A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

I put a 3 to this movie, basically for this: 1. Anyone how dosen't know about the war of Vietnam, after watching this movie will still be an ignorant on the subject matter. 2. The last battle ends with an scene of an American flag; anyone that knows something about filming, shooting something, knows that, that means that the US "won the war". 3. Its basically a movie about some group of invaders that are hero's, because the US are hero's. If you wanna see good movies about Vietnam, DON'T SEE THIS CRAAAP. My recommendation: Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, The Deer Hunter.

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.

This film shows us the first great battle that Americans suffered during the Vietnam War. Its difficult for me to assess how fair the film is in the picture of the battle, which I don't know very well, but I can say that I have not seen many problems with historical rigor. The film emphasizes the deficient American preparation for that type of war and the way that specific location was underestimated. It's a war movie and it has, of course, a lot of action but, despite some appeals to patriotism, it's not fanatical about it as some other films are ("Black Hawk Down", for example). This moderation was something I appreciated, as well as the focus on the human drama of the soldiers and how they had to solve that difficult situation. The result is a war film that does not stray from the feelings, embracing its humanity even though it may displease those who went to the theater expecting to see another "Rambo". Mel Gibson is the main actor and fills his character with courage, heroism, faith and dignity. He is a good actor and is on a family record, not being the first war film in which he participates. The rest of the cast doesn't stand out much but fulfills our expectations and does what it has to do. The film uses sound and special effects very well, realistically portraying the soldiers' action on the ground. The scenarios contribute to this realism and have been very well reproduced.

If you have watched a lot of war movies, you'll know America has pumped out more than any nation, hence you've already had a taste of U.S. war propaganda: ie. a classic example is seen in this movie where every U.S. soldier who sticks their head up an inch is shot, EXCEPT for the commander who can strut around upright or stand stock still without even a wound. This represents American bravery, more accurately 'guts' or 'balls'. Another classic example goes as far back as the old Westerns, but it is such a well-loved cliché they use it ad infinitum - it is the scene where the enemy hurl themselves headlong into a slaughter while the Yanks hunker down and mow them down like wheat before a rainstorm. Yes, I know sometimes you have to rush a position but usually you'll soften it up first with grenades or mortars. The VC in this movie have about 5 grenades and no mortars, apparently. I like how the 1st platoon is pinned down with like 5 guys left and the VC just keep rushing in again and again - NOT throwing in a single grenade which would have finished it right there. These are just two of many examples. Good grief. I've heard of suspension of disbelief but this movie invokes suspension of total brain function. The first time I saw it I couldn't finish it. It's been a decade and I tried again today - desperate for movies here in China. Again, I couldn't cut it. Two-thirds through I pulled the pin. RIP you piece of crap. Even an old John Wayne movie is more real.