We Were Soldiers

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! (09/12/2012)

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% (06/18/2015)

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. (12/05/2002)

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. (10/26/2003)

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). (02/12/2007)