worth watching, but not particularly meaningful.

Rating: 7/10 (11 March 2002)

When I first heard about this movie my first thought was that Mel Gibson had made a big mistake here. Why star in yet another Vietnam war movie when so many had been done before? Not only that but, add to a genre already littered with great, great movies.
Many people will totally disagree with me on this point but I feel that enough movies have been made about this war. I don't disagree with the overriding themes and lessons contained within movies which continue to be made about it - I just feel that most of the good films made already cover the various aspects of that war and that by continuing to make more movies about it in some way dilutes the effect they can potentially have.
That aside I did enjoy this movie. It was visually impressive, certainly bringing the horror of the war and violence directly to the audience, and the action scenes (of which thankfully there were plenty) were all executed expertly.
Mel Gibson's performance was fine, as was Sam Elliot's - even though his character is downgraded to little more than a "tough as nails sergeant" stereotype - and the look of the movie seemed to work well overall.
It was the glossy parts of the movie (more akin to early Bruckheimer efforts) I found most dissatisfying. Especially the Barry Pepper "photography" scene which I thought didn't fit in at all with the rest of the movie and, whilst well intended, ended up coming across tacky.
The difficulty Randall Wallace faces here is that it is an action movie first and foremost and, as I've already said, when he concentrates on that the result is above average however when he tries to delve into moments of moral and human examination They just come off looking trite. Especially when the onscreen ratio is overwhelming action 99% - moral message 1%
Overall, whilst not as good as Black Hawk Down, well worth watching, but not particularly meaningful. 7/10.