Just watched "When we were Soldiers"

Put it this way. The movie was way too predictable. Just watch the behind the scenes if you have DVD. It has the real people who were there. They are far more interesting than the movie. I don't mean to sound unpatriotic, but these weren't real soldiers. They were actors shooting blanks at other actors and it was just too typical.

 

It was still well done and of course it was predictable, it happened. personally I think the writers fucked it up on purpose, but the other aspects of the movie saved from being total Aldo Rey. It still did justice to the men though. To me it seems an asshole writing team decided to take this story and turn it into a retro war genre film, the production people went the other way. But this was not really an art film at all, it simply tells a story, it does that well enough, it's somewhat more gory than films of the past but was still extremely sanitized.

 

There was a lot of fighting. I realize they were in the middle of a war, but I like movies that have strong character development. I would of like to seen a little more interaction with Sam Elliot and Mel Gibson. BTW, did the action seem a little like WWII to you? It is always very difficult to tell a story based on an actual event. It was a good movie, I just wanted more story and less fighting.

 

You missed the point gutter. This movie was all about this particular battle and how it unfolded. From what I read and saw the captured it rather well. They also brought to point how the 1st Cav's officer's wives were stuck dealing with Viet Nam. The 1st Cav Airmobile Division was set up to go into action in Viet Nam and once the got there the Division was there until the final withdrawl. The other thing about this movie I liked is much like Pvt Ryan, it took the glory out of modern warfare and showed it for the harrowing, frightful experience it is. It also shows the undaunted courage that men thrown into the melee of combat are forced to muster. When I walked out of the theatre after seeing this I had a deeper and more profound respect for the Profession of Arms. It helped to undestand what my father and my uncles might have felt when they heard shots fired in anger and how they are the men they are today.

Excellent combat movie in my opinion.

 

I agree with Williamj, I really like this movie, it told a story about a real battle with the real people who were there, advising the movie makers to the smallest details. The interviews of those soldiers were definitely a plus and gave the movie some validity.
:xyzthumbs :xyzthumbs

 

QUOTE]Originally posted by gutter
There was a lot of fighting. I realize they were in the middle of a war, but I like movies that have strong character development. I would of like to seen a little more interaction with Sam Elliot and Mel Gibson. BTW, did the action seem a little like WWII to you? It is always very difficult to tell a story based on an actual event. It was a good movie, I just wanted more story and less fighting. [/QUOTE]

Don't know that more character development would have really added anything. The real reason for being was the deployment of the of the 1st Cav, and how unprepared the Army was to deal with getting it's head handed to it. To take away from that is kind of a sin. War isn't interesting. 90% of it is waiting, and mundane details, that doesn't transfer well to movies. As far as being to WWII well that is also a point, the US was using conventional means (WWII) to fight a guerilla war. Really this movie need to be a bitch fest, and it was non committal, and that was kind of a sin also. It needed Technicolor. It was too muted, and unfortunately the new processes render the medium sterile. Fuckers. It needed bold snappy colors.

That's the trouble with current society, there is no kodachrome.