Rating: 
Summary: Overall pretty good but....
Review: I read the book by Hal Moore prior to seeing the movie. In fact I read the book several times as I found it one of the best non-fiction accounts of war I have ever encountered. This was an important work for the battles in the Ia Drang played a pivotal role in the formation of American military strategy through the '60s (not that anybody in upper command appeared to either understand or heed these lessons).So how did the movie compare to the book, i.e. the truth? Not terribly well in my opinion particularly in regards the battle. There was no 'charge' led by Hal Moore routing the NVA on the last day of the battle. Pure 'John Wayne' style fantasy that simply did not play very well. In truth this Hollywood 'addition' was completely unnecessary as there were plenty of 'real' heroes without any vainglorious nonsense. Every man who served during in that battle was in truth a 'hero'. The strong part of the movie? The depiction of the families who lost husbands, brothers and sons. The emotional carnage was a true reflection on the cost of empire that all of us need to understand, particularly in these grim times. The 'view' from the NVA side was interesting and added a dimension to the film that usually isn't present. I'm glad that a motion picture was made from Hal Moore's book. General Moore was by all accounts a tremendous soldier and a man of true character. I encourage people who enjoyed the movie to take the time to read the book by General Moore, "We were soldiers once, and young". A moving work written by a talented man that goes a long way towards dispelling some of the many myths surrounding the Vietnam War.
Rating: 
Summary: We were soldiers once, and young
Review: This film is a combination of the most realistic, graphic war scenes since Saving Private Ryan and the emotional bond between the soldiers and their familes. This film is not for immature audiences due to it's violent nature. One thing which stands this film out from all war films is the fact that there is such a strong emotional bond shown between the soldiers and their families. This does not, however, remove any emphasis from the war scenes. The performances, including all of the supporting cast, are oscar-worthy. The score is very effective as well, with emotional tunes fitting to the story. The movie is overall, probably one of the best of this year.
Rating: 
Summary: We Were Soldiers is brilliant
Review: We Were Soldiers is the story of a 3 day battle in the Ia Drang Valley of Vietnam in November 1965. It is based on the book We Were Soldiers Once, and Young, cowritten by Hal Moore and Bob Galloway. Mel Gibson plays Hal Moore, who was at that time a Lt. Col and Commanding Officer of the 1st Battalion of the 7th Cavalry which is the unit involved in the battle. The battle scenes are the most realistic I have ever seen. The violence and gore is neither amplified for effect nor toned down to avoid shocking or offending. The North Vietnamese are presented as competent hard-fighting advesaries which adds to the realism and the sense of "being there". The effect of the loss of life in the battle to the families is brought home with great power by scenes back at Fort Benning, the battalion's home garrison, involving the wives, particularly Col Moore's wife. During one scene, I could hear crying throughout the theater. The movie does not attempt to rehash the tired political arguments about whether we should have fought in Vietnam. Instead it portrays the effect that decision, once made, had on real people in the military and their loved ones. I have seen nothing that does that better. I most strongly recommend this movie to anyone. It is a great war movie for those who like that genre and it is a great "people movie" for those who generally don't see war movies. I believe anyone who sees it will not quickly forget it.
Rating:
Summary: Graphic and real
Review: My wife and I went to see this movie the other day. I'm a history nut, and I cannot say enough about how accurate everything seemed-down to the correct color for the North Vietnamese tracer bullets! It is also very very graphic-necessarily so. My wife cried at one point, and this is the first movie that I almost walked out of because of the graphic images. That's saying a lot since I had no problem with Saving Private Ryan. Still, I stayed, and I'm glad I did. It sets a new standard for 21st Century war movies/semi-documentaries. Go see it, but be prepared for some sad and shocking moments.
Rating:
Summary: To My Fallen Comrades.
Review: Vietnam is the single most defining "moment" of my generation. I have kept silent, because no one seemed to really care. I have literally prayed for someone, somewhere to tell our story. "We Were Soliders" is an excellent beginning. Every American should take the time and view this "our story." I wept openly and unrestrained when Mel Gibson stated so succintly, "I can never forgive myself! I led my men into battle and they died; and I didn't!" For the very first time, after all these years, I was forced to face myself, my fears, my questions, my doubts, and my anger. Now, I feel I just may begin to forgive myself. For every Vietnam Veteran...THIS IS A MUST SEE! For all those who have never understood the war or those of us who fought it...maybe this film is the very best bridge to understanding in our life time! Please...DO NOT TAKE ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF 18; for the horrors of war has come to the silver screen with dramatic trauma...but, oh so true. American Vietnam Veterans owe Mel Gibson as well as the entire cast and crew a great debt!
Rating:
Summary: Who Can Explain Such Things?
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Better than Black Hawk Down, as good as Saving Private Ryan
Review: "We Were Soldiers" is a phenominal film, easily the best war film since "Saving Private Ryan," and definitely the best movie about the Vietnam war movie ever made. This film celebrates the actions and the sacrifices of American soldiers in the Ia Drang valley, the trials of their families at home, and the perspective of the VC soldiers and their leaders. The first 30-45 minutes firmly establishes the soldiers in the film as regular people, it wonderfully shows their faith, their doubts about their abilities as leaders, and their struggles as husbands and fathers, but still men who deeply care about their families. One of the most memorable scenes from the film was when Moore's daughter asks him what a war is and his response to her question as he tucks her into bed. Of course, the battle is the primary focus of the movie and the pace really gets going with the landing of the first helecopters. The battle is a violent, realistic view of the events in the Ia Drang valley, on par with the battle scenes of "Saving Private Ryan." This movie really strains the emotions, we watch men that we've come to know killed while trying to save their friends, and in a scene that really brought tears to my eyes, we see the yellow cabs delivering the government telegrams informing wives that their husbands are dead. The film is respectful to almost everyone involved, American soldiers, Vietnamese soldiers, and the families of both groups. The only people put in a disapproving light are some of the leaders involved in making deployment decisions, and the American press corps that comes running onto the battle field after the action is over. I highly recomend this movie in every respect, it paints a very realistic, very human face on the first meeting between American and Vietnamese forces. (I actually liked this movie even more than Saving Private Ryan)
Rating:
Summary: Works on All Levels
Review: This film shows the heavy burden of command. It shows the courage of the men in field and the pain they all felt. It shows the 7th and the men they went up against. They were all soldiers. Both sides stood together for each other. This is a moving film.
Rating: 
Summary: Better Luck Next Time
Review: Back in 1992, when they brought out We Were Soldiers Once, and Young, Hal Moore and his collaborator Joe Galloway said, "Hollywood got it wrong every ...time." As it now appears on film, Moore's story , portrayed as We Were Soldiers, (director Randall Wallace) is a story that is appropriate for our present time, when we want to celebrate our heroes, but unfortunately, got it wrong.
Hal Moore proclaims We Were Soldiers the best Viet Nam film. I disagree. For beginners, compare Mel Gibson's interpretation of Moore as a blood and guts WWII commander, with Robert Duvall's surrealistic Colonel Kilgore, another Air Cavalry Battalion Commander, from Apocalypse Now and ask yourself which one does a better job of telling the American public what Viet Nam was all about.
We Were Soldiers does justifiably honor the young men who fought in Viet Nam, but the battle portrayed in the film was not typical of the Viet Nam combat that countless thousands of soldiers had to deal with. The battle for the Ia Drang Valley, November 14-17, 1965, was fought early in the war, when military discipline was still high, and it was possible to be a good soldier in Viet Nam, a stand up confrontation between two big units of the US Army and the People's Army of Vietnam, fought in the wilderness of South Vietnam's Central Highlands, away from population centers. Change the date and mise en scene and this film could have been in Korea, North Africa, the Pacific or Europe in World War II. It was a far cry from the village war, that was so frustrating and morally confusing, fought in the midst of Vietnamese civilians who could be innocents or adversaries, that was the signature of Viet Nam War Combat, the kind that Hal Moore so detested (see Moore's comments about his experiences as a Battalion Commander on the Bong Son Plain, several months after the Ia Drang, at pp. 342-343, of We Were Soldiers Once and Young, 1992). Hal Moore is a man of impeccable integrity but his honor is in part, intact because he was in and out of Viet Nam early in the war.
Undoubtedly, Moore and Galloway lost control of the script once they signed away the rights to film the story, so the final shape of We Were Soldiers rests with the film makers. This is a time for heroes and that's what the final product is about. Although the content of the battle as portrayed in the book contains enough heroism for any film, the producers contrived heroism by dawdling for an inexplicably long time in the pre-battle environment of Fort Benning Georgia, rousing speeches and wives coffee-claches. Also, the final twenty minutes or so of the film imposes a theatrical charge by Moore's troops into the enemy lines, creating a crisis of suspense and release for the spectator, when what looks like a heroic fatal charge is transformed into a brilliant maneuver, when an obviously coordinated and finely calibrated air attack ambushes the enemy soldiers just as they are about to annihilate Moore's battalion. These editing choices in fact invert the true ambush by North Vietnamese forces that is the rest of the story: As American Forces were withdrawing from the battle field on November 17, 1965, regrouped North Vietnamese forces fell on an American Battalion (Not Moore's 1st of the Seventh Regiment, but the 2nd of the 7th ), in an ambush that left 155 Americans dead (Twice the total of the first three days) and hundreds of others wounded. Depiction of this horrifying and spectacular ambush could have elevated the film to a classic of the tragedy of war, a story riddled with horror and ambiguity, much closer to what the War in Viet Nam was about.
The Ia Drang battle, including the fatal ambush, is now seen by historians like Colonel Moore and Colonel Harry Summers as crucial to the remainder of the war. The North Vietnamese, unaware of the potency of the air-mobile warfare employed by Moore's battalion, quickly understood that they could not expose their Army to modern American technology. They regrouped and changed their tactics. The Americans didn't. General Westmoreland, seeing a 10-1 kill ratio in favor of American forces, thought this was the strategy to win the war. Poor Westy never got it, and seldom ever again had the luxury of confronting the NVA and Viet Cong in head-on big unit combat. Secretary of Defense McNamara, briefed by Colonel Moore, was smart enough to see the writing on the wall. To his credit he warned President Johnson that it would be extremely difficult to win the war and would require a force commitment that could stretch American power to the breaking point. And of course it is McNamara's cross that he kept his insights and dissent within the Administration.
Most of all, when it was fought the American government and its military leaders kept the fatal Ambush of November 17, 1965, a secret. Hal Moore's collaborator Joe Galloway dates the rot and corruption in the American effort in Viet Nam from that deception. Ironically in its choice of content and theme We Were Soldiers perpetuates that deceit. The American Soldiers who fought in the Ia Drang campaign and the Viet Nam war generally are honored by this film, but the history of the war is not well served. Too bad. Better luck next time...
Rating:
Summary: Better then 'Jacket', 'platoon' or 'Now'
Review: This is turly the film the defines what little good (if any)that came out of the bad war. A story of the few victories the the American forces face. Most of the battles in Vietnam were fought in back roads, and backyards, and very few large scale battles. This showed the horrible price that US troops pay in the first real offensive battle. A platoon was pinned down, and other platoon rush to there rescue, only to be slaughter WWI style, the final battle sence, a classic unrealistic WWII battle charge. But remember this was the very START of the conflict, and we knew little about jungle and gurilla warfare. There was only one thing that cheezed me. It was Moore's (Gibson)
remark on the M16. "It's a good rifle." Sure the M16A1 was a great rifle, A2 even better, but the oringal M16 by Euegne Stoner (if my history is correct) was a HORRIBLE rifle, it was rumored to be self-cleaning which lead to
abuse and missuse. The perellent was dirty and it had to be clean ever fifteen minutes, whole platoons were found with there M16 broken down and cleaning kits out.
|
