Ok, but nothing special

Rating: 6/10 (15 October 2002)

--SPOILERS--
The movie has an excellent start in which we see both the dangers of Vietnam and the misguided feelings of superiority exhibited by the politicians and military top brass. Unfortunately the movie quickly degenerates after that. The soldiers and their families who are presented to us are mostly cardboard hero's. We see their heroic wives and adorable children. These are all things that we already know. We know that the soldiers have family and might get killed, we know that their wives are lonely. The awful cliches don't add any more sympathy. Why don't we get to see the men as real people and learn more about their motivations. Why did they decide to join the army? Patriotism? Did they think the job was easy? What did the wives of these soldiers really feel about the dangers the men decided to face?
The battle itself is a mixed bag. When the camera zooms close to the soldiers in the dark, the movie is very eerie and I could strongly feel their anxiety. On the other hand, the spell was regularly broken by the one-sided portrayal of the events. The Vietnamese let themselves be gunned down a bit too easily, I'd expect them to use a bit more caution. But what really got to me was the close combat which only showed Americans stabbing and hitting Vietnamese. I don't understand why they didn't show the reverse as well. In fact, we rarely see a Vietnamese soldier killing someone (the camera is usually trained only on the American soldier who gets shot), while the camera usually shows both the American soldier and his target. Perhaps this was an attempt to prevent us from hating the Vietnamese. It seems that we are only suppose to have feelings for two Vietnamese characters, an educated soldier and the Vietnamese commander. The first is some cardboard character caught in a situation he shouldn't be in (or something like that). The diary he is carrying is only used to show us a picture of his wife, even though we hear after the battle that part of the diary is translated. I thought it was a perfect set-up for something deep and profound, a statement that could tell us more about the Vietnamese soldiers and their motivations, hopes and fears. Alas, we get no such thing and forget the soldier immediately. The other character is far more memorable. Although a movie is hardly the place to expound tactical issues, we get the impression of a chivalric fight between the two commanders. The decisions we can comprehend seem sound and we certainly don't lose respect for the Vietnamese commander, even though he loses. His acting is very restrained and powerful, he shows his love for his men in just a few moments. A huge contrast to Mel Gibson who overacts his bravery, his sadness and his feelings for his men.
The special effects are excellent. Weapons, explosions and aircraft look very realistic. We get to see a lot of gore, which seems realistic most of the time (sometimes a body is thrown back by a gunshot, that doesn't really happen). I do think that the movie would be better off if more was left to the imagination. The slow-motions we see when some main characters are hit are especially overdone. Now and then the attempts to get us emotionally involved seem extremely contrived. The Japanese-American soldier tells the reporter that his wife will have a baby that day, after which he dutifully gets a mortal wound. He dies, but not before he asks the reporter to tell his wife he loves her. Right.
There are some side stories during the battle. We see the telegrams being delivered to recent widows. The director shows the uncertainty and the comradery on the home front in a fresh way which is very effective. We also get to see a strange brawl between the helicopter pilot and some other guy about landing in a hot LZ. It doesn't fit in the story at all.
At the end the movie loses itself to cliches again. We see two soldiers coming home with nobody waiting at the terminal. A few widows (including the wife of the Vietnamese soldier) get messages from the survivors. Mel gets to hug his wife and children. The reporter writes the true story of the battle. Yawn. Why don't we learn a bit more about the feelings of the soldiers and widows? The movie only shows change in a few characters, the reporter becomes a warrior for a while when pressed until he decides that he his real calling is to inform, not to be part of this awful war. A cocksure soldier finds out why the sergeant doesn't take him seriously. Still, the stories are far to superficial. They only hint at what could have been, but don't manage to tell us anything truly interesting. Mel seems to have changed. Because the soldiers remind him of his children, he becomes very attached to his men, to the point of becoming irrational and feeling ashamed because he didn't die as well. Unfortunately this is glossed over as he returns home. Can he ever lead men into battle again? I doubt it, but the movie never tells us what happens next. Does he resign from the army? Does he manage to detach himself sufficiently to send men into situations where many will die again?
I think that your appreciation of this movie will mostly depend on what kind of person you are. If you can stand the shallowness and the cliches, you will probably like the movie very much. On the other hand, if you prefer to analyse a movie, the many flaws will certainly not escape your attention. I could still value the fairly accurate battle scenes and the occasional flash of brilliance, but it wasn't enough to rate this movie higher than 6/10.