Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

An over dramatic representation of a moment in history that doesn't need it. More along the lines of Heartbreak Ridge or Death Before Dishonor instead of classics like Platoon or Full Metal Jacket. I like less cheese in my military movies.

When Steven Spielberg released Saving Private Ryan in 1998, it set the new standard for epic war films. We Were Soldiers uses some of those same effects/devices to tell a compelling Vietnam War story.For a basic plot summary, We Were Soldiers tells the story of one of the first Vietnam battles. It follows the First Battalion, 7th Cavalry division through their training, deployment, and improbably "victory" (depending on your perspective) in that seminal battle.Strangely, this film doesn't stand out much on its own accord (it doesn't do anything all that original). However, it does enough things right to make for a very enjoyable, emotional experience.Mel Gibson shines as the lead actor, Lieutenant Colonel Hal Moore, whose primary goal is to bring "his boys" back to the mainland alive. In fact, this is one of the best roles I've ever seen Gibson in, far better than the action-hero roles he often fancies himself in. The other members of the battalion are also well-cast and peppered with great actors.However, this film is at its best when it tugs at your heartstrings, which it does frequently. Whether it is the physical toughness of the soldiers in the field, or the mental grit of their wives/families back home, this movie really "gets" the emotions of that time period. Plus, it really does a good job of foreshadowing the rest of the drawn-out conflict.Thus, whereas First Blood is best in my book at examining the mental torments of 'Nam, We Were Soldiers touches on those same emotions but also adds the epic battle scenes.

In recent years so many films have churned out of Hollywood, with indifferent story/acting/substanceSo often these, at best mediocre, offerings get rave 10/10 reviews here. Unlike those films this film has a real story. Following Hal Moore and his Batalion as they try new tactics at the beginnings of the Vietnam war. The film doesn't glamorise war but shows the human tragedy and waste (from both sides) Good acting throughout particularly from Gibson, makes the whole thing believable. Drama on the battlefield and at home where the wives have to deal with the news of casualties. Thoroughly recommended. 8.5/10

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)