We Were Soldiers (Widescreen Edition)

First, the movie does get involved in the politics of the war. It does a fair job of portraying the innocence of American soldiers before they were deployed, and it has an excellent (but brief) portrayal of the political sensitivity to casualties and the degree to which the war was micromanaged. However, the movie almost completely sidesteps the fact that the Vietnam War was a war without a purpose. The soldiers in the Air Cavalry, and for that matter every other unit in Vietnam, fought and died for no clearly-defined purpose, and as such their heroic sacrifices were as futile as any in the history of war. The only hint of this in the movie is a single line at the end of the film by the North Vietnamese Army commander (which I shall omit for the benefit of those who haven't seen the movie). The rest of the movie ignores the futility of the sacrifices made by the Americans, and while this may help us to appreciate the heroism of the individual soldiers on that day, it insulates us to the incompetence and dereliction of duty of which the political leadership was guilty.

On a less esoteric level, the movie tends to depict infantry combat in an overly-sanitized manner. I am an infantry combat veteran of the Gulf War and served in the 101st Air Assault Division. The movie does almost nothing to accurately depict the effects that modern arms, particularly artillery, has on soldiers' bodies. Furthermore, the movie gives the impression that soldiers under fire continue to execute their missions with stoicism and professionalism. This is simply untrue. Even in the American military of today, which is far more professional than it has ever been, the majority of infantry soldiers become ineffective and cannot pursue their objectives or engage the enemy after more than a few minutes of exposure to fire similar to that depicted in the movie. The movie did not show that. For a far more realistic depiction of infantry combat, see Saving Private Ryan.

The movie was also somewhat historically inaccurate. The movie gives the viewer the impression that the entire battle of the Ia Drang Valley occurred in the vicinity of Landing Zone X-Ray. As to the events that occurred in LZ X-Ray, the movie is accurate in a chronological sense. The deployment of units, the geographical features, and the order of battle was done fairly well. However, there were several other landing zones and several other battalions fron the Air Cav that were not shown. In fact, at one point in the movie a map seems to indicate that the only active landing zone in the entire area was LZ X-Ray.

Finally, the entire script could have been taken directly from a 1960s-era John Wayne war movie. I do not recall a single original or believable line from the entire movie. The characters were all idealized and one-dimensional, and the direction tended to glamorize the action. [WARNING - spoiler coming] As an example, it has one of the oldest cliches of war movies: it introduces a young, idealistic soldier to the audience and acquaints the audience with the soldier's wife and new baby, only to kill the soldier later in the movie. This has been a part of just about every bad war movie (and, I admit, some good ones - see Platoon) since war movies have been made. As soon as I was introduced to the young soldier and learned of his new baby, I knew that he would get it later on. Indeed, he was killed in one of the other great cliches of war movies - trying to drag one of his wounded soldiers back to cover under fire. [OKAY - spoiler over]

In short, my opinion is that this movie was a retread of the bad old days of war movies that glorified war and whitewashed both the realities of combat and the politics of Vietnam in particular. I wish to reiterate that I do NOT seek to disparage the individual American soldiers who served in Vietnam to any degree - no one will deny the heroism and sacrifice of them, particularly in the face of their government's betrayal. Rather, I think that the realities of the Vietnam War, and of war in general, were glorified and oversimlified in the movie, and I cannot recommend it. Rather, I recommend Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line for good war movies in general, and Platoon and Apocalypse Now for the Vietnam War in particular.


We were soldiers once... and young   July 14, 2002
 11 out of 13 found this review helpful

We were soldiers is a harrowing story of an Army regiment surrounded by the N. Vietnam Army. Not only were they surrounded, but there was more than 4 enemy soldiers for every American. Based on a book (We were soldiers once...and young-by Col. Harold G. Moore, Joseph Galloway (Contributor)) the movie follows not only the battle but it touches into the family lives of the brave men. The battle takes place in the La Drang valley at LZ X-ray (you may have heard of that one before if you are familiar with the Vietnam War). They men had to not only fight to stay alive, but they needed to cope with their fear and they needed to keep it together. If you liked Black Hawk Down (the movie) then you would like this one and probably like it better because it tells you a little more about what was going on. Personally, I thought BHD was great, and this one was exceptional. I would reccommend this movie to anyone.


Mel Gibson Does it Again.   July 11, 2002
 1 out of 2 found this review helpful

If you are looking for a movie that is losely based on a true story this isn't it. No added fictional story line and it doesn't need it. This is just about the one battle and about true heroism. Shows us what our service men and women go through for us despite the politics. Mel Gibson does it again.


We Were Soldiers   July 10, 2002
 13 out of 15 found this review helpful

The movie was a good, not perfect, portrayal of the events that occured in November 1965. The movie fairly closely follows the book and for those viewers interested in getting the full story should get a copy of the book. Anyone who does this will see that the battle really lasts over three days with a separate battle occuring the following two days. The movie follows the book up to about the and of the second day. Then the Hollywood licence takes over and changes the ending of the fight so that Col. Hal Moore, a battalion commander of the 7th Cavalry, looks larger than life. Col. Moore ,who co-authored the book, was an outstanding officer and his actions and preparations that battle probably saved the lives of many of his soldiers so I was a bit disappointed to see that the film elaborated needlessly to make him appear almost superhuman. This fact has been critized by other reviewers and I believe the blame lies on the writer and director and not on the acting abillities of Mel Gibson. I will not spoil the ending for those who haven't yet seen the movie but I will say that the ending is a little more glorious than the actual end of fighting on the third day. Sadly what happens on the 4th and 5th days isn't mentioned in the movie and for those who feel the movie ends on too much of an upbeat note for such a grim war, they should definately read the book. It would be an interesting contrast for a film maker to produce a movie showing the second battle that involved the 2nd Battalion of the 5th Cavalry. This second battle was the ominous sign of things ahead for the U.S. Military in Vietnam.
All in all the movie shows a fairly accurate portrayal of the events and the thinking of the American military at the beginning of the Vietnam War. Viewers should remember that this is before the attitudes changed at home and it became an unpopular war. It is a good contrast from movies like Platoon which shows the war after the change has occured. For those who have seen Platoon, the character Sgt. Elias, played by Willem Dafoe, is a veteran of the Ia Drang battles that are portrayed in this film. It is definately a movie that should be seen by anyone interested in understanding what the American military experience was like in that turbulent era.