Rating: 
Summary: Poorly made, visually obscene film
Review: I love a good, well-made war movie (i.e. Saving Private Ryan, Full Metal Jacket, Hamburger Hill etc.), but this film is a complete failure. Not only are the characters poorly developed and the script lacking in credibility but the combat scenes are reminiscent of those badly filmed war movies of the 1950s and 60s. Though this film might be historically accurate, its visually absurd at times, with the Vietnamese troops blindly running into torrents of fire, often in single file. Ridiculous. Frankly, its insulting. There are far better films than this to spend your money on. This one falls flat.
Rating: 
Summary: An oath to leave no man behind. Why settle for less today?
Review: "We Were Soldiers" seems to me to be the best attempt yet to look at the war in Vietnam from the view of both the American and the enemy combatants and the families who inevitably paid the full price in the long term. Then Colonel Moore's pledge to God, his men and their families that "I will leave no man behind ... dead or alive. We will all come home together. So help me God." is the true highlight of this movie. Why did the United States government and its people settle for less than Lieutenant General Harold G. Moore when it came time to select an officer to command our decades-delayed efforts to bring home the missing men abandoned on the battlefields of Southeast Asia?
Rating:
Summary: The standard for Vietnam movies.
Review: Hal Moore was there. With this movie he states "Hollywood finally got it right". Nothing more need be said.
Rating: 
Summary: Flawed but good
Review: To all those who cripe about this movie not being realistic and trudging up 'Apocalypse Now' as an exemplary Viet Nam flick, I say "Get out of the 1970s." Not every colonel in Viet Nam was a psychotic, megalomaniacal fool. Not every GI burned villages for sport.Did those things happen? Sure. But they were not the ONLY thing that happened. The war was fought primarily by average people in a totally fubar situation, created chiefly by our own government and its provincial myopia. Are there a ton of John Wayne-ish cliches in this movie? You bet. And it also shortchanges the futility of the heroism of the Air Cavalry. But it's a long overdue positive look at the guys who fought and died.
Rating:
Summary: The best war movie, period
Review: As a former soldier, i can relate to the experiences of the men in this film. And i have seen almost every war movie ever made here in america, and i can tell you no film more closely describes the bond between soldiers than this. It was emotional for me, i can only imagine what veterans of that battle may feel after seeing it. I feel this movie finally brings to light the courage and determination of our armed forces, and the brave men and women who are willing to give their lives for their country, and each other. Anyway, back to the movie itself. Incredible. Acting, special effects, accuracy, it has it all. Buy this one, you wont regret it.
Never forget the alamo, but also never forget the men of the 7th Cavalry, Air mobile division.
Rating: 
Summary: Good action but historically not as good as I expected
Review: The show is truly well done and entertaining. It is action packed and well performed by the actors and actresses. However, I do not think I would purchase it again if I had it to do over again. The movie itself gets a high rating, but it is not the type of show that I want to watch over and over again. It is a renter -- a great renter in fact -- but still a renter. For example, Vietnam movies that I like to watch over and again (Hamburger Hill, Apocalypse Now redux, etc.) deal with what happenned, the holistic tragedy if you will. This movie ends with a phyrric victory in the first engagement between the VC and the USA. I do not believe it adequately adresses the initial issues of Vietnam. The lies about the Gulf of Tonkin did not have to be elicited, mind you; however, the only vague historical background relates to the prior French occupation. The slaughtering and cold blooded assisination of French troops (with the line "kill them all, keep killing them and they will stop coming. . .") points to the Vietnamese willingness to win a war of attrition prior to our ever being involved. After that, the movie narrows simply to the battle. The "historical issues" are mainly emotional reactions of wives who lose their husbands. Again, the actresses who mourn do a splendid job of bringing home the reality that war equals death, and that death has an impact beyond the loss of one life. I do not, however, need a whole lot of that. I prefer some geo-political power playing or statement regarding the times. A simple moral about collateral and emotional pain and suffering after the battle could be accomplshed in less time. Thus, the best part of the show is the battle. I love the battle scenes, and if they are enough for you, then buy it; however, this is not something essential to a collection in my opinion. My favorite movies are action films, but I want more out of my histories.
Rating:
Summary: Not quite as good as Platoon but effective
Review: Real life account of events of US Army Cav(the 7th) in Ia Drang valley in 1965. Good solid cast and awesome effects give this one a true-5 star rating even if Platoon is still the definitive Vietnam picture.
Rating:
Summary: Vietnam War Prequel
Review: This is essentially a Vietnam War prequel. Most Vietnam War movies cover many time periods well after the war started. This is at the very early days of the war. Mel Gibson is very good in this role. I had in my mind the "pretty boy" from some of his other movies and had doubts that he could be a soldier. He pulled it off and did an excellent job. Smart, brave and handsome without the baggage that typically goes with that. Perhaps not as accurate as "Black Hawk Down" nor as emotional as "Saving Private Ryan". Still, much better than 80% of the Vietnam War movies and better than many other war movies, excepting "Black Hawk Down", which may be my favorite. Good stuff.
Rating:
Summary: Wallace made his best, but....
Review: I read the book before seeing the movie. IT was not a dissapointment, no, itÂ's a good movie, but somethingÂ's weird here... In the book, Moore traces a brief background about the Vietnam situation (French dominance, American involvment, the politics of it all). In the movie, it is seldom mentioned. Also, half the book is about another battle fought two days later, at Landing Zone Albany, where American soldiers suffered even bigger losses than in Landing zone X-Ray. Also, IÂ'm positive that, in the book, Moore does not talk about himself killing anyone. The movie shows him killing a lot of vitnamese soldiers, some of them at point blank range... I understand that, since, the second battler would be completely wiped out for the movie, Wallace had to make Moore (Gibson) more dominant on the screen. Just a note: whatÂ's wrong with Madeleine StoweÂ's mouth here? Have someone noticed that? ThereÂ's something werong with her lips!
Rating:
Summary: Overrated (....at least on Amazon)
Review: This is a movie with excellent potential, yet it doesn't quite 'hit'. For one thing, Mel Gibson's war general accent seems totally fake. Especially given the way his character is portrayed. Character development, although attempted, turns out to be weak. Perhaps this is related to the fact that the fighting dominates the movie. In fact, the fighting sequences are the one part of this film that's great. Obviously director Randall Wallace wanted to show the non-stop killing and unrest, but he does so at the expense of the rest of the story. Also, the subplot of the wives back at home is interesting but poorly placed. Wallace jumps from brutal killing to the peaceful wives in a way that seems obscure and awkward. Perhaps I was hoping too much for another Saving Private Ryan or the like but instead its more of a detached experience of explicit brutality. Worth a watch; not the buy.
| 
