too simple

Rating: 2/10 (8 February 2007)

It's hard to accept, that so many viewers think so positive about that movie. The main aim of the movie maker is simple to read: to win a war America already lost. The truth is that Vietnam was a disaster, but one should not consider it as a military disaster which has to be rewritten by such simple stories. It's better to understand that war itself is a disaster even if it is a war which seems to be necessary. But the film shows the opposite. The film depicts the war and especially the enemies like John Wayne did it in The Green Berets and it's a horrible image of the US army having leading soldiers like the figure of Moore. What's it like to be a father and a soldier Geoghegan asks (in a church!)and the only thing Moore has to answer is that God should help him to kill that other b...... . Is that reality? And is it authentic to show thousands of running and screaming Vietnamese soldiers like those guys we saw in the 50s and 60s? It maybe a realistic depiction according to some of the quoted veterans here in the user comments. I don't blame those, but please don't forget: It is nothing more than a single event, a single perspective, a film and a story. I prefer to understand a war movie as something mono-dimensional about a complex truth. Wallace and Gibson say nothing more but: Vietnam, Politics, doubts, sorrow, pain and grief? Ah, come on, f... it. They Were Soldiers and they were heroes, there's nothing more to say. I have only one word for that: propaganda. I really do hope that the whole American society doesn't think like Wallace and Gromit, sorry, Gibson. But there is still a spark of hope in the war film genre. Thank's, Clint. Some flaws, but many opportunities for contemplation about something that is not simple to understand.