We Were Soldiers

As long as Wallace attacks in the mode of heroic soldiers who shoot, run, or die in slow motion, each shot or fall affects me so strongly that I began to search 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 occasional visual routine starts to surface. If it weren't for the fact that Hal is literally written for Mel Gibson, who can shoot to the absolute maximum in similar roles, the outcome would be one class lower. (06.05.2006)

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. (04.12.2002)

Funny that I've put the film off for so long, it's definitely going to the top of the list of greatest wartime carnages. The nerds complaining about the lack of story should jump out the window. When I watch a war movie I want to see war, carnage, similar to when I watch Porno, I don't expect a story, I want to see it go straight to the point. Mel Gibson is excellent here, I haven't cheered for him in a long time. From the 40 minute mark the film is non stop carnage and blood was definitely not spared, the great tactics are nice too. The fifth star was earned by the emotional touch of the delivery of the letters of dead soldiers to their wives, it made me cry like a baby. Emotional flicks about cancer or dogs can't compare to this. 95% (17.06.2015)

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). (12.02.2007)

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. (16.08.2002)