the private life of the loved ones at home. We feel as though we are a part of the family in one scene, and the buddy of a fallen soldier in the next. A wife, child, friend of a soldier gone to war to fight for an ungrateful nation one minute, and the next the brave and loyal soldier. This moving and true story will take its viewer and bestow upon them a closer understanding, and a greater respect and gratefulness for our nation's true heroes.

Anti-Vietnam or anti-war?

[striker-8 · 7/10 · 23 September 2005]

We, average movie lovers, are a little tired of Vietnam movies. Hollywood mass-produces them and indifferent films with different casts parade on the theaters.

But the thing we are really tired of is Anti-Vietnam movies, with the message "We Shouldn't Be Here" written all over them. I don't argue that America should battle there, but the message has become boring after watching it over and over again. "Platoon" brings together everything I hate about Vietnam movies so it's the worst example for me, with "Born on the 4th of July" close behind it.

But I know that Kubrick and De Palma used the same setting to produce masterpieces "Full Metal Jacket" and "Casualties of War".

"We were soldiers" does not excel like the two I mentioned above, but is definitely a good movie despite those negative criticism it got from the critics. First of all it is an anti-war movie, not anti-Vietnam. It has a humanitarian attitude. "Thin Red Line" has the same attitude but so much that it was a distraction. Randall Wallace, gives a good mixture of combat and humanity.

Mel Gibson is his usual self and does not disappoint. Gregg Kinnear delivers a decent performance as "Snake" and it was an interesting change to watch Sam Elliott without his legendary mustache.

Violence and bloody scenes can disturb the ones with a weak stomach, but if you like a decent war movie, forget the critics and watch "We were Soldiers"

A Very real story

[medrjel · 9/10 · 2 January 2003]

This has to be the most real war story I have seen... ever. I found Black Hawk Down laughable, Windtalkers sad, but this... wow.

This is an excellent film that tells the true tale from the biography of Lt. Col. Hal Morris. It shows the horrors that the families go through, as well as the men. It even shows how the "enemy" are people too.

I would like to make a personal editorial here, since I feel a great wrong has been posted about this movie by some people here... To all the people calling this flag waving propaganda, you obviously didn't watch the movie, hence I feel your votes should be removed for this film. If anything, it showed the horrors of war, how our men suffered for what was believed to be a noble mission, and how in spite of terrible odds they overcame, and the promise that "No one will be left behind" was kept. I know people who were there. They ended up having nightmares because it hit so close to home. This was REAL. If it were propaganda, everyone would get home and we would all be happy. You want to talk Propaganda, watch almost any John Wayne movie, or even Patton. This was not. Men died. Good Men. Family men - on both sides. Yes, the only way we survived that battle was superior technology, but it was the only reason. They were dropped into an ambush, yet they survived. Lt. Col. Morris didn't come back proud of what he did, he was just happy the mission was accomplished and they survived. Yet, he was hurt badly by every wasted life. Propaganda? You totally missed the point! Is propaganda showing how we killed our own men because of our mistakes? Lies? Tell me, were you there? I didn't think so. Unless you were there, stop with the misinformation. Your the ones spreading propaganda and lies, not the film! If you want to get picky, then I will cover one more thing. Was there some fictionalizing? Of course! they had to squeeze in over 40 characters into a few leads! Lots of stuff had to be cut, so things were glossed over and cut. I'm not saying it's perfect in character detail, but the overall story was left in tact. This was not a Hollywood story even with the changes. The plot did not deceive. That battle was as real as a recreation could be. Even Lt. Col. Hal Morris, who is retired and was there, says so. Even my ex-boss and a couple other friends, who were either at that battle or at Nam, said so. If anyone has a right to point out lies, it's our ignored and abused Nam veterans.

My apologies to everyone else for that rant.

Has all the standard clichés in it but still is a movie worth watching.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 16 December 2005]

"We Were Soldiers" is a nicely made movie but isn't exactly memorable, original or impressive enough to leave a lasting impression.

There are several problems I had with this movie. Perhaps the biggest problem was that it wasn't easy to follow. It was hard to tell who was where at the moment fighting. Basically all we ever get to see are the Americans and the NVA shooting at each other through bushes and running towards each other. The movie lacks a sense of scale and because of that the movie also doesn't ever really become realistic. It's interesting that they also show the NVA side of the battle, something that's a very rare thing in a Vietnam-war movie but it's all done in a very shallow and formulaic way.

Which brings me to another problem I had with this movie. It's all too formulaic and not original enough. The characters are build up in a sappy way and they lack substance and aren't likable or interesting enough. And having dying soldiers saying 'tell my wife I love her' has got to be one of the biggest movie clichés in movie history. There were really some scene's that made me cringe such as the scene in which a dying soldier says 'I'm glad I could die for my country'. I know it is wrong but I actually laughed and I mean really laughed during that scene. It was so embarrassing and totally unrealistic to look at. It took away all of the emotions and sense of desperateness and danger. It was a very over-dramatized and because of that also not a believable enough movie, to follow. They over-dramatized it even more to add the wives of the soldiers to the storyline. For me those sequences didn't worked and were only distracting and felt unnecessary.

The movie is good looking and the battle sequences are nicely set up but it never becomes really tense or spectacular. Because of that "We Were Soldiers" is a good looking movie that is worth watching just maybe once but at the same time is also very forgettable movie that lacks real substance.

The excellent musical score by Nick Glennie-Smith is wonderful though and is to be honest the only reason why I ever wanted to see this movie.

There are better and more realistic Vietnam war movies to watch out there instead. Randall Wallace has created a sappy, over-the-top dramatic movie that doesn't make an awfully large impression.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

John Wayne wishes he made this movie

[grafspee2 · 9/10 · 10 November 2003]

In the tradition of such war film classics as The Bridges at Toko Ri, To Hell and Back well as John Wayne's The Green Berets is this seemingly out of place epic with the amount of cynical pestilence abound.

The pace is lightning fast once the scenes transfer into the early period of the Vietnam war before the public grew impatient. The score of the film is often overlooked but in this case it provides plenty of emotion especially as the 7th Regiment assembles for the trip to South Vietnam beneath the radio towers late at night.

Of a forgotten battle with unknown heroes for both forces this is a great war movie that should be a lesson for future productions.

It is probably the best war-movie I have seen.

[marius_nicolescu · 7/10 · 24 September 2002]

A film about the Vietnam war, and more about the people who have fought there. A great script for the movie, ust a little dumb in some scenes, which can be stepped over, but, a good movie after all. I really enjoyed spending the 2 hours and a quarter in the theatre to see this great film. Mel Gibson really does his job very well, and I advise you to see the movie as soon as you can. It is probably the best war-movie I have seen.

We Were Embarrassing

[zeke_monterey · 1/10 · 15 November 2002]

I had very low expectations when I rented this movie and why shouldn't I? This is the same guy who directed Man in the Iron Mask (also wrote it as well) and gave us historical monstrosities like Pearl Harbor and Braveheart.

We Were Soldiers is a sorry film filled to the brim with cliches and inept directing. None of the characters we feel empathy or pity for (thanks to some horrible dialogue and poor acting) and their utter reliance on the fact they are supposed to be based on real characters makes it look cheap. They could have done a lot better. One of the most annoying habits in the movie has to be Wallace's handling of "dramatic" scenes. Why for the love of Mike, he loves to extrude so much cheese from them is beyond me.

"Daddy, what's a war?"

I mean, come on! Can they do better than this? Of course they can. If you want a good Vietnam war movie for the hard trials of American men in a battle, you go see Hamburger Hill. If you want a good Vietnam war movie for the tactics, you go see Siege of Firebase Gloria. If you want a good Vietnam war movie period, you go see Platoon. If you want a Vietnam war movie to roll your eyes from, see this.

I highly do not recommend this.

3/10