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 (3)
Plots(1)
Searing account of the Vietnam War's first major battle starring Mel Gibson as Lt. Col. Hal Moore, who refuses to yield to the overwhelming numbers of his determined enemy during a bloody 1965 clash in the Drang Valley. (Showtime)
Videos (1)
Reviews (9)
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. ()
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. ()
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). ()
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. ()
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. ()
Gallery (85)
Photo © 2002 Paramount Pictures
Ads