Directed by:
Randall WallaceScreenplay:
Randall WallaceCinematography:
Dean SemlerComposer:
Nick Glennie-SmithCast:
Mel Gibson, Madeleine Stowe, Greg Kinnear, Sam Elliott, Chris Klein, Keri Russell, Barry Pepper, Ryan Hurst, Robert Bagnell, Marc Blucas, Jsu Garcia (more)VOD (1)
Plots(1)
In 1965, 400 American troops faced an ambush by 2,000 enemy troops in the Ia Drang Valley (also known as the Valley of Death), in one of the most gruesome fights of the Vietnam War. WE WERE SOLDIERS is a detailed recreation of this true story: of the strategies, obstacles, and human cost faced by the troops that participated. The story focuses on the lieutenant colonel that led the attack, Hal Moore (Mel Gibson), and a civilian reporter who accompanied them, Joseph Galloway (Barry Pepper), as well as a number of other soldiers who were involved. This is an unusual Vietnam film in that it also shows the North Vietnamese perspective on the battle; their leader Lieutenant General Nguyen Huu An (Don Duong) is depicted as a brave soldier and smart commander. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (1)
Reviews (9)
As an average contribution to the war drama genre, it is quite solid. It has solidly shot war sequences that are raw and dynamic enough to draw the viewer into the story. Some moments are interesting, but unfortunately, the war theme itself fails to captivate on a deeper level, resulting in an average film where you can enjoy explosions and shootouts but will not be shocked by the horrors of war – except for a few shots like the face slicing, there is no such element. The excessive dosage of pathos, which awaits us towards the end (the slow-motion shots are very annoying), is also disappointing. Without any deeper thoughts, the whole thing is too superficial.
()
A very respectable contribution to the genre that’s hindered only by the cheaply conceived visual form and by the overdone affectation (slow-motion shots). Otherwise, however, We Were Soldiers isn’t lacking in pacing or raw realism, or a firm foundation of thought, or a strong leading personality in the form of Mel Gibson, who is the best thing about the whole film.
()
Le Massacre... deserved a better screenplay. But leaving out a couple of things would have been enough. The introductory elimination of the French unit is great. So are the excellent battle scenes in the second half, they give that proper touch of reality and the burned, half-dead soldiers will make you feel pretty bad. The disparity with the utterly pathetic lines about dying proudly for one’s country is irritating. Much better movies have been made about Vietnam. Fix bayonets!
()
Funny that I've put the film off for so long, it's definitely going to the top of the list of greatest wartime carnages. The nerds complaining about the lack of story should jump out the window. When I watch a war movie I want to see war, carnage, similar to when I watch Porno, I don't expect a story, I want to see it go straight to the point. Mel Gibson is excellent here, I haven't cheered for him in a long time. From the 40 minute mark the film is non stop carnage and blood was definitely not spared, the great tactics are nice too. The fifth star was earned by the emotional touch of the delivery of the letters of dead soldiers to their wives, it made me cry like a baby. Emotional flicks about cancer or dogs can't compare to this. 95%
()
Randall wrote Braveheart for his buddy Mel, and his buddy Mel promised his buddy Randall he'd be in his movie, a film that pretends to be a profound and well-crafted work, but it is not. The problem is that Wallace is not a very skilled director, the locations that are supposed to simulate Vietnam are very unconvincing and some scenes (especially the one with the angry photographer) look so awkward that I was ashamed of him. A truly unexpectedly bad film.
()
Ads