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 (2)
Plots(1)
Maximum Action, Maximum Drama! - We Were Soldiers is a powerful & bloody war movie based on a true story that moves at a heart-racing & ear-shattering pace! On Sunday November 14, 1965 at 10.48am, Lt. Col. Hal Moore (a magnificent performance by Mel Gibson) and his regiment of 400 men touch down at Landing Zone X-ray in the La Drang Valley, a place in Vietnam known as "The Valley Of Death". They find themselves surrounded by roughly 2,000 North Vietnamese soldiers and the ensuing battle becomes one of the most savage in US history. (Icon Home Entertainment)
(more)Reviews (9)
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!
()
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.
()
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.
()
50 years behind Stone and 100 behind Coppola. A propaganda film with a blue-eyed hero and nickel-and-dime moralizing. Some of the action sequences are nice, but they are far away from building on the gems from the 70's and 80's. Incorrigible cinematography, which, after magnificent filmmaking with the idea of turning to the subject of war again, turns to cheap poses and pathos (although undoubtedly well-meaning).
()
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%
()
As long as Randall Wallace is attack in the mode of heroic soldiers who shoot, run, or die in slow motion, each shot or fall affects me so strongly that I started fumbling for a handkerchief surprisingly quickly. However, once the pleasant pathos starts to melt into words and endless diluted phrases about pride, wives, or dying for the homeland, the charm disappears. Then suddenly the sloppiness of the screenplay or the occasional visual routine starts to surface. If it weren't for the fact that Hal is literally tailored for Mel Gibson, who can take roles like this to the absolute maximum, the outcome would be a class lower.
()
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.
()
I’ll keep this short: a deep well in which any good idea is drowned in pathos.
()
The Vietnam War is an essentially inexhaustible topic. It's possible to film classic, dramatic war movies about it, as well as psychedelic horrors and actually even comedies. We Were Soldiers is a variant of a dramatic war film, where it's not just about the action, which is captured above average, but also about how the action affects those who stayed at home. Thousands of kilometers over which nothing can be influenced. A powerful story told with an excess of pathos, but this war deserves it. Or at least the soldiers who were thrust into it.
()
Ads