Winter Driving Best Books of the Month Valentine's Day Shop Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon St Lucia easycohice_2016 All-New Amazon Fire TV Grocery Valentine's Day Cards Amazon Gift Card Offer chiraq chiraq chiraq  Amazon Echo All-New Fire Kindle Paperwhite Shop Now Sale
Customer Review

107 of 120 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Who Can Explain Such Things?, March 12, 2002
The title of the memoir that inspired this film, "We Were Soldiers Once...And Young," written by Lt. General Harold G. Moore and Joseph L. Galloway, says much about what this film ultimately conveys, as in a few words it addresses the state of being of the individuals, as well as the country, which so soon would be embroiled in one of the most controversial wars in the history of America. "We Were Soldiers," adapted for the screen and directed by Randall Wallace, is an uncompromising look at war and the commitment of those who wage it. It's a true story told realistically, and moreover, in terms that are humanistic rather than political, which succeeds in making it a riveting drama that is both absorbing and emotionally involving.
It's November, 1965; some 400 American troops-- the 7th Cavalry-- led by Colonel Hal Moore (Mel Gibson), take the field at LZ X-Ray in the Ia Drang Valley in Vietnam, where they are quickly surrounded by over 2000 North Vietnamese soldiers. The ensuing battle will last for three days, and it marks the first major confrontation between America and North Vietnam, a battle from which many, on both sides, will not walk away; and on hand to record it as it happens, is reporter Joe Galloway (Barry Pepper). Going in, Moore knows what they are up against, and he promises his men two things: That he will be the first to set foot on the field and the last to leave it; and he will bring every man back home with him, alive or dead-- no one will be left behind. And it's a promise he keeps.
With this film, Wallace succeeds where two other, recent depictions of historic battles, "Pearl Harbor" and "Black Hawk Down"-- both good films in their own right-- failed; and it's because he managed to achieve just the right balance between the rendering of the battle itself and the human element involved. Of the two, "Pearl Harbor" is a close runner-up; the love story leading up to the battle was perhaps a bit extended, though ultimately engaging, whereas "Black Hawk Down" put the viewer in the battle, but was emotionally uninvolving. Here, Wallace not only gives you a battle that is brilliantly staged and presented, but before he takes you there he makes sure you know those who are about to die, and the loved ones they are leaving behind. War has many casualties, and they are not all on the battlefield; and beyond the realism of the fight, this is where Wallace makes his strongest statement, as during the three days of the battle he makes you privy to what the soldiers wives and families are going through at home, as well, waiting for the dreaded Western Union telegrams being delivered by cab drivers because the army wasn't prepared to deal with it.
The film is effective because Wallace keeps the human element at the heart of the story while he presents a perspective to which the audience can relate on very personal terms. In short, he gives you the "whole story," that enables you to know the horror of the firefight, as well as the throat clenching terror of seeing a yellow cab drive up to the front of your house, knowing full well what it means. This is a prime example of filmmaking and storytelling at it's best; and it's a commendable achievement by Wallace.
Gibson is perfectly cast and does an excellent job of bringing Hal Moore to life with a convincing portrayal of a man dedicated to both his family and his life as a soldier. Moore is focused and determined, and Gibson makes us realize that he knows the seriousness of what he is about to undertake, as well as the possible dire consequences thereof. The real strength of the character, however, is in the fact that he is not some kind of superhero out to win the war single-handedly, but a man who lives and loves and feels like anyone else, who bleeds when he is cut and hurts when he loses one of his men. A man who feels guilty that he is still living when his men die. And it's all captured in Gibson's strong and credible performance.
Besides Gibson, there are a number of exceptional supporting performances in this film, most notably, Madeleine Stowe, as Julie Moore, Hal's wife; Sam Elliott, as the gruff and seasoned veteran, Sergeant Major Basil Plumley; Greg Kinnear, as Major Bruce Crandall, the helicopter pilot with a memorable nickname; Chris Klein, as Lieutenant Jack Geoghegan, a new father to whom Moore gives a perspective on the war that enables him to face the job he must do; Keri Russell, as Barbara Geoghegan, the young wife and new mother who must watch her husband go off to fulfill his destiny; and Pepper, turning in an extremely affecting performance as Joe Galloway.
The supporting cast includes Ryan Hurst (Sergeant Savage), Mark McCracken (Ed "Too Tall" Freeman), Edwin Morrow (Willie), Jsu Garcia (Captain Nadal), Matt Mangum (Private Soprano), Brian Tee (Nakayama), Joseph Hieu (NVA Major), Don Duong (Ahn), Alan Dale (Westmoreland) and Simbi Khali (Alma). A film like this goes far in demonstrating the power and effectiveness of the medium that created it; it will never, however, enable us to understand war, because war-- in all it's myriad manifestations-- is beyond human comprehension. But it has always been with us and always will be, and a film that is well made and presented, a film like "We Were Soldiers," is important because it lends a needed perspective that allows us to take a step back and consider the magnitude of our endeavors in these regards, and the price we must pay for freedom. It leaves one with a sense of pride and patriotism, but tempered with a sobering concern for seeking altruistic alternatives. It may be only a dream; but hopefully, it's one that someday all the people of the world will share.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
 

Comments

Tracked by 1 customer

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 21, 2011 7:42:59 AM PST
Buck Field says:
Hi Reviewer,

Great job on this. My only question regards the claim that the Vietnam War is "controversial". AFAIK, pretty much everyone in the world considers it a crime, like the other examples of conquest films dealing with Hawaii and Somalia. If the consensus worldwide is in a ratio of 194 to 1, saying something is "controversial" seems a bit odd, especially when the evidence supporting condemnation of these actions as international terrorism appears to be so strong.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 6:41:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 31, 2011 6:44:29 PM PDT
Chris says:
Buck, are you commenting on the movie, movie review, or the war? Aside that this is relevant, the war was "controversial". Here are 2 facts, one apparently irrelevant in the 'consensus view'.

After the North Vietnamese 'took over' they executed 1-1.5M South Vietnamese and put another 1M into forced 'education camps'. This is documented. Conversely, it is also fact that the U.S. supported a corrupt regime. Dozens more 'facts' are available on both sides. Not so easy, is it? It's easy to deal in opinions, especially quoting others 'consensus'. Reality is more complicated.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 1, 2011 5:37:51 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 1, 2011 5:39:28 AM PDT
Buck Field says:
Hi Chris,

As indicated, my comments refer to a *claim* made by Reviewer.

Mainstream views in the US such as the WSJ will grant the issues such as "defending an often imperfect ally", "sowing democratic seeds in soil that frequently seemed infertile", or "waging war with too much firepower, or too little" were appropriate for scrutiny 30 years ago.

These days, "it is hard to think of any issue or any place in the world where hindsight offers a clearer spotlight in which to distinguish right from wrong." When we compare "free, prosperous and stable" countries like Indonesia that have been celebrating "personal dignity" since 1965 with the horrors of Indochina after our retreat, it is obvious to "common sense" that the hawks were right and those who saw the Communists as "groovy little people in the jungle" were dead wrong.

I think that whether or not WSJ analysis and commentary is valid can be investigated quite simply: do we apply to our own actions standards which are at least as stringent as those we apply to others? If not, statements, opinions, and even sincere belief in the nobility of "our side" (whoever that is) can be dismissed because they lack any moral or ethical credibility. Because such statements accompany all aggression, they cannot provide any information.

Your post suggest such bias for "our side" by pointing to the worst crimes possible by "them" (apples, i.e.: mass murder), and contrasting this with improper support by "us" (oranges, i.e.: support of corrupt regime). The typical supporter of "them" would do exactly the same.

A reasonable person interested in a clear objective view would weigh the facts impartially, and take into account the complexities of history which you rightly point out.

Posted on Apr 9, 2014 9:38:26 AM PDT
you lost me when you said something good about the Pearl Harbor movie.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details

Item not available
Reviewer


Top Reviewer Ranking: 3,533,667