Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Wuchak Released in 2002, "We Were Soldiers" stars Mel Gibson as Col. Hal Moore who leads the first major battle between Americans and the North Vietnamese Army in The Battle of Ia Drang Valley over four days in mid-November, 1965. Sam Elliott costars as the seasoned NCO and Barry Pepper as a bold photographer while Madeleine Stowe appears as the Colonel's wife. Greg Kinnear is also on hand as a helicopter pilot while Keri Russell plays a soldier's wife.The movie is based on the book "We Were Soldiers Once… and Young" by Col. Moore and the aforementioned photographer, Joe Galloway. As such, "We Were Soldiers" is a straight-forward realistic depiction of the battle and the first film depiction where Moore claimed "Hollywood finally got it right." This reminds me of something someone I know who fought in Nam said: All the other films about the war from the late 70s to late 80s didn't strike him as the way it really was, but after seeing "We Were Soldiers" he said, "That's the way it was." Be that as it may, it doesn't make it as good as 1986' "Platoon" or 1979's "Apocalypse Now." The former is so great because the platoon in the story is a microcosm of many platoons and their experiences throughout the war, which might come across as "too much" because the filmmakers only have about 2 hours to tell the story and they have to jam a whole year of experiences into that time frame. Incredibly, "Platoon" fleshes-out no less than a dozen memorable characters with its grunt's-eye view of the conflict while telling a compelling story. By contrast, "We Were Soldiers" only presents about four memorable characters during the battle and, while it's a solid war flick, it simply isn't as compelling.As for "Apocalypse Now," it's useless to compare the two because (1.) the original version of "Apocalypse Now" (as opposed to the horribly flawed "Redux") is a downright cinematic masterpiece; (2.) it's way more than just a war movie; and (3.) its theme is deeper than the conventional and patriotic portrayal of the realistic "We Were Soldiers." If you're not familiar with the theme of "Apocalypse Now," it's basically this: Capt. Willard (Sheen) comes face-to-face with two Colonels during his mission up the river to assassinate the rogue Col. Kurtz. Both of the colonel's names start with 'K,' which is no accident. Col. Kilgore (Duvall) is a romantic who embraces war as a lifestyle and even feeds off it. The fact that he's a romantic can be observed in the air-raid on the village where he literally plays Wagner as a prologue. He feeds off the war to the extent that he "loves the smell of napalm in the morning." War is just another day to him so why not go surfing? Since he lives off of the war there's no way it can kill him or even give him a scratch. Kilgore naturally has the support of the top brass because he's part of the system and plays the game of war. Col. Kurtz (Brando), by contrast, sees through this hypocrisy. He realizes that being in a state of war is humanity gone mad. It's horror itself and therefore must be ended through the quickest means possible at whatever cost. He refuses to play the game of war as he expertly takes out double agents, etc. Of course the brass can't have this so they put out a hit on Kurtz via Willard."We Were Soldiers" instead opts for a simple portrayal of the first major battle of the infamous war and the bravery & horror thereof. The story essentially proposes the question: What would happen if you drop 400 American soldiers into a valley crawling with 4000 soldiers of the NVA? The fighting is presented realistically, brutally and relatively coherently given the chaos of the intense conflict. Col. Moore truly loves his men and Gibson carries the movie with the peripheral help of Elliot and Barry Pepper. On top of this, the movie gives quite a bit of time to North Vietnamese side of the story, which enhances the story.Some people have rolled their eyes at the Morro Bay locations of central coastal, California, but if you look at Galloway's real-life pics of the battle they chose a great stand-in for the grassy valley. I guess people don't realize that Vietnam isn't all conventionally tropical jungle.The film runs a little overlong at 2 hours and 18 minutes and was shot in Morro Bay, Pasadena and Fort Hunter Liggett, California; as well as Fort Benning and Columbus, Georgia.GRADE: B- (6.5/10 Stars)

Kay L.P. After watching the film , I felt completely speechless. With all the massacre scenes in the film, I thought the US is the one who won the war, not the one who left its partner, South Vietnam, behind in desperation. My question is: how could it be so easy for American troops to kill VCs in the film? If it really were like the way the movie depicted, the US would haven't needed Search&Destroy operations for years. I still remember in the series "Vietnam in HD", real American vets usually said "NVA troops are smart as hell" and I don't think they would agree with this film. We were soldiers is nothing but a slap to ones who actually served in Vietnam.In my opinion, if you want to watch a real film about Vietnam War, Platoon and Apocalypse Now are definitely great options.

Jorgen Smith I somehow missed this movie when it was released. This is just a short comment as to the feel of this movie. Others have covered the story etc perfectly. However, as a 40y old dad of a 4 year old only seeing this movie now it came across as incredibly strong and well directed. I found it very emotional to watch. Also, the movie was fairly balanced. It really "got" me. The tears wouldn't stop, and I wish I hadn't picked a week night to watch it. It was a strong tribute to the men on both sides who fought an ultimately futile and pointless war. Politicians be damned.I would recommend this over other war movies for its realism and also emotional approach.

slightlymad22 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.