Review of We Were Soldiers (2002) by Dan Z — 15 Oct 2012

This movie had a very interesting premise at first; telling the story from the point of view of the American army and NVA (North Vietnamese Army) However this film, like every other war film staring Mel Gibson seems to have its strengths and weaknesses pre-determined.

As usual, the battle scene are AMAZING and frightfully realistic, and fight in question has its bearing in real history.

However...

As usually were have to put up with Mel Gibson in his annoying reoccurring role as the christian/father/soldier who lacks any redeemable or human qualities outside of his trope. he clams to respect the Vietnamese, yet refers to them as heathens during a prayer. he commands Custer's 7th cavalry, yet claims to bear the same warrior code as the Sioux. He seems to know intimately everything that is going to go wrong with the war despite the fact that this was a New Type of war that Americans have never fought. overall film is a loaded with a cluster of conflicting messages that in the end play down the intelligence of the audience and per usual, tries to match the oxymoronic concepts of the christian values and war.

Even the supporting cast comes off as weak and forgettable. and Like the patriot there is the forced naivete of White wives living in the 60s and acting completely unaware of what segregation and discrimination is dispute the fact that is has been about for 90 years at this point with plenty of media attention. and p.

Again, oddly enough the only character that still comes off as somewhat likable is Gibson's adversary. the Commander of the NVA. even though her has only a few lines and is defeated in the end, he is the only character who seems to have a coll but practical, non-idealized view of the war. in short he is the only character who views are believable and not pretentious.

In short, you want watch and violent battle: good movie. if you want to watch something with substance: watch Platoon.