We Were Soldiers (2002)

When Steven Spielberg released Saving Private Ryan in 1998, it set the new standard for epic war films. We Were Soldiers uses some of those same effects/devices to tell a compelling Vietnam War story.For a basic plot summary, We Were Soldiers tells the story of one of the first Vietnam battles. It follows the First Battalion, 7th Cavalry division through their training, deployment, and improbably "victory" (depending on your perspective) in that seminal battle.Strangely, this film doesn't stand out much on its own accord (it doesn't do anything all that original). However, it does enough things right to make for a very enjoyable, emotional experience.Mel Gibson shines as the lead actor, Lieutenant Colonel Hal Moore, whose primary goal is to bring "his boys" back to the mainland alive. In fact, this is one of the best roles I've ever seen Gibson in, far better than the action-hero roles he often fancies himself in. The other members of the battalion are also well-cast and peppered with great actors.However, this film is at its best when it tugs at your heartstrings, which it does frequently. Whether it is the physical toughness of the soldiers in the field, or the mental grit of their wives/families back home, this movie really "gets" the emotions of that time period. Plus, it really does a good job of foreshadowing the rest of the drawn-out conflict.Thus, whereas First Blood is best in my book at examining the mental torments of 'Nam, We Were Soldiers touches on those same emotions but also adds the epic battle scenes.

This film shows us the first great battle that Americans suffered during the Vietnam War. Its difficult for me to assess how fair the film is in the picture of the battle, which I don't know very well, but I can say that I have not seen many problems with historical rigor. The film emphasizes the deficient American preparation for that type of war and the way that specific location was underestimated. It's a war movie and it has, of course, a lot of action but, despite some appeals to patriotism, it's not fanatical about it as some other films are ("Black Hawk Down", for example). This moderation was something I appreciated, as well as the focus on the human drama of the soldiers and how they had to solve that difficult situation. The result is a war film that does not stray from the feelings, embracing its humanity even though it may displease those who went to the theater expecting to see another "Rambo". Mel Gibson is the main actor and fills his character with courage, heroism, faith and dignity. He is a good actor and is on a family record, not being the first war film in which he participates. The rest of the cast doesn't stand out much but fulfills our expectations and does what it has to do. The film uses sound and special effects very well, realistically portraying the soldiers' action on the ground. The scenarios contribute to this realism and have been very well reproduced.

We Were Soldiers (2002)Plot In A Paragraph: Focusing on the Battle of Ia Drang on November 14, 1965. It is based on the book We Were Soldiers Once… And Young by Lieutenant General (Ret.) Hal Moore and reporter Joseph L. Galloway, both of whom were at the battle.This is quite simply one of my favourite war movies, Gibson's performance is the core of the movie, and is one of his best performances. I love his reaction to a certain characters death, almost no words except "He died keeping my promise" and pure raw emotion. Chris Klein gives the performance of his career, Sam Elliot is his usual brilliant self, uttering fine great dialogue, whilst Madeline Stowe, Greg Kinnear Barry Pepper and Kerri Russell all of stellar support. There are some strong female performances featured here, not commonly found in a war movie!! This is brilliantly shot, directed and scored. It does have a few cliché moments, but it's hard to criticise a movie for something so little, when it gets so much right. For some reason, audiences didn't flock to this one, it only grossed $78 million at the domestic box office, to end 2002 as the 34th highest grossing movie of the year. Which for a Gibson led movie, was pretty low for the time. Gibson is truly a great actor, and hopefully he can sort his personal problems and demons out, because as we all know Hollywood loves comebacks.

There are many people writing reviews who are willing to make claims that this movie is "realistic" or "hogwash" or whatever. As someone who did not fight in the Ia Drang Valley, my first question would be-- how would you know? I will say this movie seemed pretty realistic to me, and Hal Moore and Joe Galloway, the writers of the book and participants in the battle seemed satisfied with it, so I bet you it is pretty real. And already, this is a big plus for this movie.What I think might be off-putting to some people is that fact that the movie has some big stars--Mel Gibson, Sam Elliot, Greg Kinnear-- that we have seen a million times before. If the actors had been anonymous, I suspect that the movie would have seemed more "realistic." Gibson in fact does his Georgia drawl pretty well, but loses it every so often in one of his "Braveheart" moments of pathos.Similarly, the musical score has a Scottish lament that seems bizarre for this movie. Are we still doing "Braveheart"?On the upside however, we get corroboration from the participants that the war scenes are pretty real, and they are BRILLIANTLY choreographed. Ever since Saving Private Ryan, these movies have gotten A LOT more graphic. We Were Soldiers has some utterly gruesome scenes in it that are probably quite true to life. Again, this is a big plus, since we don't want to remember the fighting as anything but something very ugly.Also, unlike some other Vietnam films, there are some believable moments involving two parties not often heard from: the soldiers' wives and the enemy. Hal Moore's wife delivers death telegrams to the other vets' wives so that they don't have to receive them from the Yellow Cab company. I have no doubt that this was true, and the scenes are NOT melodramatic, they are heartbreaking.Similarly, one of the best characters of the movie is General An of the NVA. He is again terrifically believable as the sanguine commander of the enemy forces, and we see him as a clever, thoughtful and even compassionate commander heartbroken about the state of his country but willing to do what it takes to defend it. The mental duel that he has with Colonel Moore (Mel Gibson) also provides a terrific subplot.On balance, this movie is really worth it. In making a Vietnam movie that really tries to tell the story realistically, we get an excellent tribute not just to the US Vets, but also to everyone affected, even the Vietnamese foe. It is a tough movie to watch, but it is also perhaps the healthiest response to Vietnam that I have ever seen.