A little too sappy/patriotic to be a great film.

Rating: 7/10 (11 March 2002)

This is not a horrible film by any means. There are a lot of gripping, visceral battle scenes, and the film does make an effort to try and show the Viet Cong as humans, although, it achieves this only towards the end, (towards the beginning, the VC are portrayed as the same ol' stereotypical Yellow Menace -- commander barking out stilted, harsh commands, et al).
The thing that makes the movie unsatisfactory for me is undue sappiness and an overly religious and patriotic tone. Unlike "Full Metal Jacket" and "The Thin Red Line", which both try and make attempts at showing the gritty, painful life and experience from the eyes of a soldier during a war without covering it with unnecessary sentimentality, "We Were Soldiers" has a more "idealized" view. Even though the movie does an good job of displaying the futility of the Vietnam War, and shows some of the more graphic violence that accompanied it, the acting by the leads and much of the script has an "over-the-top" nationalism attached to it that made me squirm in my seat more than watching a artillery soldier getting burnt to a crisp by napalm. Scenes such as the "prayer scene" in the chapel that Gibson has with Chris Klein as they pray for Kleins new-born baby were relatively unnecessary, in my opinion. It only served to give an excuse for schmaltz later on in the film and pound us over the head with fact that Gibson's character is so great and kind-hearted and the ideal God-fearing soldier of the U-S-of-A. It was like a big, loud alarm for you to realize that "Hey something is gonna happen to this kid that will make you sad and weepy. Take note!" Also, Klein's character, who is supposed to be a tragic figure, for some reason did not feel tragic enough to me. I think the major reason is that Chris Klein simply is not the right actor for this part. He is completely unconvincing, and lets face it, he is not a very good actor. I am sad to say he resides in the same league as Keanu Reeves when it comes to acting skill. Barry Pepper would have been a much better choice in that role, seeing as how miniscule his actual part is and is pretty much wasted.

Mel Gibson does an adequate job, but his style and mannerisms don't necessarily translate well into this type of roll. He does the crazy little "look over to the side" move he perfected in Lethal Weapon, while he speaks. This is a bit disconcerting, and is not befitting behavior for a battle-hardened veteran. His emotional display at the end of the movie is also fairly hard to believe. On the other hand, when Gibson is actually on the battlefield commanding the battle, he is thoroughly convincing, and that is where he shines! He is at once valiant, courageous, strategic and compassionate. The battle scenes display Mel's true talents as an actor. The non-battle segments of the film are better left forgotten. (For example, the above mentioned chapel scene, and the scene where Mel has to explain to his baby daughter what a war is made me cringe).
Finally, I just wanted to add that I had a helluva time trying to understand what Sam Elliot was saying throughout the movie. His drawl was so thick, that it sounded like he made the film with a mouthful of marbles. It would have served the film well to provide subtitles just for Elliot's lines. Even though his role as the tough-as-nails drill sergeant was a tad stereotypical, he played it about as well as anybody could short of Clint Eastwood. I just wish the director had tried to get more intelligible takes of his scenes! I'd also like to give a big thumbs up once again to Barry Pepper, for his great, albeit small, performance in this film as a military reporter caught on the battlefield. But the little overlay "montage" scene where he is taking various photos on the field was way cheesy and completely out of place. That was a real sore-spot for me. I can't state enough how much that montage completely stunk, and is a clear sign of bad direction.