Rating: 
Summary: the First, Good, Realistic Vietnam War Movie
Review: Finally, the first good, realistic Vietnam War movie. Out of all the Vietnam War movies, hollywood hasn't gotten one, good, realistic, Vietnam movie, until now. We Were Soldiers has pretty much all the good aspects a good movie need, let alone a good war movie. Not only does it show the hardships on the battlefield, but at home, also. It shows the problems the wives of soldiers have to go through at home. Like taking care of the house and children, and not knowing whether her husband is dead, or alive. Mel Gibson, the star of We Were Soldiers, plays Lt. Col. Hal Moore, the leader of a battalion in the 7th Calvary. He says he will be the first to set foot on the field, and the last to get off. He promises he will take everyone home, dead or alive. The battle is most of the movie, and it is a good battle, too. It has its share of vietnamize deaths, and American deaths. But before the battle, you get to know some of the soldiers first, especially Mel Gibson, so you can care about them. Like when one of the soldiers dies, you won't be saying, oh well. The battle is realistic, like there isn't one "clean" battle scene. The battle scenes always have dust and dirt in the air, and the soldiers cloths are dirty, so its realistic in that view. The deaths are realistic, also. There is blood, but not so much where the battlefield is covered in it. I'm very happy that hollywood, finally got one Vietnam movie right. So go out and rent it, you'll enjoy it.
Rating:
Summary: a good story
Review: a powerful, believable film that captures what many consider the actual experience of the war. There's a nice balance between Hollywood story and action scenes with some surprises along the way. In the midst of so many movies about this war, this one's a keeper.
Rating: 
Summary: We were bored...
Review: ...so we rented "we were soldiers", a supposedly true tale (read: hollywood's bent reality) about one u.s. soldier and his experience in vietnam. halfway through this yawn-factory i found myself more interested in my bowl of popcorn. ever notice how no two pieces pop the same? but i digress. the real tragedy of this train-wreck was how the script, selected scenes, and even the package design are basically ripped-off from other war movies. check out the cover design for "band of brothers" or the poor acting in "the patriot." There are scenes that are lit and shot in an identical fashion to scenes in "platoon" (namely, the backlit night raid by the vietcong on sleeping u.s. soldiers). all the money and effects that went into this movie (it is not a film, since the word 'film' implies that you could study it in college) couldn't seem to make mel gibson convince me that he was anyone other than... mel gibson. paying money to see this flick will not undo the horrors of the vietnam conflict, or bring back any lost loved ones. all it will do is make the production company wealthier.
Rating: 
Summary: Good Intentions
Review: Based on the novel "We Were Soldiers Once... and Young" by Lt Col Hal Moore, "We Were Soldiers" is an account of the first major engagement of the Vietnam War. The battle was fought in a clearing known as Landing Zone X-Ray. The Americans had just developed air cavalry tactics specifically for use in the jungle terrain of southeast Asia. Landing Zone X-Ray was the first location where air cavalry tactics were put into play. The movie attempts to put a human face on the Vietnam veteran. Most movies made about the Vietnam War depict the soldiers who fought there as either drugged out losers or rebellious criminals. It mostly succeeds in this endeavor but goes too far in that direction. Instead of getting an accurate portrayal of the American soldier in Vietnam, we see a romanticized version that is almost as unrealistic as the negative depictions. The best performance given in the film is by Mel Gibson. Gibson plays the aforementioned Lt Col Hal Moore. I have no idea what Lt Col Moore is really like as a person but Gibson infuses the movie version of him with a keen sense of protecting his men as his main objective in any fight. In the movie, Moore is the first American to step on the field of battle and the last one to step off. The battle sequences in "We Were Soldiers" are not the large-scale set pieces you have come to expect in a war film. Part of this is because of the nature of the fighting in Vietnam. In such a heavily forested country you did not often find open spaces where you could amass large numbers of troops. Here we see a battalion of Americans take on a division of Vietnamese troops. The US won this battle but it is hard to tell that from the movie. The bottom line on "We Were Soldiers" is that it gets high marks from me just because of what it is trying to accomplish. As far as the actual movie goes though, it's only average.
Rating: 
Summary: We Were Soldiers is a moving, human film
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: ?
Review: I don't know what to think about this film. It's a mixed bag for me. It didn't seem to flow well in some parts and had bad acting at times. The battle scenes were extremely intense and I was at the endge on my seat. It was a true perspective I guess into what it was really like to have been there. It was at parts sad, but as it should be on the films subject. I enjoyed the relationships between the people/couples aside from the battle scenes. It was a real insight into what was going on back home for these famiies. It's something to check out!
Rating:
Summary: Gung ho is still good, but with flaws...
Review: The Japanese gentleman below is quite correct. Those who are not American, or who are not rabidly pro-American, might not like everything about this film, especially given the current political climate. There is a great deal of "gung-ho" in this film, which is absent from, say, Platoon. In fact, this is possibly the first serious Vietnam film since Green Berets not to hold a left-wing p.o.v. Thos who accused Black Hawk Down of being incrediblyt pro-American haven't seen We Were Soldiers! Although the film ostensibly shows both sides of the conflict (unlike BHD), it really doesn't show the Vietnamese point of view, except to depict them as essentially like the Americans; which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it seems forced. A film like Black Hawk Down is, to me, much less discomfiting; it does not pretend to show both sides, and can therefore concentrate on other matters. However, I would diasagree that this film is unrealistic in its depiction of combat. That was what war was like. The North Vietnamese might go down pretty easily, but that is becayse of America's superior technilogy. The body count really was that high!
Besides, Americans are going down all the time, too, and at a tremendous rate.
Not too sure about the close range of combat - that strikes me as a little dodgy, especially as the battle essentially takes place on an open field. I thought combat firefights were generally at 50 - 200 yards' range. The combat in this film is undoubtedly superb. The platoon tactics and ambuscades etc., as well as airstrikes, helicopter missions and so on, are depict3ed with loving accuracy. I thought many of thge more spectacular shots were CGI enhanced, but no - even the cyclonic napalm attacks are 100% real! The uniforms are also very realistic. Despite its gung-ho sensibilities, this film definitely does NOT glorify war. That should be made plain. The film is pretty much as anti-war as Platoon. The wounded men really look wounded; and some of the wounds are hideous indeed. Also, somehow the lack of a "Private Ryanish" grittiness to the film image somehow makes the carnage look worse. The litter and debris among the corpses really show how desperatr the fighting was in this battle - and how concentrated the fighting was, too. However, there are downsides to this film. The dialogue is forced, and often plays on sympathies that audiences might not share. There is much forced emotion in this film. The film lacks some coherence, and the pacing is far from perfect. Often there is a sense of repetition in the combat, taking away from the adrenaline rush. Also, the story of life back home seems emotionally forced too, lacking any grit. The lack of grit to the characters is possibly due to many of the characters' still being alive in real life. Given defamation laws, it isn't really possible to depict them with any flaws. Unfortunately, this makes even Hal Moore a little too perfect, a little unmemorable. The only character with any nasty traits that I remember is the guy who shouted at Snake (?) and nearly had a gunfight with him. He isn't even named. Incidentally, one reason why this film lacks the angst of most Vietnam films is that it is a battle between regulars. In the early stages of the Vietnam War, it was still a war of volunteers. Hence there are no guerillas or burning villages here. We Were Soldiers presents the point of view of a regular soldier, whereas Platoon presents the story of conscripts v guerillas.
Rating:
Summary: 2 hours of History
Review: The first hour and 53 minutes of this movie is as close to a documentary as Hollywood can get. Perfectly depicted was the chess match between An and Moore. I hold the deepest respect for Charlie Beckwith, but his critisms of Hal Moore are deeply unjust (re: Deta Force by Charles Beckwith). However, at exactly 1:53:00; this movie becomes complete [...]. It is purely Randall Wallace saying "See how much blood and dying heathens I can throw into 10 minutes. The post-battle sequence is farcicle and disrepects the plight of the reinforcements that releaved Hal and his men.
Rating:
Summary: Gripping
Review: I didn't even see this film until a Viet Nam Vet told me that it was the truest depiction of that senseless war. I missed being drafted by just one year, but now I understand what my veteran friends have tried to describe. I rarely purchase DVDs, but this is one I had to add to my library. You will laugh and you will cry. It's truly an example of excellent filmmaking and acting. But it makes me remember when a senior MP officer once told me that he investigated over 300 American soldier suicides in just one year in Viet Nam. And how he was instructed to list every suicide as "killed in action." This is a true story. It should be required viewing for high school history students. The R-rating on this one should stand for Required.
Rating: 
Summary: Maybe not a movie for non-Americans
Review: I fast-forwarded a large part of this movie. I couldn't
believe those American soldier really can fight like
that and kill Vietnamese like Neo in the Matrix.
Vietnamese died 100 times more than Americans it seems.
Non-Americans like me just can't empathize. Every part
of this movie is so melodramatic and hollywood type action hero type, making it come no where
close to war-movie like thin red line or saving private rian.
We Americans are so beautiful, we are so strong and so brave, we killed so many enemies, we are God. This is basically the message this movie is conveying.
| 
