Posted on 03/10/2002 8:20:24 AM PST by MomwithHope
'We Were Soldiers' seems to be at war with itself
Friday, March 01, 2002
By John Douglas
The Grand Rapids Press
At first, "We Were Soldiers" seemed like an old-fashioned gung-ho war movie like those that came out of Hollywood during World War II starring John Wayne or Robert Taylor or Errol Flynn.
And, in a way, it is like those films -- but only some of the time.
The problem is this movie also wants to be more sensitive, displaying more soldier angst. Both kinds of films are valid, but these two styles don't marry very well. "We Were Soldiers" constantly is jarring you from one kind of movie to the other.
Having said that, I think the film successfully shows a couple of things. First, the hostility shown to the returning Vietnam solders by a lot of Americans totally was misplaced. These soldiers were following orders, which is what they should be doing if the military is to work properly.
Secondly, war should be avoided unless there is no other way to solve differences between countries. We always should make sure our leaders have the skills to get things done peaceably, because the alternative is beyond horrible.
We need the old-fashioned war films filled with heroism to help us keep up our resolve in the real-life war we now face. It tells us we should support the men and women doing the fighting and not hinder them by all kinds of political considerations. I think most people will see "We Were Soldiers" as an old-fashioned war movie, and I see nothing wrong with that.
However, I did not find the film realistic or engaging. Watching it was exciting, but the characters were not developed well, so the excitement outweighed any emotional impact. To be sure, the special effects made getting shot a more realistic and visually impressive. But the emotional impact was nil.
Sometimes things just didn't feel right. When a lieutenant massages the feet of an enlisted man who get blisters in training, I was sure the officer in charge would chew him out for his sensitive actions. Instead, the officer is pointed out as a true leader. I didn't buy it, and I could point out a lot of other times I felt that way.
The blame must be laid at the feet of Randall Wallace, an inexperienced director who also wrote the script.
"We Were Soldiers" is based on a book by Harold G. Moore and Joseph L. Galloway, both of whom are major players in this story. Moore, a lieutenant colonel in the 7th Cavalry at the time of the Vietnam War, is played by Mel Gibson, and Galloway, a photographer, is played by Barry Pepper.
Moore was the officer who led American troops into the first major battle involving Americans in Vietnam. It was a battle in which American and Vietnamese troops stood toe to toe, and it was a blood bath for both sides.
Most of the actors seemed at home in uniform. Sam Elliott, who plays the crusty old sergeant, seems like he is straight out of a World War II movie and somehow found his way in a modern Vietnam War film.
Anyway, I think "We Were Soldiers" ultimately fails, except on the level of an action movie. And even there, it hangs on by the skin of its teeth.
This guy probably thought Oliver Stone did a much better job at portraying the Vietnam war.
John,
Don't you get it?
"We Were Soldiers" wasn't just some SCRIPT. The people described in the film, the blistered feet, the battles, the deaths, the left-behind wives and children... were real. The book was written by real people who were really there.
Your judgement that the movie was unrealistic and not emotionally engaging merely reveals YOUR lack of understanding.
Maybe you don't have children or a wife who loves you.
Maybe you don't have any friends you'd die for.
Maybe you have no friends who would die for you.
Maybe you look at the scenes of napalm and guns and death and yawn because you fail to comprehend these were not just "movie guys" enacting some special effect to dramatize a fictional "story". They represent real sons and husbands and fathers who suffered, bled, died, and survived a real battle.
I didn't want to give you undeserved attention for your article because frankly your writing sucks. I did feel compelled to point out that you are an idiot in case your mirror never told you. Your callow opinions will be written off by most others who have seen the movie as the scribblings of an immature, shallow jerk with no real understanding.
See the movie again. Put aside your preconcieved ideas of "war movies". Suspend your disbelief about the characters and how they reacted. This isn't some fictional war movie. It is as true-to-life a rendition of what it means to be in battle as you may ever see.
The men who survived this "war movie" would probably welcome the chance to kick the crap out of dull-witted, jaundiced "critics" like you. After seeing the movie again, if you still doubt, go to the wall and see their names written there. Go talk to the survivors, widows, and fatherless children who remained after the war. Then kick yourself all the way back to your meaningless little paper ramblings, realizing you have been blind, stupid and wrong.
Sincerely,
L.See
This comment understates significantly the troubling assessment of the war which many soldiers were obligated to make. This war was pointless because the "ally" we were protecting was a minority with no democratic culture. There was never any way for them to benefit from our sacrifice.
The statement is equally true of German soldiers or Japanese soldiers during WWII.
Also, from the article: "Secondly, war should be avoided unless there is no other way to solve differences between countries. We always should make sure our leaders have the skills to get things done peaceably, because the alternative is beyond horrible. "
There is no way peaceful way to resolve differences with a nation which would kill people with poison gas because of their ethnicity or religion.
From a Los Angeles hard-core Republican
I will probably disagree with his review when I see the movie, because I've loved just about every other movie in which Gibson stars. The Patriot and Braveheart are among my favorites.
My point is, this guy gets paid to write reviews. I don't see where he took any cheap political shots in his review, so I have a hard time understanding the outrage. HE wasn't impressed with the movie; others feel differently. Hardly an outrage, IMHO.
maybe because he, like Clinton, also loathes the military.
Subtle swipe at Bush imho.
He’s like the guy with Limburger cheese in his mustache. “The whole world stinks!”
A. Cricket
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.