We Were Soldiers (2002)

Disturbing yet enthralling

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

"I will be the first to set foot on the filed, and I will be the last to step off, and I will leave no man behind." So declares Lt. Hal Moore played by Mel Gibson the day before he and his outfit set off across the Pacific for the front lines of Vietnam. Easily the highlight line of the movie, it would be easy enough to see this as the kind of cheesy bravado that romanticizes war heroes, but We Were Soldiers gets away with it by being everything but romantic. There are moments where the images of blood alone may be enough to summon misty eyes.The movie doesn't bring anything new to the genre, but it is a visually genuine and visceral depiction of battle and survival. The American invasion of Communist Vietnam is something that to this day, virtually nobody is proud of so. All the better it is that the film has no political bias or stance on the conflict. It even does something to the contrary. The Vietcong "charlie" are not bad guys, they are merely soldiers fighting for their homeland.The firefighting is quite exhausting but it is the individual moments in-between the bullets that lift We Were Soldiers out of the chaos. Director Randall Wallace adds a curious scoring touch laying "Sgt. Mackenzie." (a Scottish WWI ballad), over the first moments of the final assault.The irony is that this is a song about the will to die for country; not a compatible motif with 'nam,Regardless of its political correctness, the words end up being less important than the somber and haunting tone of the melody. Our characters are not fighting for country, they are fighting for each other, and to get home to their loved ones. Every now and then, Wallace cuts from the front lines back to America to focus on Moore's Wife and the wives of his comrades. Day to day they live in fear of receiving a certain letter from the government regarding their husbands. The impact of these scenes on the picture is rather minimal, but it serves to remind us of what is really at stake, while showcasing one of Madaline Stowe's better performances. She barely has to say a word, you can read the vulnerability in her eyes.True to his word, Hal Moore is the first to step off the field, and there is a good shot of his boot coming of the grass and into the chopper that will take him back to the home of the brave. The final sequences are heavy on unspoken melodrama, over emphasizing the loss of life. The film doesn't rely on our knowledge of the history to add to the tragedy. It is a story about brothers and comrades who fought together and died together.

Released in 2002, "We Were Soldiers" stars Mel Gibson as Col. Hal Moore who leads the first major battle between Americans and the North Vietnamese Army in The Battle of Ia Drang Valley over four days in mid-November, 1965. Sam Elliott costars as the seasoned NCO and Barry Pepper as a bold photographer while Madeleine Stowe appears as the Colonel's wife. Greg Kinnear is also on hand as a helicopter pilot while Keri Russell plays a soldier's wife.The movie is based on the book "We Were Soldiers Once… and Young" by Col. Moore and the aforementioned photographer, Joe Galloway. As such, "We Were Soldiers" is a straight-forward realistic depiction of the battle and the first film depiction where Moore claimed "Hollywood finally got it right." This reminds me of something someone I know who fought in Nam said: All the other films about the war from the late 70s to late 80s didn't strike him as the way it really was, but after seeing "We Were Soldiers" he said, "That's the way it was." Be that as it may, it doesn't make it as good as 1986' "Platoon" or 1979's "Apocalypse Now." The former is so great because the platoon in the story is a microcosm of many platoons and their experiences throughout the war, which might come across as "too much" because the filmmakers only have about 2 hours to tell the story and they have to jam a whole year of experiences into that time frame. Incredibly, "Platoon" fleshes-out no less than a dozen memorable characters with its grunt's-eye view of the conflict while telling a compelling story. By contrast, "We Were Soldiers" only presents about four memorable characters during the battle and, while it's a solid war flick, it simply isn't as compelling.As for "Apocalypse Now," it's useless to compare the two because (1.) the original version of "Apocalypse Now" (as opposed to the horribly flawed "Redux") is a downright cinematic masterpiece; (2.) it's way more than just a war movie; and (3.) its theme is deeper than the conventional and patriotic portrayal of the realistic "We Were Soldiers." If you're not familiar with the theme of "Apocalypse Now," it's basically this: Capt. Willard (Sheen) comes face-to-face with two Colonels during his mission up the river to assassinate the rogue Col. Kurtz. Both of the colonel's names start with 'K,' which is no accident. Col. Kilgore (Duvall) is a romantic who embraces war as a lifestyle and even feeds off it. The fact that he's a romantic can be observed in the air-raid on the village where he literally plays Wagner as a prologue. He feeds off the war to the extent that he "loves the smell of napalm in the morning." War is just another day to him so why not go surfing? Since he lives off of the war there's no way it can kill him or even give him a scratch. Kilgore naturally has the support of the top brass because he's part of the system and plays the game of war. Col. Kurtz (Brando), by contrast, sees through this hypocrisy. He realizes that being in a state of war is humanity gone mad. It's horror itself and therefore must be ended through the quickest means possible at whatever cost. He refuses to play the game of war as he expertly takes out double agents, etc. Of course the brass can't have this so they put out a hit on Kurtz via Willard."We Were Soldiers" instead opts for a simple portrayal of the first major battle of the infamous war and the bravery & horror thereof. The story essentially proposes the question: What would happen if you drop 400 American soldiers into a valley crawling with 4000 soldiers of the NVA? The fighting is presented realistically, brutally and relatively coherently given the chaos of the intense conflict. Col. Moore truly loves his men and Gibson carries the movie with the peripheral help of Elliot and Barry Pepper. On top of this, the movie gives quite a bit of time to North Vietnamese side of the story, which enhances the story.Some people have rolled their eyes at the Morro Bay locations of central coastal, California, but if you look at Galloway's real-life pics of the battle they chose a great stand-in for the grassy valley. I guess people don't realize that Vietnam isn't all conventionally tropical jungle.The film runs a little overlong at 2 hours and 18 minutes and was shot in Morro Bay, Pasadena and Fort Hunter Liggett, California; as well as Fort Benning and Columbus, Georgia.GRADE: B- (6.5/10 Stars)

After watching the film , I felt completely speechless. With all the massacre scenes in the film, I thought the US is the one who won the war, not the one who left its partner, South Vietnam, behind in desperation. My question is: how could it be so easy for American troops to kill VCs in the film? If it really were like the way the movie depicted, the US would haven't needed Search&Destroy operations for years. I still remember in the series "Vietnam in HD", real American vets usually said "NVA troops are smart as hell" and I don't think they would agree with this film. We were soldiers is nothing but a slap to ones who actually served in Vietnam.In my opinion, if you want to watch a real film about Vietnam War, Platoon and Apocalypse Now are definitely great options.

Wonder how the movie got a 7+ star rating. Too dragging in the beginning and towards the end. It takes a lot of time in the beginning to show the family of all soldiers, which is good but taking too much time to deliver the dialogues. It is not that great war movie which a viewer may expect like Saving the private Ryan and all. The plot is Vietnam war, the war which is unnecessarily fought by the US killing a lot of Vietnam people.The movie is like justifying these act. While watching it as a neutral viewer I wondered what is the entire point of glorifying the war and what is the interest of the US in the war. As per the spoilers, I thought the movie will show the perception of war from both sides, but it rarely does that other than two or three scenes in total.