We Were Soldiers [Blu-ray] Reviews

• A 1st Cav. Vietnam Vet Comments on "We Were Soldiers"

  
  By ACIBQ6BQ6AWEV on 2002-03-09
  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.

  Randy did have a criticism. "I don't think there would be time for casualty telegrams to actually get home while the battle was going on," he said. "After all, it only lasted three days." 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 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."
  
  

• Perhaps the most realistic modern battle scenes on film

  
  By A212MDP6K4VJS5 on 2002-06-22
  This is war and it truly is hell. Outnumbered on the field and backed by the politically driven Defense Department of the time, one battalion finds itself outnumbered and fighting for its life in the jungles of Vietnam.
  
  A recent reviewer here mistook what this movie was about. It is NOT about America's war in Vietnam and all the ideology behind it. Its about a battle that occurred in the early years of that war between a new type of specialized fighting unit and a very determined enemy. America wanted to engage the enemy for the first time and this is the battle. The only politics involved here is the decision not to declare a National Emergency thus allowing the Army's most experienced soldiers to leave at the end of their enlistments, when ironically they were most needed. This movie is about a battalion commander training his unit, getting orders and shipping off to war. It also gives an excellent look at what the wives had to endure during that terrible time.
  
  If one wants to look at the politics of this war, check out HBO's Path to War. Path to War shows the speech were LBJ sends this unit, the Air Cav, to Vietnam and the political reasoning behind it. It goes through LBJ's escalation and McNamera's change of heart on the winnablity of the war. Highly recommend it.
  
  Anyway, in realism this ranks up there with Saving Private Ryan. By reading the book you get a much better grasp of what happened as well as the story not told of what happened at LZ Albany. That encounter was even a worse then what happened at LZ X-Ray.
  
  All told this movie gives the feel of how horrible, horrowing and confusing first-hand combat can be. One decision can lead to winning the day, or as the movie shows, getting yourself cut off and most of your men killed. As for accuracy to what occurred, a group of soldiers that were there appeared on The History Channel's "Hollywood vs History" program and they concurred that it was 75-80% factual. 20 - 25% Hollywood. That's probably a good ratio indeed. Oh, and the little American Flag at the end was real, not Hollywood. And Sam Elliot deserves an Academy Award for his portrait of American Hero Sgt. Major Basil Plumley.
  
  

• Who Can Explain Such Things?

  
  By A1J2931UBBJPXM on 2002-03-13
  The title of the memoir that inspired this film, "We Were Soldiers Once...And Young," written by Lt. General Harold G. Moore and Joseph L. Galloway, says much about what this film ultimately conveys, as in a few words it addresses the state of being of the individuals, as well as the country, which so soon would be embroiled in one of the most controversial wars in the history of America. "We Were Soldiers," adapted for the screen and directed by Randall Wallace, is an uncompromising look at war and the commitment of those who wage it. It's a true story told realistically, and moreover, in terms that are humanistic rather than political, which succeeds in making it a riveting drama that is both absorbing and emotionally involving.

  It's November, 1965; some 400 American troops-- the 7th Cavalry-- led by Colonel Hal Moore (Mel Gibson), take the field at LZ X-Ray in the Ia Drang Valley in Vietnam, where they are quickly surrounded by over 2000 North Vietnamese soldiers. The ensuing battle will last for three days, and it marks the first major confrontation between America and North Vietnam, a battle from which many, on both sides, will not walk away; and on hand to record it as it happens, is reporter Joe Galloway (Barry Pepper). Going in, Moore knows what they are up against, and he promises his men two things: That he will be the first to set foot on the field and the last to leave it; and he will bring every man back home with him, alive or dead-- no one will be left behind. And it's a promise he keeps.

  With this film, Wallace succeeds where two other, recent depictions of historic battles, "Pearl Harbor" and "Black Hawk Down"-- both good films in their own right-- failed; and it's because he managed to achieve just the right balance between the rendering of the battle itself and the human element involved. Of the two, "Pearl Harbor" is a close runner-up; the love story leading up to the battle was perhaps a bit extended, though ultimately engaging, whereas "Black Hawk Down" put the viewer in the battle, but was emotionally uninvolving. Here, Wallace not only gives you a battle that is brilliantly staged and presented, but before he takes you there he makes sure you know those who are about to die, and the loved ones they are leaving behind. War has many casualties, and they are not all on the battlefield; and beyond the realism of the fight, this is where Wallace makes his strongest statement, as during the three days of the battle he makes you privy to what the soldiers wives and families are going through at home, as well, waiting for the dreaded Western Union telegrams being delivered by cab drivers because the army wasn't prepared to deal with it.

  The film is effective because Wallace keeps the human element at the heart of the story while he presents a perspective to which the audience can relate on very personal terms. In short, he gives you the "whole story," that enables you to know the horror of the firefight, as well as the throat clenching terror of seeing a yellow cab drive up to the front of your house, knowing full well what it means. This is a prime example of filmmaking and storytelling at it's best; and it's a commendable achievement by Wallace.

  Gibson is perfectly cast and does an excellent job of bringing Hal Moore to life with a convincing portrayal of a man dedicated to both his family and his life as a soldier. Moore is focused and determined, and Gibson makes us realize that he knows the seriousness of what he is about to undertake, as well as the possible dire consequences thereof. The real strength of the character, however, is in the fact that he is not some kind of superhero out to win the war single-handedly, but a man who lives and loves and feels like anyone else, who bleeds when he is cut and hurts when he loses one of his men. A man who feels guilty that he is still living when his men die. And it's all captured in Gibson's strong and credible performance.

  Besides Gibson, there are a number of exceptional supporting performances in this film, most notably, Madeleine Stowe, as Julie Moore, Hal's wife; Sam Elliott, as the gruff and seasoned veteran, Sergeant Major Basil Plumley; Greg Kinnear, as Major Bruce Crandall, the helicopter pilot with a memorable nickname; Chris Klein, as Lieutenant Jack Geoghegan, a new father to whom Moore gives a perspective on the war that enables him to face the job he must do; Keri Russell, as Barbara Geoghegan, the young wife and new mother who must watch her husband go off to fulfill his destiny; and Pepper, turning in an extremely affecting performance as Joe Galloway.

  The supporting cast includes Ryan Hurst (Sergeant Savage), Mark McCracken (Ed "Too Tall" Freeman), Edwin Morrow (Willie), Jsu Garcia (Captain Nadal), Matt Mangum (Private Soprano), Brian Tee (Nakayama), Joseph Hieu (NVA Major), Don Duong (Ahn), Alan Dale (Westmoreland) and Simbi Khali (Alma). A film like this goes far in demonstrating the power and effectiveness of the medium that created it; it will never, however, enable us to understand war, because war-- in all it's myriad manifestations-- is beyond human comprehension. But it has always been with us and always will be, and a film that is well made and presented, a film like "We Were Soldiers," is important because it lends a needed perspective that allows us to take a step back and consider the magnitude of our endeavors in these regards, and the price we must pay for freedom. It leaves one with a sense of pride and patriotism, but tempered with a sobering concern for seeking altruistic alternatives. It may be only a dream; but hopefully, it's one that someday all the people of the world will share.
  
  

• Saw the Movie Last Night

  
  By A2RLK3QSYXXXW9 on 2002-02-13
  I was priveledged enough to view the movie at a premeire at West Point last night. It was awesome, and it was so moving because most of the real people were in attendance as well as many of the stars to include Mel. While there is comic relief used well at times, the movie will keep all on the edge of their seats. I am glad to know that these men's story will finally be told to America. As a future officer in the United States Army, I am proud to be following in the footsteps of these heroes.
  
  

• Been there & Done That

  
  By A1L6WF8B8VIJZ6 on 2002-08-04
  Envision, if you will, a landing zone about the size of a football field. Think of Grass & Brush so thick when you go prone your world becomes the 12 inches you can see. This is the real thing!!

  Lived and served with the survivors of this and the related battles at Ira Drang. Col Moore is the "Man" and the 'Troopers" All American.

  Missed comments and inclusion of "Hard Core" Hero Rick Rescola who ended up with the Bugle and saved lives at Ira Drang and in New York on 9-11-01.

  Hollywood note: "Bullets when they hit go in with little if any marks but coming out leave horrible wounds. When you see the film and the erupting impact of bullets just realize they may not be hitting from the front and you will feel accruacy in the film.

  If you haven't seen this film, get the book, Read the book and taste the truth, then watch the film knowing it is as true as Hollywood can make it yet does not tell it all.

  Garry Owen!!
  
  

• "I will not leave the battle. I will not leave my men."
  By A3SMT15X2QVUR8 on 2002-11-16
  The power of good acting is real characters, and this film is reality. The expressions of excited young men going off to war, is stunningly altered into those bearing great shock, sorrow, and death. The women they left at home portray the qualities of 1965 ladies supportive of their husbands, no matter what.

  Madeline Stowe, as Lt. Col. Hal Moore's wife, unites the wives left behind on the base. When the Army is unprepared to hand deliver telegrams informing the family that their soldier died, she takes over the task from the cab company that had been hired to do so. Each telegram is poignant, and I was reminded that every soldier, nurse, doctor, civilian, everyone has a story.

  This one is about the American men who fought the first battle for God and country in Vietnam. The film begins with a disclaimer that it is not a reflection of personal or political ideologies. To me, that statement generally means the studio must distance itself to avoid potential ramifications about an unpopular war. Also, that I am about to see more truth than fiction, more questions than answers.

  We Were Soldiers is intense, and I could only watch it in short segments. I needed time to think, to understand, and to witness the horror of battle. It is vivid -- when bullets hit bodies, blood spews from the wounds. Friendly fire kills, and is only called friendly because the man behind the bullet or bomb is in the same army. Napalm burns whomever is in the path, and flesh is charred to the bone. These are graphically displayed, and accounts for the "R" rating at the box office.

  The reality, especially looking backwards at history and knowing these men and women came home without a hero's welcome, stirs me deeply. Honor and integrity are shown along with "battle scenes once seen that can never be forgotten" in words such as "I will be the first one on the field and the last one to leave, and I will leave no man behind."

  Lt. Col. Hal Moore (Mel Gibson) said he would never forgive himself because his men died and he did not in the La Drang Valley (the Valley of Death). It is clear that in the end, soldiers fought to save each other as they obeyed orders.

  We Were Soldiers, The Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan, Behind Enemy Lines, Blackhawk Down, Flight of the Intruder, Platoon, and so many others are very important films; they are about historical events. To me, the message about warriors is that on the field there are never winners, only survivors.

  Five Stars.

  Victoria Tarrani
  
  

• An assault on the senses that pulls at the heartstrings.
  By A2198FZZMTJ38H on 2002-03-02
  "Those of us who have seen war keep seeing it. In the silence of the night, we still hear the screams."

  War is hell, and "We Were Soldiers" spends its entire relaying this brutal truth in a story that overflows with patriotic zeal, a convincing sense of chaos, and a harsh depiction of the physical reality of combat conditions. Like Ridley's Scott's "Black Hawk Down," released in the holiday stretch of 2001, writer/director Randall Wallace, in his directorial debut, is careful to remind us of the emotional impact of war rather than sacrificing it for effects and thrills.

  It seems that Wallace has learned from previous misfires: the story, adapted from the novel by Lt. Col. Harold Moore and reporter Joseph Galloway, is everything that Wallace's previous script, "Pearl Harbor," was not. Beginning with the introductions to military life as seen through the eyes of various soldiers and officers, we are given a unique opportunity to become involved in their family lives, bearing witness to happier times before President Johnson orders reinforcements into Vietnam.

  Mel Gibson is cast as Harold Moore, the commanding officer of the 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry, arriving on base with his wife, Julie (Madeleine Stowe), and five young children. Among those singled out by the story to provide emotional connections are young Lt. Jack Geoghegan (Chris Klein) and his expecting wife, Barbara (Keri Russell), Maj. Bruce 'Snakeshit' Crandall (Greg Kinnear), who shows a great deal of devotion to duty, and Sgt-Maj. Basil Plumley (Sam Elliott), who exacts a brutish demeanor as a result of decades of wartime experience.

  After a montage of tearful goodbyes that pull at the heartstrings with all their might, Wallace's film nosedives into the hellish combat of the Battle of Ia Drang, as Moore's soldiers are choppered in under heavy fire from the soldiers of the Viet Cong. After splitting into divisions, several men are surrounded, many of whom are seriously wounded, leading Moore to regroup and make attempts to rescue his entrapped soldiers, all the while battling forces surrounding his own.

  These brilliantly photographed and acted scenes of battle are some of cinema's most memorable, charged with physical intensity that practically jolts the audience with each explosion and gunshot. Wallace brings the viewer into the experience rather than making him a sideline witness to it, wrapping us in a continuous onslaught of sensory perception, from startling images of bloodshed and mangled bodies, to the non-stop firing of machine guns and heavy artillery.

  Accompanying such moments are a constant reminder of the emotional loss and grievances one goes through in times of war. We see young reporter Joe Galloway (Barry Pepper) befriending a Japanese-American soldier in the middle of combat; ten minutes later, he's rushing towards a rescue chopper, his bloodied friend hanging loose in his arms. We see the tear-strained faces of wives informed of their lost husbands. We see these soldiers, once young, their innocence stripped from them as they stare into the eyes of the enemy, and instantly, the emotional magnitude of such an event becomes a stark reality.

  But through it all, we see something richer, something well-defined, something forgotten in much of the modern war drivel that has graced the silver screen in years past. "We Were Soldiers" not only packs a physical and emotional punch, but brings to light an overwhelming aura of patriotism that is evident in the heroic acts of its characters, a sense of duty and devotion that makes the movie's dialogue ring true in every way, shape and form.

  In playing Harold Moore, Mel Gibson recalls the glory and presence of his performance in "Braveheart;" his ability to juxtapose a stern demeanor with true, heartfelt displays of emotion hasn't lost its luster. The under-used Madeleine Stowe portrays Julie as a strong-willed military wife, while Keri Russell makes good use of her onscreen time. Each of the cast members who make up Moore's cavalry give heartfelt performances, most notably Barry Pepper as Galloway, whose narration bookends the film.

  Movies like "We Were Soldiers" benefit from a connection to reality. The inclusion of characters Moore and Galloway serve to remind us of the factual basis for the stunning visual and emotional assault that conveys war and those affected by it. Wallace's film, while being a great tribute to those who fought for a war still misunderstood by many, is a patriotic display of courage, heroism, honor, and the knowledge that for those who have seen war, victory is bittersweet.
  
  

• Shocking news concerning actor of "We Were Soldiers"
  By A1K4VAYQQLNFVS on 2002-11-17
  I just came across this Reuters 11/11/02 news story concerning "We Were Soldiers" and "Green Dragon" and was shocked by what's happening to one of the actors. Thought I would share it with all viewers out there, whether you have watched or intend to watch those two films.

  "A Vietnamese actor branded a traitor by the Hanoi government and placed under virtual house arrest for appearing in an American-made Vietnam War film has broken his silence to call the charges against him "ridiculous" and "cruel."

  "Don Duong, who played a Vietnamese officer opposite Mel Gibson in "We Were Soldiers," and a refugee in the 2001 film "Green Dragon" opposite Patrick Swayze, defended his work in a letter released this week by family members in California. Duong's relatives have said the 45-year-old actor has been placed under house arrest and restricted from traveling and could face jail time. "We Were Soldiers" depicts the battle of Ia Drang in Vietnam's Central Highlands in 1965, in which men from the 7th Air Cavalry led by Lt. Col. Hal Moore, played by Gibson, overcame a more experienced and much larger North Vietnamese force."

  "Gibson and others in Hollywood, including Duong's "Green Dragon" co-stars Patrick Swayze and Forest Whitaker, actor Harvey Keitel and "Soldiers" director Randall Wallace, have called for leniency in his case."
  
  

• finally....a brilliant,-original-film about a Vietnam battle
  By A37PT6K7X21FQW on 2002-03-01
  This film will rank as one of the all time great battle movies. It's not a war movie; it doesn't try to prove a point or tell the tale of a whole war. Just one very meaningful, and very heroic (and tragic) battle.

  It's not a 'message' movie, or a blatant political statement, or a movie that shows a bunch of roaming, scared, crazy or doped up GIs trading attrocities with the enemy. It shows a valiant, dignified effort from solid, young, and patriotic soldiers in one of the few major *conventional* battles of Vietnam (before the war turn exclusively guerilla).

  The movie has a good human touch too, wonderfully portayed by Gibson, who shows where the battle really begins...in his mind during training camp and battle study at home. It gets into politics tangentially, for a Vietnam movie could not be made without some nod to the heavy political weight that plagued the war and its soldiers. But politics were relatively under the surface back then...back then before it was a huge quagmire...back then when soldiers didn't doubt their patriotism and their country didn't doubt their integrity.

  A great depiction of a great, unsung slice of history. You'll enjoy it (but beware the violence and gory a la Saving Private Ryan). Special effects and discussion of tactics also make this movie special (and the enemy has a face, voice and brain, too). Maybe some of the pauses are a bit too drawn out, that's the only thing keeping me from giving a 5 star review. But don't miss out on this one!!
  
  

• Finally
  By A37F1G84K35FCZ on 2002-03-05
  When a voice-over at the start of the film states the movie is a tribute to not only American Soldiers but also their North Vietnamese counterparts, the stage is set for a unique film about a specific battle during The Vietnam War. Other films have portrayed views of this war that probably did accurately portray a very small number of soldiers that fit every cynical negative stereotype of conduct during war. If that is what you enjoy then Oliver Stone's film is what will please you. If you want a film that portrays swaggering larger than life comic book superheroes, go see a Rambo or Chuck Norris film. And finally if you want a recruiting film, John Wayne's, "The Green Berets", will fit the bill.

  This is not a political film, it is not a film that glorifies war, and it is not eye candy for a soundtrack of The Doors, and Hendrix. This is about the men on both sides fighting because that is what their country asked of them. It is also about the wives and children who waited every day for a telegram that would destroy their family. Madeleine Stowe heads a group of women who hold each other together when the fathers leave. Some even take over the grimmest duty by delivering the notices that confirm those killed in combat. These soldiers fought for and with each other. The North Vietnamese were also portrayed as human for a change. As men with families, officers who made difficult decisions, and had no illusions about what this conflict would be. These are the men that went when their country called, and their destination was not Canada or some other safe haven that coddled those who would not defend the nation that provided them with the freedoms they so easily used to denounce her. These are the men that died, were wounded, or came home in one piece to be ignored at best, or spit upon and accused of being baby killers.

  I don't know how veterans of this war feel and if there is any way to make up for what they earned and were never given. I hope this film demonstrates the respect they earned and the debt they are owed, and generates a new attitude toward the veterans of this war who served with the same distinction as any veterans of any of this nation's conflicts. There are an endless number of reasons to condemn war, and even more that may be unique to Vietnam. That condemnation should be reserved for those who started and continued this conflict and not the soldiers who had to carry out insane political decisions.

  Mel Gibson delivers another solid performance, but he is joined, and the film achieves what it does by a host of supporting players. Performances by Sam Harris, who makes a comment about Custer that is priceless, as the Sergeant Major, Barry Pepper as the reporter Joe Calloway who would eventually co-produce the book that lead to this film, and even Greg Kinnear, who may not have said much, but he represented the pilots of the helicopters that continually flew into the midst of the fighting to support the troops and bring the survivors, wounded, and the dead back home.
  
  

• The Healing .
  By A228NBNLYJ8V3J on 2002-07-08
  Due to the length of my review I've divided it to two : one discusses primarily the significance of this motion picture , the other one summarizes the plot extensively .

  *At first , a warning - this movie is , in part , a terrible visual experience and one of the hardest I have ever seen . Prepare yourself .
  
  Part one : Reasons to see/ significance .
  -------------------------------------------
  A question you might ask could be : "why should I take my time to see another Vietnam War movie ?"
  My answer would be : " because I don't recall they have ever done such a movie about that war " .
  "We were Soldiers" deals with the Vietnam War like no other movie I have seen . I suppose the distance of time and the proclivities of today's producers allow perspectives and purposes that were unpopular in the following decades after the war .

  First and foremost , I agree with the director that the main purpose of the film is to heal the veterans . There were so many wounded casualties of the public's opinion that suffered just as much - and more - after they returned home , than they had suffered throughout the Vietnam ordeal itself . We have read about it and seen it in numerous films . We have also seen many critic views about the war from Hollywood that apparently hurt the veterans as well .

  It's time it's stopped .

  The filmmakers say : "Let others ask the questions about why they were where they were and why they did that they did , it does no good anymore , anyway" .
  The realization of the main goal is given form with a firm and harsh view at how one of the first real engagements of warfare looked like from the infantryman's eyes (see veterans reviews for confirmation). That done , without intending to judge the men who were sent by their country to serve . In other words , the film recognizes the tribulations the soldiers went through and the immense sacrifices they had to make . By doing so , it helps those men if just to feel a little better regarding their personal history and actions . In that it assists the healing process of the old wounds they carry deep inside .

  In a way , I think it does well with the Vietcong's vets too . In here the enemy is given one of the fairest and balanced trials I've seen . More than ever we acknowledge and identify with his aims , missions , struggles and pain . Perhaps when coming from the American point of view it means something to them and makes them feel better too .

  The movie also shows the angle of the wives back home , scenes that are familiar here in Israel , but are always important at showing how the lives of the close ones that are left behind continue , or more accurately stand still in the face of a war .

  Part two : The plot and the cast .
  --------------------------------
  "We Were Soldiers" is divided into two parts - the preface to the fight that is to come , and the battle itself .

  The exposition presents most of the heroes of our story : Colonel Hal Moore (Gibson) , his wife Julie (Madeline Stowe ) , the sergeant major (Sam Elliot) and Jack Geoghegan (Chris Klein) to name a few . Here the movie concentrates mainly on Gibson and his family plus the forming and training of his battalion . The focal point is the fear of Gibson from the hell he knows he is going to face in the Ia Drang Valley in Vietnam . This part is rather bearable (tension wise) owning to number of scenes about the ideal family (Moore's) and the forming of campaign leaders , but at the same time uneasy knowing what is to come .

  The body of the film is the incarnation of hell when Moore and his men set their feet on the Vietcong's turf . The shootings , bombing and body count begin immediately and are almost unbearable . I've never seen such concentrated sights of death , slaughter and destruction . In this region "We were Soldiers" sets a new record ; it's a long step forward in the presentation of war realism that easily surpasses the bloodiest sights of Gibson's "BraveHeart" and "the Patriot" together .

  The stardom of Gibson is set-aside a bit in the wake of the ongoing battle , as different men and their actions for good or ill are highlighted . Gibson shines again in portraying the agony and pain his character suffers from ; this happens on account of the speeding number of the dead bodies of his men , while holding the leader-commander position and being in charge of everything . Throughout the movie this sense of personal lose and great responsibility is evident in Gibson's performance and in many ways it's a continuance of his stature appearances in previous films .

  In the heat of the battle a young reporter (Barry Pepper) joins the film's staff and fighting men to cover the combat . For a while , he takes on a leading roll as the story concentrates in his experiences and reactions to the horrible trials surrounding him . To me , he represents the common viewer's reactions if dropped , at this point , into the fire : shocked , terrified and disbelieving he is witnessing such reality . In fulfilling that goal he is successful and does a great job .

  Madeline Stowe is the leading actress at the U.S. , where the women are waiting in awe for news from the front . She delivers a commendable appearance portraying the wife of Hal Moore , who takes hold of the difficult duty of telling the bad news about the husbands to the family at the home base .

  ==============================================================

  I've waited for a long time to see this movie , was shocked by the sights , and after I've digested its important aspects , I think I can see the importance and significance of this movie .
  In the end , I hope I have helped you to see them too .
  
  

• It Doesn't Get Any Better Than This
  By A1GG3J0SNY1BQR on 2002-04-02
  Although "The Deerhunter" will always hold a special place in my heart, I must say that "We Were Soldiers" is the finest film on the Vietnam War to date. How reassuring to see humane portrayals of men in arms--of men who make a career of service and devotion to country, whether American or Vietnamese. If, like me, you've grown weary and wary of war films that depict officers as inept or gung ho, soldiers as bewildered, misled, and demented, you will enjoy this film. As one whose father served in that war twice, it touches a cord. This is also the first film to show how the families must cope with daddies in combat. The scene between the Gibson character and his youngest daughter is poignant and reminiscent of Stewart talking to his sick daughter in "It's A Wonderful Life." No Hollywood glitz and distortion here. Neither is there too much lecturing and political statement making as you see in the Stone and Kubrick films. Even the drill instructor is believable in his role. The focus, to be sure, is on the officers of these men. The film is not without moments of humor but the pathos pervades it. The scenes of Gibson reviewing history books on the French fiasco in Nam in the 1950's and Custer's Last Stand are eerie and instructive. THIS IS THE ONLY 'NAM FILM that shows the actions of a single military offensive from start to finish. Gibson is superb in this role despite what others have said. He is visceral but also contemplative--a delicate balance worthy of academy award consideration. This film will get overlooked by the academy because it is too thoughtful for a war film but don't let yourself be deprived of its endearment and lessons, and stirring but not exaggerated portrayals. These are real men thrust into unreal circumstances. Although the Vietnamese perspective is brief and appears a token gesture of concern, the commander of their forces is a good counterbalance to Gibson's--he, too, is well-reasoned, not demonic. The scenes of the housewives awaiting news from Nam are also unforgettable. Two arms up!
  
  
• Compelling - A Brilliant Film - Highly Recommended
  By A262BHSO645296 on 2003-06-07
  As a young 36 year old woman, I was born about seventeen months after the events in this movie and the book ("We Were Soldiers Once... And Young" by Lt. Gen Harold G. Moore and Joseph L. Galloway) its based upon occurred. My Grandfather served in the British Special Forces during the second world war, and in the army for close to 20 years spanning before and during that war. I guess, my interest in his war time experiences, (which left him with some terrible physical and emotional scars), has ultimately led me to this incredible movie and the truly compelling book it's based upon, even though it is of another war and time.

  When I watched DVD of "We Were Soldiers" recently, it totally stunned and blew me away. I wasn't simply crying as the film drew to an end, I found myself attempting to control the strong urge to sob, as the tears flowed freely. I also had found the tears came quickly through various parts throughout the film as well.

  After watching it, I took a note of the name of the book, "We Were Soldiers Once... And Young", and went on line here and purchased it immediately. The book is incredible and riveting reading, and so very shocking and eye-opening to a 36 year old woman who has only ever known war through her Grandfather's stories. I find the book and its companion movie a truly poignant and moving account of love and courage and comradeship and incredible self sacrifice. The soldiers and other service men (and women) deserved far, far more than the limited recognition they received during and after Vietnam for their courage and self-sacrifice during the years of the conflict.

  "We Were Soldiers Once... And Young" is a book I believe all young people should read, in order to open their eyes about what their fathers, uncles, older brothers, cousins and fellow countrymen, (regardless of their country of origin - I live in Australia myself and many men [and women also] from here served in Vietnam), went through during this conflict, and what they had to do for each other in order to survive. This war may not have been popular politically, but that was not the fault of the servicemen involved in fighting it. These men simply did what they had to do to survive, and to try to keep their comrades around them alive. As Lt. General Moore says in his book... "No greater love hath no man..." (than to lay down his life for another). So very poignant and moving.

  I feel privileged to have read his book, and to have seen the marvellous movie based upon it, and to have felt (to still feel) deep into my heart and soul the emotions and the love within them both. Deepest, sincere thanks to Lt. General 'Hal' Moore and Joe Galloway for putting down in print the stories of these fine, brave young men in combat. I highly recommend their book as essential reading and the movie as essential viewing.

  Thank You. (Christine, Sydney, Australia. June 8, 2003).
  
  

• What Americans Want
  By AHFC0MDK31JTB on 2002-03-03
  I have just viewed the movie with my husband who will retire from the Army this year. "When We Were Soldiers" is by far the best picture made in this genre in our generation. When viewing the movie, you want to put down your popcorn, because it feels like you are eating in front of the Vietnam Wall. This picture is a memorial to all fighting men and their families left at home.
  This movie does a wonderful job of showing all aspects of a war machine, showing all the support personel that it takes to carry on battle. It shows soldiers carrying out their mission with bravery and dedication without covering up the flaws of our country's policy making during that era.
  Wonderful acting, technical advising, directing and of course writing.
  The war gore was intense, but no more intense than movies like "Saving Private Ryan."
  This movie is a must see for every American who is old enough to understand it. It will be a sure Academy Award Winner.
  Congratulations to everyone associated with the picture and thank you!
  
  
• A disgrace to those who served. . .
  By on 2002-08-21
  This movie was for a lack of a better word, horrific. It makes a mockery of those who fought and died, those who suffered, in the Vietnam Conflict. Anyone with even the basest knowledge of the history surrounding the United States involvement in the war, and Ia Drang in paticular, would find this cliched attempt appalling. Be warned, what I will say below may spoil some of the story of this pathetic entry in cinematic history, so read on at your own risk.

  The Ia Drang battle was the polar oppisite of this depiction. First, no one knew there was NVA in the area; U.S. forces stumbled upon them and radioed for back-up. Moore was not present when the combat began. Even if you put aside this for dramatic purposes, the fact remains that no military operation in that period would be carried out in that fashion. You have no helicopter gunships flying air support; soldiers keep getting shuttled in without any of them making an attempt to set up a perimeter (in fact, a perimeter is never established); you have a Lieutenant Colonel on the front lines instead of establishing a command post and directing his troops (once again, no command center is created in the field during the entire film, and instead of leading, good old Mel is offering support to the wounded; the NVA bunker magically acquires electricity from some magical source without any possible way to logistically and realistically obtain it; you see frontline soldiers with there rifle safetey's on, thus creating suspense when they click them off and start a fire fight (give me a break); death letters are delivered by Yellow Taxi (on a military base *rolls eyes*) by a cab driver through Western Union telegrams, instantaneously from the field of battle, without any positive identification (in reality, casualty notices are delivered by a military officer and a chaplain as many as two weeks after the death); this also gives rise to tension later when a Yellow Taxi pulls up outside Moore's house, and the wife thinks it could be a KIA notice (despite the fact she would know beforehand that her husband was returning and meet him on the airstrip) only to see Moore himself (delivered in a taxi, even though he's a Colonel); On the battlefield, every plane in use during Vietnam delivers airsupport from an aircraft carrier , despite the fact that the battle occurs in the central highlands; heroic charges appear throughout the movie (and they even did this wrong; instead of arraying themselves in a line, they cluster together); the appearence of Aspen and Cottonwood tree's in South Vietnam; and the indisputable fact the U.S lost the battle at the Ia Drang. . .

  This barely touches the surface. Even beyond the laughable innacurracies, the acting is horrible and cliched (there is not one original concept in this movie). This is a disgrace to those who fought and suffered during the Vietnam war; a laughable mockery of their sacrifice. . .
  
  

• Pure, unadulterated tripe!
  By A3GRNZ5KAUOLG7 on 2004-07-02
  Regardless of its inherent historical authenticity, this is bar-none one of the WORST war films I've ever seen. Sure, Ia Drang happened. Yep, it happened like this, and ya, the guys all wore these uniforms. And that's where it ends.
  Everything else about this movie is hokey, flag-waving, crass Americanism at it's burger-munching worst! Mel Gibson, strutting about John Wayne style through artillery barrages - puhlease! And let's not forget neophyte "lifer" sidekick wannabee officer who eats it heroically - barfbag please... And finally, how about those syrupy-sweet, and likewise sickly simpering war-wives left back home. Never have I been subjected to such a barrage of base emotional manipulation. Indeed, I found myself wishing all these Yanks would die! What a putrid piece of garbage filled from top to bottom with every dead war movie cliche in the hollywood dust bin. Don't waste a nickel on this pure, unadulterated tripe. Of course, if you buy into the lies of American war "heroism" you'll love this. Die for oil, sucker!
  
  
• They were soldiers...and husbands...and brothers...
  By A31AVT0D7DUBWH on 2002-02-26
  I had the distinguished honor of going to the Atlanta premiere of this movie with a man who flew this same type of helicopters later in the war. The movie was excellent. It brought alive a very balanced mixture of emotions. It was painful, it was humorous. Mel Gibson and Sam Elliott brought to life the real life heros that have for so long had their story untold. I will say, though, it was very graphic in parts. It was, after all, a war movie. But the humor and the emotions you felt for the soldiers and their families evened it all out. I highly recommend this movie.
  
  
• An Excellent War Movie
  By ATS7LYGLUX34L on 2002-03-02
  I haven't read the book that this movie is based on, so unlike reviewer Russell Ross, I have nothing to compare it to....

  Judged on it's own, We Were Soldiers is a tremendous movie, telling the story of 400 Air Cavalry Soldiers who spent three days waging a horrific battle with over 4,000 Vietnamese Soldiers. The courage and heart that our Soldiers displayed is wonderfully portrayed, and Mel Gibson does his usual great job as their Commanding Officer. (Sam Elliott is also great as his second-in-command...) We also get to see another, seldom-seen side of the Vietnam War- The Home Front, where wives and families lived in fear of a telegram from The Army...

  The movie's violence is VERY graphic, but war is hell, so....

  We Were Soldiers gives us another view of America's most unpopular War, and in this time of increased patriotism, it's a welcome view at that. Highly recommended!
  
  

• 'Nam before Mission Creep
  By A1VTHUZIN04QQW on 2002-03-31
  

  
  "We Were Soldiers" is the best war film to come out in a long, long time. It's non-fiction without patriotic propoganda or nostalgic, or preachiness, like 'Pearl Harbor,' and 'Saving Private Ryan.' Despite the comments of some reviewers, this movie wasn't promoting patriotism. It was a highly technical portrayal of modern battle, and the concequences of sending your troops into battle. If anything, the movie was somewhat of a tragedy, because despite the altruism of Lt. Col Hal Moore and his men, their actions would ultimately be in vain.
  

  
  The movie was a refreshing 'Nam film because it focused on the war at its very outset, when the troops being sent there didn't think of the war we do now. At the time, it was just another American war in which we'll go, fight for our country, and come out victorious, like always. But even in this movie, you can see where politics and institutionalized stupidity were creeping into the Army. Just look for the scene, when Moore is desperately needed on the ground to, A: Conduct the battle, B: Matintain the morale, trust and confidence of his men, and C: for moral reasons, his commander tries to recall him to Saigon so Gen. Westmoreland can have a 'briefing.' WTF? It's a credit to Moore's character and leadership qualities that he told the brass to go screw themselves. Doing so meant he put the lives of his men above his own, and above his own career.
  

  
  As a military vet, I knew a lot of officers who would have jumped at the chance to get out of that hell hole. Fortunately, I knew an equal amount who would have said, "You want a briefing? Fly down here and we'll 'brief' you!" The latter types were the only ones who instilled loyalty in their men. The fish rots from the head. If you have a bunch of great guys with a lousy leader, you're going to have a lousy unit, no matter what. But even if you have a bunch of jerks with a great leader, you can have a great unit. Moore's presence on the battlefield was probably essential to their victory. When troops are patted on the back by their CO, it's a huge boost in confidence and morale. When the CO is never around, or even worse, is gone, the rumor mill starts flying, troops feel like 'they' (the officers) aren't trustworthy, and that the soldiers are fighting for the wrong reasons. Moore was the type of commander who would never let his troops think about the battalion terms of 'us' (enlisted) and 'them' (officers). Moore's troops thought of the battalion as 'us.'
  

  
  I saw a couple discrepencies in the film at first glance. 1 - a soldier getting on the bus in Georgia with a magazine in his rifle. No way. 2 - I'm 95% sure they had metal canteens in 65, but they had plastic ones in the movie.
  

  
  Also, I'm not sure why the soldiers didn't dig in on the perimeter. They maintained a perimeter for a long time, overnight even, and in my training we would always dig, dig, dig anytime you stop and hold turf.

  
  I liked how the Vietnamese were portrayed. Despite having no air support and no artillery they fought as well as they could, and tried to 'hug the belt' of the Americans. This lead the Americans to call in air support on themselves, leading to casualties. It was good when they showed how scared the Vietnamese were, because in most movies they're portrayed as being somehow ghost-like, inhuman, when in fact they were damn scared, just like our guys. Going against American firepower, not to mention guys who are physically up to twice your weight and on average six inches taller, took a lot of nerve.
  

  
  Overall a great film. It showed the US Military in its 60s prime, the tragic consequnces of using military force, and it also showed the home front, and how military wives are actually part of the battles we fight. I highly recommend this to anyone.
  

  -- JJ Timmins
  
  

• War movie of the bad old type
  By on 2002-07-21
  Briefly, this movie is poorly conceived on a number of levels. First, contrary to certain reviews, this movie IS about the politics as well as the tactical and operational realities of the Vietnam War, and any reviewer who tries to separate the two should check out Clausewitz's On War. More to the point, it is (mostly) a whitewash of the terrible futility of the sacrifices that so many Vietnam veterans made due to the political incompetence of our government, while simultaneously a reversion to the old Hollywood tendency to glorify the way war and infantry combat are depicted. Second, it is almost entirely cliche; there is not an original line or character in the movie. Third, it is somewhat misleading about the historical facts of the battle for the Ia Drang Valley.

  First, the movie does get involved in the politics of the war. It does a fair job of portraying the innocence of American soldiers before they were deployed, and it has an excellent (but brief) portrayal of the political sensitivity to casualties and the degree to which the war was micromanaged. However, the movie almost completely sidesteps the fact that the Vietnam War was a war without a purpose. The soldiers in the Air Cavalry, and for that matter every other unit in Vietnam, fought and died for no clearly-defined purpose, and as such their heroic sacrifices were as futile as any in the history of war. The only hint of this in the movie is a single line at the end of the film by the North Vietnamese Army commander (which I shall omit for the benefit of those who haven't seen the movie). The rest of the movie ignores the futility of the sacrifices made by the Americans, and while this may help us to appreciate the heroism of the individual soldiers on that day, it insulates us to the incompetence and dereliction of duty of which the political leadership was guilty.

  On a less esoteric level, the movie tends to depict infantry combat in an overly-sanitized manner. I am an infantry combat veteran of the Gulf War and served in the 101st Air Assault Division. The movie does almost nothing to accurately depict the effects that modern arms, particularly artillery, has on soldiers' bodies. Furthermore, the movie gives the impression that soldiers under fire continue to execute their missions with stoicism and professionalism. This is simply untrue. Even in the American military of today, which is far more professional than it has ever been, the majority of infantry soldiers become ineffective and cannot pursue their objectives or engage the enemy after more than a few minutes of exposure to fire similar to that depicted in the movie. The movie did not show that. For a far more realistic depiction of infantry combat, see Saving Private Ryan.

  The movie was also somewhat historically inaccurate. The movie gives the viewer the impression that the entire battle of the Ia Drang Valley occurred in the vicinity of Landing Zone X-Ray. As to the events that occurred in LZ X-Ray, the movie is accurate in a chronological sense. The deployment of units, the geographical features, and the order of battle was done fairly well. However, there were several other landing zones and several other battalions fron the Air Cav that were not shown. In fact, at one point in the movie a map seems to indicate that the only active landing zone in the entire area was LZ X-Ray.

  Finally, the entire script could have been taken directly from a 1960s-era John Wayne war movie. I do not recall a single original or believable line from the entire movie. The characters were all idealized and one-dimensional, and the direction tended to glamorize the action. [WARNING - spoiler coming] As an example, it has one of the oldest cliches of war movies: it introduces a young, idealistic soldier to the audience and acquaints the audience with the soldier's wife and new baby, only to kill the soldier later in the movie. This has been a part of just about every bad war movie (and, I admit, some good ones - see Platoon) since war movies have been made. As soon as I was introduced to the young soldier and learned of his new baby, I knew that he would get it later on. Indeed, he was killed in one of the other great cliches of war movies - trying to drag one of his wounded soldiers back to cover under fire. [OKAY - spoiler over]

  In short, my opinion is that this movie was a retread of the bad old days of war movies that glorified war and whitewashed both the realities of combat and the politics of Vietnam in particular. I wish to reiterate that I do NOT seek to disparage the individual American soldiers who served in Vietnam to any degree - no one will deny the heroism and sacrifice of them, particularly in the face of their government's betrayal. Rather, I think that the realities of the Vietnam War, and of war in general, were glorified and oversimlified in the movie, and I cannot recommend it. Rather, I recommend Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line for good war movies in general, and Platoon and Apocalypse Now for the Vietnam War in particular.
  
  

• Finally�
  By A2NDWCVX2ZT8QV on 2002-11-19
  After all those terrible years of "Deer Hunterish" drivel and "Apocalyptic" nonsense, Hollywood has finally, if (probably) temporarily, acceded to that fact that there is nothing glorious in the lot of the soldier other than the fraternity and special respect of a fellow soldier. With almost no nod to the steaming domestic politics of the 1960s other than those that directly affect the soldiers and their families (or any contemporary politics either - how refreshing), "We Were Soldiers" does a pretty fair and honest job of exposing both the rubies and the warts of a combat soldier's life. Thankfully, most of the gratuitous machoisms that the entertainment industry finds so entertaining in war flicks are absent.

  The 1st Cav (the unit that is the subject of "We Were Soldiers") was the cutting edge of air-mobility for most of the Vietnam conflict - and, having served with the Gerry Owen bunch, they never seemed to loose their special can-do spirit. Much of what was learned about combat assaults, extractions, coordination of multiple levels of tac-air, aerial rocket artillery, hunter-killer teams and highly mobile ground based artillery, was pioneered in real-time by the Cav and quickly shared with the Infantry divisions who deployed to SE Asia in the next year or two. "We Were Solders" does a pretty good job of outlining the metamorphosis of 11th Air Assault at Fort Benning, Georgia into the 1st Cav, and it's subsequent deployment into Vietnam as America ramped up its ground efforts beyond the badly stretched Green Berets, and other military advisors. (BTW: The area, Kelly Hill, at Ft. Benning where the real 11th Air Assault was formed, was also the same area where much of John Wayne's "Green Beret" was filmed).

  Special kudos also to "We Were Soldiers" for doing a pretty fair job of showing the sometimes harsh realities of the life of the military family (the rather sterile "Top Gun" is the only other recent film I can think of that has taken the time to try to explore the often forgotten heroes back home...). The military family, regardless of the rank of the soldier, seldom enjoys the predictable, geographically stable character of their civilian counter-parts. I remember those years well, and "We Were Soldiers" does a pretty good job of showing why military families get to know the local U-Haul dealer so well. More telling, of course, is the burdens, frustrations and pure fright that come with having a loved-one deployed. Those families didn't carry protest signs during the 60's, instead they carried letters to the mailbox - some will never know what a large part they played in keeping "their" soldier going.

  Very good flick - gives a deeply personal, fairly genuine and somewhat painful look at the life of the American soldier.
  
  

• We Were Soldiers is a moving, human film
  By A1A87TUBBDPMF0 on 2003-06-01
  We Were Soldiers, Randall Wallace's 2002 feature film about the three-day Battle of the Ia Drang Valley in Vietnam, is perhaps the best Hollywood depiction of America's "lost crusade" in Indochina.

  Based on Lt. Gen. Harold B. Moore and Joseph Galloway's non-fiction book We Were Soldiers Once....and Young, Wallace's film version is a realistic and respectful account of the first major battle between U.S. and North Vietnamese forces in November of 1965.

  Starring Mel Gibson as Lt. Col. Hal Moore, We Were Soldiers begins with the Vietnamese destruction of France's Mobile Group 100 in 1954, the same year that Diem Bien Phu fell and French involvement in Vietnam ended, paving the way for America's long and doomed intervention. This opening scene is graphically violent yet serves to drive home its point - to show the determination of the Vietnamese to drive off any outside force, even if it means being ruthless.

  We Were Soldiers, unlike Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now or Oliver Stone's Platoon, portrays its soldiers realistically and without the anti-military post-Vietnam War bitterness that permeates those two films. (To be fair, both Coppola and Stone's movies are well made, and in the case of Apocalypse Now, that film is not really about Vietnam per se but rather a Vietnamized adaptation of Joseph Conrad's novel Heart of Darkness.) Some viewers might even accuse Wallace (who wrote and directed) of having a right-wing revisionist slant, but in the featurette on the making of the movie, he points out that he was inspired to do We Were Soldiers when he read Hal Moore's comment that Hollywood has never gotten it right when it comes to making movies about the Vietnam War.

  We Were Soldiers not only has respect and admiration for the U.S. soldiers, but it also depicts the bravery and sacrifice of the Vietnamese People's Army. True, most of the focus is on the American troops and, unusually for a Vietnam combat movie, their families. But I personally have not seen the North Vietnamese portrayed with this much respect in a movie - even though I know Oliver Stone's Heaven and Earth is a movie that deals with the Vietnamese.

  Mel Gibson portrays Lt. Col. Moore with his usual earnestness, wit and warmth. He allows us to see the human side to this very intellectual and dedicated soldier. He is not only a very pensive officer who reads French history books about Vietnam and has various college degrees, but also a loving husband and father. His scenes with Madeline Stowe, who plays his wife Julie, exude affection and true chemistry. Also, the scene when Moore explains the concept of war to his youngest daughter is touching and tender. Rounding out the cast are Sam Elliott, Barry Pepper, Keri Russell, Greg Kinnear, Chris Klein, and American Pie's Jason Biggs.

  The depiction of the battle at Landing Zone X-ray ranks among the best, if sometimes grueling, war scenes. The movie captures the horrible yet mesmerizing spectacle of battle, taking audiences from the roller-coaster exhilaration of nap of the earth helicopter rides to a three-day life-or-death struggle between two determined bands of fighting men.

  Paramount's Widescreen Collection DVD is, as can be expected, a basic offering in comparison to other studios' releases. Admittedly, the root menu is flashier than previous DVDs from Paramount, and it does have director's commentary, two different Dolby sound settings, and the aforementioned making-of featurette.
  
  

• Fathers. Brothers. Husbands & Sons.
  By A1655SGPPUUCRP on 2002-04-03
  'We Were Soldiers' is one of the most moving and meaningful war films ever made. Unlike 'Black Hawk Down', 'We Were Soldiers' brings you inside the war to the people. You really get to know the soldiers, you really feel for them. Randall Wallace brilliantly combines the two most important aspects of the Vietnam; the battlefield and the families at home. Many films try to do this, not many succeed. Wallace does this by dedicating the first 40+ minutes to the familiarization of the characters and families. While the battle is raging, Wallace frequently flashes back to the army base where the wives are faced with the difficult task of distributing death notices.

  Mel Gibson puts forth a brilliant and moving performance as Lt. Colonel Hal Moore. Gibson masters this role. We can be sure that his portrayal of Moore is accurate because he worked with the real Hal Moore while filming. He became Moore, right down to the way he walked! Madeleine Stowe also puts forth an impressive and emotionally driven performance as Gibson's/Moore's wife, Julie Moore. I heard that she too worked with the real Julie Moore to help herself master the role.

  The battle scenes are terrifyingly realistic and haunting. I've never seen anything like it. I must mention one particularly haunting scene;
  The boys are lying in the bush at night with their guns aimed into the darkness before them. Two terrified soldiers begin to whisper to each other; where's the enemy? "I can smell them, they're here" proclaims one. They can't see anything. It's pitch black. The soldiers can barely breath. One whispers into his radio for a flare to be thrown into the woods in front of them so that they might see where their enemy is at. The flare come, the woods light up. The silhouettes of the Vietnamese appear. They are only inches from where they lay.

  This is only one of the many haunting and unforgettable moments in 'We Were Soldiers'. It took my breath away.

  'We Were Soldiers' is such an emotional film! I found myself sobbing by the time the credits were rolling. I wasn't the only one, either. Grown men were crying as well. We cried for the lost lives and the pain. We cried for the families and the sacrifices our boys made. This film really helped me to understand what happened in Vietnam and how it affected the families and those who lived through it. I honor them.
  
  

• Worst War Movie EVER!
  By on 2002-09-29
  We Were Soldiers is nothing more than a post-9-11 feel good movie with a predictable theme casting America as the international good guy fighting for peace and freedom. It portrays the battle of the Ia Drang as a stunning American victory when in fact the battle highlights serious deficiencies in our tactics that ultimately led to our defeat in Vietnam. You won't see scenes of soldiers burning down villages with Zippos and clearing free-fire zones, or of helicopter gunships firing indiscriminately into the jungle. This film conveniently ignores all the controversy, turmoil, and painful images that spring to mind at the mere mention of Vietnam.

  The actual filmmaking is as laudable as its content. The setting is supposed to be in Vietnam, but the film editors failed to crop out the many oak trees dotting the background. The characters -- all of whom manage to remain relatively clean and dry in what should be sweltering equatorial heat -- are nothing more than a series of stereotypes along the lines of an old John Wayne movie. In one scene a soldier tells Mel Gibson that he spent time in the Peace Corps building homes for orphans in Africa and that he hopes he won't make any new orphans in Vietnam. The two then kneel and pray together.

  While the movie is worth renting to see how silly the dialogue and acting is, don't expect a war movie that portrays men in a desperate fight for survival among chaos and destruction. Instead see Blackhawk Down, Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, or Apocalypse Now. On the other hand, if you're looking for a movie to justify America acting on behalf of colonial ideals to maintain our hegemony over the Third World, We Were Soldiers at least makes the attempt.
  
  

• Lest We Forget.....
  By A2ZSC81MXLBELX on 2002-11-08
  "We Were Soldiers" is a Viet Nam War movie unlike any other. Other movies of this genre, exceptional films like "Apocalypse Now", "Platoon" or even "The Green Beret" focus on a message of either anti or pro the Viet Nam war. This movie focus on the brave soldiers who fought and the families they left behind. It is the story of Lt. Col.Hal Moore played by Mel Gibson and his troops as they are among the first Americans to be in battle against North Viet Nam in the early stages of the war.
  After the opening scenes of the men finding out they will be deployed and some very touching moments as they spend their last few days with their families, they leave for their target, the la Drang Valley. The encounters with the North Vietnamese are very violent and graphic, but depict the horror that these men went through. There is a poignant moment where a photographer (Barry Pepper) who has been put in the position of fighting, lays his gun down, picks up his camera and shoots the atrocities he see around him. (By the way this photographer, Joe Galloway co authored with Moore the book this film is based on.)
  On the other side of the world, while these brave men fight, the wives have already started recieving the dreaded telegrams. You cannot help but feel for these grieving woman and their families.
  This film is a real tribute to the Viet Nam Vets, and they should be remembered well.
  The cast also includes Sam Elliot as the rough gruff Sgt Major, Madeline Stowe as Moore's wife, and with Greg Kinnear and Chris Klein. It was directed by Randall Wallace (writer of Braveheart)
  The DVD (Paramount Widescreen Collection) is 5 stars in my book. Excellent cinematography, the 5.1 surround sound was perfect, I felt like the war was going on right in my living room,the widescreen picture was top rate, even the night time scenes were clear and bright. If you have already seen this movie and are wondering about the DVD go for it! There are lots of extra goodies too, including commentary,deleted scenes and behind the scenes. There are subtitles in English for those that may need them. If you havn't seen it and like war movies, (this one is very graphic, so it is not for the sensitive)you will be captivated by this one.
  thanx laurie
  
  
• Because my country asked me to
  By AJYFZUGD0Z4WI on 2006-05-16
  I can't possibly put into words how great of a war movie this is, but it touched me deep inside.
  
  For me, there is little greater honor than to serve one's country, especially in a time of unpopular war. I felt that his film portrayed that desire of the world's warriors to answer the call of duty and be honorable men, regardless of the side you are fighting on.
  
  And that is perhaps one of my favorite things about this movie. Albeit a small part, time was given to the "other" side and we were allowed a glimpse of the enemy warriors. And in the end, Lt. Col. Moore paid homage, in a sense, to the enemy he fought.
  
  And, of course, actual footage of Moore is shown on the extras (bonuses are a MUST see!) praising his men -- nearly weeping as he does so.
  
  In a time when the only reason people join the service is for college money, and servicemen scramble to get out of the service when war comes, this movie reminds us that we should be that much more grateful for the few that serve with dignity and do it because they are Americans that love their country enough to answer the call when it comes. Without these honorable warriors, there would be no America.
  
  
• We Were Soldiers
  By A16VO15O3KGZXW on 2002-07-10
  The movie was a good, not perfect, portrayal of the events that occured in November 1965. The movie fairly closely follows the book and for those viewers interested in getting the full story should get a copy of the book. Anyone who does this will see that the battle really lasts over three days with a separate battle occuring the following two days. The movie follows the book up to about the and of the second day. Then the Hollywood licence takes over and changes the ending of the fight so that Col. Hal Moore, a battalion commander of the 7th Cavalry, looks larger than life. Col. Moore ,who co-authored the book, was an outstanding officer and his actions and preparations that battle probably saved the lives of many of his soldiers so I was a bit disappointed to see that the film elaborated needlessly to make him appear almost superhuman. This fact has been critized by other reviewers and I believe the blame lies on the writer and director and not on the acting abillities of Mel Gibson. I will not spoil the ending for those who haven't yet seen the movie but I will say that the ending is a little more glorious than the actual end of fighting on the third day. Sadly what happens on the 4th and 5th days isn't mentioned in the movie and for those who feel the movie ends on too much of an upbeat note for such a grim war, they should definately read the book. It would be an interesting contrast for a film maker to produce a movie showing the second battle that involved the 2nd Battalion of the 5th Cavalry. This second battle was the ominous sign of things ahead for the U.S. Military in Vietnam.
  All in all the movie shows a fairly accurate portrayal of the events and the thinking of the American military at the beginning of the Vietnam War. Viewers should remember that this is before the attitudes changed at home and it became an unpopular war. It is a good contrast from movies like Platoon which shows the war after the change has occured. For those who have seen Platoon, the character Sgt. Elias, played by Willem Dafoe, is a veteran of the Ia Drang battles that are portrayed in this film. It is definately a movie that should be seen by anyone interested in understanding what the American military experience was like in that turbulent era.
  
  
• The first war movie that made me laugh hysterically!
  By A18CRS4FLVH5YW on 2002-08-22
  This movie is so thick with sugary, gooey and contrived sentiment you'll wish the dentist was sitting right next to you to clean your teeth when it's all over. There is not one thing they "got right" with this movie. When I see movies like Platoon, Full Metal Jacket and Hamburger Hill, I am reminded of what great filmmaking involving the Vietnam War can be. For an author to outright say Hollywood has never produced one film about the Vietnam War with ultimate correctness, I am appalled by the accusation since those last three films I just mentioned have gone on to be some of the most powerful and gripping films of our time-not to mention of the Vietnam War! After watching "We were soldiers," the directors and writers use every cliche in the book (including cliches innovated from those three films) to tell a story that has been told a million times before and with far better innovation than this tripe of a film!

  Let me say this without reservation; I am in the US Navy and quite simply, watching something like this angers me because it tries too hard to convey a message without taking the really hard roads to tell it. It's almost presented with too much ease and not enough grit and grime. I will say, there is one scene where the grit and grime come really close-when Barry Peppers character tries to lift one of his buddies to safety only to accidently pull off charred legs from Nepalm-it's gripping and shocking and the look on Barry Peppers face is brilliant. Barry Pepper is a really great actor and quite frankly he really holds up a really small and strong character throughout the film. Unfortunately, I quickly ended up breaking in laughter watching bacon boy look ridiculous with all the obvious layers of make up that was supposed to look like a charred face.

  After watching the "making of" documentary on the DVD, my assumptions were correct when they show you a plethora of wardrobe for Mr. Gibson who wore dozens of different uniforms to show the wear and tear of the event. C'MON! Why not just have Mel Gibson in one uniform for the entire thing? Do you see what Hollywood is trying to do here folks? It's not reality and it's not realistic, it's just a bunch of guys in front of a camera playing war games only with a bunch of caterers standing by and slick and expensive production designl. Even worse, no heartfelt emotion anywhere!

  The DVD itself poses almost no extras (not even a trailer) and is a letdown considering this movie was a major upset and only raked in a measly 60 million at the box office. This movie cost almost twice that and I don't see them really making up the cost anywhere on this DVD version. I am kinda glad this movie didn't go too far. It doesn't deserve to. After watching brilliant war films like Saving Private Ryan (depicting WW2) and Black Hawk Down (Gulf War), you know that the story of Vietnam has been appropriately done somewhere else after watching "We Were Soldiers."
  
  

• A Wonderfully Realistic Depiction Of Combat!
  By ALR35EFI69S5R on 2002-09-19
  This film represents a wonderful example of how well Hollywood can sometimes transform the truths and spirit of a book into a moving and inspiring experience. It is a terrific period piece in the sense that it captures the essence of a now long-gone spirit of concern and empathy that older and compassionate senior officers had for their soldiers. Mel Gibson seems to be aging very well as evidenced by his wonderful characterization of Lt. Col. Harold Moore, a career Army officer who lives both fully and well, but who is at the same time also totally devoted and committed to meet the responsibility he's entrusted with in terms of the welfare of his officers and men.

  The movie, based on the historical fact of the first large scale engagement by American soldiers with the regular North Vietnamese Army (NVA), as opposed to the clashes with the guerilla-style Viet Cong later on, traces the extensive training and preparation of the regiment in the experimental use of helicopters to transport soldiers rapidly into enemy-held areas. The risks associated with this new style of tactical warfare quickly becomes apparent; eight to ten serial efforts are required to fully mobilize the unit, and the men first dropped find themselves dangerously exposed in the event a vastly superior enemy force engages. Of course, this is exactly what happens, and the brutal exchange that then ensues is the backdrop for the movie.

  Over a period of some five days, the encircled American forces lose almost half their personnel, yet are able to kill more than 1,800 of the attacking Vietnamese soldiers. Seen in the cold light of day, this exchange becomes a de-facto documentary on the inherent risks of combat, and the quicksilver nature of modern warfare. The cast helps here, for veterans like Sam Elliot (as the Sgt. Rock-like Sergeant Major) and Barry Pepper (as the UPI reporter who forges a life-long friendship with Wallace and helps to write the book) add to the sense of gritty reality the film captures so well. Madeline Stowe is also very good as the enduring wife of the Colonel who also acts to lead the women of the organization in the men's absence. Like another recent movie, "Black Hawk Down", this film helps to de-mystify modern warfare without glorifying or judging it. This is a wonderful film, and one I heartily recommend. Enjoy!
  
  

• Excellent movie...
  By A2Z5WEA0KOMN9G on 2002-11-22
  I didn't like this movie on my first viewing. I was pretty depressed at the end of it because I was thinking of these motivated soldiers that were being screwed by the politicians from the beginning. Then I went to see it with my mom and I saw it in a different light. It is not your typical Vietnam War movie. The soldiers are actually motivated. The officers are not portrayed as glory seeking medal hunters (except for one). The soldiers aren't high on dope. The Vietnamese actually were portrayed as humans. All in all, a very well done movie.
  
  

• Black Hawk Down [Blu-ray]
• The Patriot (Extended Cut) [Blu-ray]
• Saving Private Ryan [Blu-ray]
• Top Gun [Blu-ray]
• Troy - The Director's Cut [Blu-ray]