We Were Soldiers

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. (12/04/2002)

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. (05/06/2006)

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. (04/08/2014)

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)

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. (08/15/2002)