Rating: 
Summary: A decent war movie
Review: I found We Were Soldiers to be entertaining, but I found it falling far short of my expectations. Saving Private Ryan (which I consider to be a masterpiece on film) has raised the limbo pole, if you will, of what combat should look like on film. I did not see the look of horror I expected on every soldier's face when the Vietnamese soldiers were firing AK-47 rounds only inches from their faces.
Over and over again the film reminded me of the old John Wayne movies, where the heroes shoot up the bad guys while only the extras are killed or wounded on their team. The Vietnames soldiers were about twelve feet away, yet they scored zero hits on US soldiers in fight after fight. Also, the enemy had zero artillery. Not even so much as a mortar round landed on the American positions. I'm pretty sure that at least some form of artillery would be standard issue for any North Vietnamese division (or any division in the world, for that matter). As cramped as the US solders were in their position, a single mortar crew could have killed them all.
Despite this, the film is decent enough for a single viewing. I was glad that I went to the early show.
Rating: 
Summary: We Were Soldiers review
Review: Hollywood has finally been able to present a story of the Vietnam War that shows the tragedy,heroism,pathos,pain and the sadness it brought to the soldiers and families who sacrificed their futures for their ideals.Superb acting,superb script,superb cinematogragphy combine to present a film guaranteed to hold interest and touch the deepest recesses of the heart.Expect Mel Gibson to be a contender for Best Actor next year.
Rating: 
Summary: almost beats out platoon
Review: if it werent for that zzzzzzzzz part with madelien stowe and her new lips(who gave her the bright idea,melonie griffith?).only 1 scene was needed to show her HEROICALLY pass out death slips.i guess it was politically correct to show what ever part women play during wartime,HOWEVER,we got the idea after the 1st shot.and what the heck was with that womens group meeting?(more zzzzzzzzzzzz's)mel did a little bit of grand-standing pacing back and forth on the battlefield.sam elliots charactor was a wee bit unconvincing.overall,this is the 2nd best vietnam movie,and high on the top 10 war movies in my ever popular opinion.
Rating:
Summary: GREAT WELL DONE WAR STORY
Review: War in itself sucks but this war story was so beautifully told by the soldiers, the wives and even the enemy's perspective.
Mel Gibson, of course, carries the movie with the many expressions on his face. Many times, he was just silent but you read all that you could from his expressions. What an actor! The supporting cast were all wonderful from Barry Pepper playing the journalist. He too gave such a touching performance of the pain he felt. The Sargent Major played by Sam Eiliot was great and the chopper pilot by Greg Kinnear was the best I've seen him play. Madaline Stowe was beautiful in the part of his wife. She showed the feelings of her love for her husband and what he had to do. The action scenes were the best I've seen equal to "Private Ryan". And, the musical score was so outstanding, the best yet, that it really touches you. It's about time the Nam veterans were given a fair shake, instead of always showing them to be crazy people in prior movies. Colonel Moore portrayed by Mel Gibson and all the men under his command were heroes in the true sense of the word. I recommend everyone to see this film.
Rating:
Summary: READ THIS!!!!!
Review: Okay. You have to read this before seeing we were soldiers.It is about the Vietnamese war, and Mel Gibson is Colonel Hal Moore.If you're soft hearted, or soft shelled, don't see this movie. You'll cry the whole way through.The effects are so realistic, I felt as if I was in a real war, with real guns firing at me.I was watching a program about it on the history channel, and they asked if it was history, or Hollywood.Well let me tell you something. It was ALL history. They used real guns (no bullets),and they really added some emotinal scenes to it that could make you cry your eyes out.BUT-if you like war movies, SEE THIS ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Set aside Saving Private Ryan, and Pearl Harbor, and Hart's War.See We Were Soldiers NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!
Rating:
Summary: This is how you make a war movie
Review: "We Were Soldiers" is the best movie I have seen so far from this year. Unlike a lot of recent war films, which try to digitize the battle, this film is mostly live action, if not all. "We Were Soldiers" is different from a lot of Vietnam War movies in how it shows the soldiers on both sides. The Americans aren't pot-smoking hippies who don't want to be there. They are respectable, sane men who know that they have a duty and do it. As for the Vietnamese, it starts off bad in the beginning scene when their commander orders prisoners taken in battle executed. But the movie soon changes its tone, showing the human side of the enemy so that we sympathize with them. We even grieve when one of them dies. Some can say that these and other film depiction's differ because of the time; this movie takes place early in the war, before we really got dug in. One of my biggest complaints with "Pearl Harbor" was its overdoing of the romance plot, which drew attention away from the attack itself. "WWS" does have a romance subplot, involving the wives of the soldiers. But the producers don't overdo this. There are no love triangles, extra-martial affairs, one night stands or anything like that. The producers know that the war is the main plot and focus on that. I should mention a word on the acting. While no one in here could match Laurence Olivier while playing Shakespeare, they were all very good in their parts. I particularly liked Sam Elliott as Sergeant Major Plumley who gets some of the best lines. Particularly memorable are the two encounters he has with an officer that says "Good Morning" to him and Gibson's idea to the battalion about family. He tells them about how the warriors in Crazy Horse's tribe referred to all older women as mother and all older men as grandfather. Plumley doesn't particularly like that idea, as he bluntly points out to the troops. However, I have to show a balanced argument. The only compliant I had with this movie was the lack of time spent on the training of the soldiers as compared with say "Full Metal Jacket". But this barely tarnishes an otherwise a great movie. But don't take my word for it. Go see for yourself.
Rating:
Summary: Most Moving Film I've Ever Seen!
Review: I went to this movie last night with a friend. Words can't really even describe the film......but it is VERY powerful. It is about a specific battle during the Vietnam War. It was quite graphic but not in a needless sort of way. The theater was silent during the whole movie and after it was over, I was completely speechless......no small feat for me! I felt completely emotionally drained and unable to even discuss what I had just seen. I highly recommend this movie and both my friend and felt that this was probably the best movie we have ever seen. **NOTE - PEOPLE!!!! Don't take small children to this movie. There were several in the theater when I saw it. There were a few times that I couldn't stomach some of the violence and I had to look away.... and not too much offends me. It is rated "R" for a reason!
Rating:
Summary: All Americans should see this movie.
Review: As usual, the movie is not as good as the book. However, the movie is still quite good. The guys that went to fight for America in the Vietnam war were the same guys as went to fight in WW2 and the Korean War. They were betrayed by politicians such as LBJ with his rules such as "cannot fire until fired upon", NVA sanctuary areas off limits, NVA harbors of supply off limits, military targets announced ahead of time etc. The generals who knew better in terms of these political rules of engagement are also at fault as they led to the deaths of many American boys. This movie covers one of the first battles of USA versus NVA. The vietnam veterans deserve our thanks and support. It is interesting to see which movie stars such as Mel Gibson and Arnold Schartzenegger use their celebrity in a patriotic way and others such as Alec Baldwin and Sean Penn who behave like traitors. To learn more about the vietnam war, I recommend the books About Face by Colonel David Hackworth and Combat Medic by Craig Roberts and the movie Mopic Charlie 84
Rating: 
Summary: OVERBLOWN
Review: Randall Wallace has turned a true story of valor and patriotism into an overblown, gory, corny mess. Mel Gibson is one of the few actors who could anchor this film with his star persona, but he can't save this film from its own false heart. The scenes involving the wives of the soldiers, sitting around the coffee table and discussing racial equality, are borderline comic. As an air force brat, I lived through these years and watched my father leave the house on many mornings -- and I watched my mother's galvanized terror and fear. There is none of that here. On the battlefield, the blood virtually never stops flowing, in ways that make you think that the director kept trying to find new, novel ways of making a body explode -- so much so that he actually lets blood drip onto the camera, which of course reminds you that you are watching a movie. While I admire the man (Moore)behind Gibson's character, the simplistic way in which the Vietnam war and its participants are handled -- including an absurdly PC epilogue involving the Viet Cong leader and an American flag -- felt false at every turn. It's a big, noisy war epic, signifying nothing.
Rating:
Summary: contrived. pales in comparison to black hawk down
Review: the first half hour of this movie is a series of rushed overdramatic moments, each of which sets up a potential plotline which does not deepen significantly throughout the movie. these scenes, ranging from a take on racism of the day, to a soldier who helped orphans in africa before being commissioned (???), to one of the pregnant wives water breaking, all felt like they were crammed into the movie. the writers should have stuck with one of these plotlines, and followed it through the movie in depth instead they attempted to cram many very different plotlines into one movie, and did not acheive any level of depth at any of them. the movie also attempted to reach out to viewers who were women and minorities so as not to alienate any potential customers, but ironically relied on stereotypes for both, characterising many of the women as bubbleheaded, and relying on stereotypes of the archetypal "fiercly independent black woman" for one such wife. many of the scenes in the movie were simply unrealistic, such as the japanese american soldier introducing himself to a reporter with a beaming smile, and informing him that his son is due to be born, in the middle of a raging firefight. i suppose these were attempts at irony, but they failed miserably in my opinion, becoming simply unrealistic. overall, i felt that this movie was very contrived, made in the wake of saving private ryan in a "it looks like war movies are selling, so lets make one" frenzy. it attempted to encorporate elements found in both "black hawk down" (yes, I know they started making we were soldiers before black hawk down's release) and "the thin red line." it failed at both, creating a movie which lacked depth of any form. This film absolutely pales in comparison to Black Hawk Down, which might be the most powerful war film ever made. "we were soldiers" will be forgotten a year from now, while "Black Hawk Down" will be remembered for decades to come.
|
