We Were Soldiers

A very respectable contribution to the genre that’s hindered only by the cheaply conceived visual form and by the overdone affectation (slow-motion shots). Otherwise, however, We Were Soldiers isn’t lacking in pacing or raw realism, or a firm foundation of thought, or a strong leading personality in the form of Mel Gibson, who is the best thing about the whole film. (15/08/2002)

Randall wrote Braveheart for his buddy Mel, and his buddy Mel promised his buddy Randall he'd be in his movie, a film that pretends to be a profound and well-crafted work, but it is not. The problem is that Wallace is not a very skilled director, the locations that are supposed to simulate Vietnam are very unconvincing and some scenes (especially the one with the angry photographer) look so awkward that I was ashamed of him. A truly unexpectedly bad film. (04/12/2002)

50 years behind Stone and 100 behind Coppola. A propaganda film with a blue-eyed hero and nickel-and-dime moralizing. Some of the action sequences are nice, but they are far away from building on the gems from the 70's and 80's. Incorrigible cinematography, which, after magnificent filmmaking with the idea of turning to the subject of war again, turns to cheap poses and pathos (although undoubtedly well-meaning). (12/02/2007)

As long as Wallace attacks in the mode of heroic soldiers who shoot, run, or die in slow motion, each shot or fall affects me so strongly that I began to search for a handkerchief surprisingly quickly. However, once the pleasant pathos starts to melt into words and endless diluted phrases about pride, wives, or dying for the homeland, the charm disappears. Then suddenly the sloppiness of the screenplay or occasional visual routine starts to surface. If it weren't for the fact that Hal is literally written for Mel Gibson, who can shoot to the absolute maximum in similar roles, the outcome would be one class lower. (06/05/2006)

Le Massacre... deserved a better screenplay. But leaving out a couple of things would have been enough. The introductory elimination of the French unit is great. So are the excellent battle scenes in the second half, they give that proper touch of reality and the burned, half-dead soldiers will make you feel pretty bad. The disparity with the utterly pathetic lines about dying proudly for one’s country is irritating. Much better movies have been made about Vietnam. Fix bayonets! (12/09/2012)

As an average contribution to the war drama genre, it is quite solid. It has solidly shot war sequences that are raw and dynamic enough to draw the viewer into the story. Some moments are interesting, but unfortunately, the war theme itself fails to captivate on a deeper level, resulting in an average film where you can enjoy explosions and shootouts but will not be shocked by the horrors of war – except for a few shots like the face slicing, there is no such element. The excessive dosage of pathos, which awaits us towards the end (the slow-motion shots are very annoying), is also disappointing. Without any deeper thoughts, the whole thing is too superficial. (26/10/2003)

I’ll keep this short: a deep well in which any good idea is drowned in pathos. (15/07/2016)

The Vietnam War is a topic that is essentially inexhaustible. It is possible to make classic, dramatic war films about it, but also psychedelic horrors and even comedies. "Valley of Shadows" is a variant that is dramatic in nature, where it is not just about the action, which is filmed exceptionally well, but also about how the action affects those who have remained at home. Thousands of kilometers through which nothing can be influenced. A powerful story, which is still told with an excess of pathos, but this war deserves it. Or at least the soldiers who were drafted into it. (08/04/2014)