We Were Soldiers - Tonight 10pm chan 4- worth it?

Andr3w

Andr3w

Andr3w

Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2004
Posts
20,265
Location
England
I enjoy quite a lot of warm films but ive never got round to watching [size=+1]

We Were Soldiers!

Just wondering is it any good? Ive heard rumors that its not all its cracked up to be,but it seems to get a 7/10 here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277434/

I think i will be watching it,what am i likely to expect?
[/size]
 
Andr3w said:
I enjoy quite a lot of warm films but ive never got round to watching [size=+1]

We Were Soldiers!

Just wondering is it any good? Ive heard rumors that its not all its cracked up to be,but it seems to get a 7/10 here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277434/

I think i will be watching it,what am i likely to expect?
[/size]
Click to expand...


Personally I thought it was excellent. Thoroughly enjoyed it.
 
Well it's free to watch it...see if you like it. What's the use of asking people if it's worth it as we all have different ideas of what are the good films around.
 
Its beyond average.
There is a particularly naff montage of the photgrapher at work about 3/4s of the way through it.
Lets put it this way, give it half an hour, if you even feel the remotest bit tired go to bed, it will be more rewarding.
 
Not a bad flick, its a bit USA! USA! USA! in places. Good fight scenes and amusing charcters.

THe bit with the telegrams and wives is a bit ;) slushy and too close to the truth for a good action film.

And the scotish music ? they play a couple of times? or was i trippin' reminds me of braveheart.

still 10/10 for napalm and HE arty.
 
Thought it was a great film, finally something that gave the Vietnam vets the recognition that many of them deserve, the men in the 1st air cav division fought very hard and incredibly well in that battle, which was at times complete hell. There have been more than enough films portraying the vietnam soldiers to be complete **** ups in a vein attempt to justify the sickening way in which the veterans were treated by the Us public, it is a bit jingoistic at times but it had to be, as it was a battle fought with incredible bravery.

Strange as it is Mel actually does a very, very good job of portraying Hal moore.

Just out of interest those saying it's crap, can you explain why ? I don't see anything wrong with it, it;s a proper war film, tells the story of a battle in a war with no need to invent pointless stories as a subtext (saving private ryan).
 
Don't you just love a "That film was crap" post and nothing else - really gets the argument across don't you find? :)

I really enjoyed it to be honest.
I wasn't going to bother as war films usually fail to capture the real hell of it all.
I felt this film just moved along at an amazing pace, from the moment they set foot down and then it was all fast moving - how I imagine war at that time to be.
In my opinion well worth the time spent watching it.
 
It just stank, Mel Gibson wasn't convincing and it was far too pro-American - they're slaughtering thousands of Vietnamese and the whole film is out to draw out sympathy for the Americans. That really bugged me.

The bit at the end where it all suddenly turns round from the Americans being under attack to turning it round and winning it in some Rambo macho kinda thing. It was a while ago since I've seen it, but I seem to remember some minigun action at the end wiping everybody out?

Really wasn't my thing... far too cliched
 
alexthecheese said:
It just stank, Mel Gibson wasn't convincing and it was far too pro-American - they're slaughtering thousands of Vietnamese and the whole film is out to draw out sympathy for the Americans. That really bugged me.

The bit at the end where it all suddenly turns round from the Americans being under attack to turning it round and winning it in some Rambo macho kinda thing. It was a while ago since I've seen it, but I seem to remember some minigun action at the end wiping everybody out?

Really wasn't my thing... far too cliched
Click to expand...


Mel gibson wasn't convincing as what ? He was pretty damn acurately portraying the character of Hal Moore, i don't see how you can be much if any more convincing when portraying someone? from what i remember reading everyone who was either there at ia drang valley or knew Hal Moore thought Mel gibson did an excelent job in portraying him.

Yes the film does make some leaps, it ignores the presence of the second betallion of air cav that were there, and the bit at the end is entirely fictitious, but personally i can more than forgive that as it's one of only 2 films that portray Vietnam soldiers in a positive light, which many of them deserve. They don't wipe everybody out, they do a lot of damage and eventually the vietnamese troops withdraw, the kill ratio was 5:1 in the US favour in the battle so it's not artistic licence the amount of Vietnamese tat are killed.

Yes the film makes some leaps, but is in general with the exception of the end which even then it still kinda gets the message across that they didn't win the battle the Vietnamese simply withdrew, it is the only Vietnam film that is apporaching anything like being truthful about what happened rather than just justifying the villification and disgraceful treatment of the Vietnam vets for a war that was lost by the American people and media rather than the soldiers.
 
Its also worth pointing out that the Vietnamese army are portrayed in a very personal way, unlike most Vietnam films where they are just a silent and deadly enemy stalking through the jungle.

The film certainly has its flaws; the cut backs to base break the pace of the film slightly, but on the whole its a decent attempt at a 'World War II' style war film for the Vietnam era.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom