A great book/story... an average movie.

Rating: 5/10 (26 February 2002)

Just saw this movie in a sneak preview and wasn't expecting much as I sat in the theater. Randall Wallace is an average screenwriter/filmmaker at best. The "Pearl Harbor" screenplay bordered on silly and "The Man in the Iron Mask" was a dull Muskateer popcorn flick.
"We Were Soldiers," based on the excellent book by Col. Hal Moore, etc. about the first major battle of the Vietnam War (Nov. 1965), is another average war movie that rests on cliche, tin-ear dialog and ham-fisted, patriotism. The movie tries so hard to be "great" and "powerful" that instead of presenting this amazing story and earning your respect and admiration -- as all truly great films do; the filmmaker demands and tries to force that respect -- he fails.
The battle scenes are graphic, but not realistic. In nearly every shot of battle the viewer can "see-the-man-behind-the-curtain" and spot the hollywood-ism of it all. Where Spielberg/Hanks suceeded with "SPR" and "Band of Brothers," Wallace just gets by. The blood effects in the film look obviously fake, it's too purple/orange and flows like Karo syrup, pulling the viewer out of the movie. The pacing is uneven and emotional moments wasted when they are followed by confusing editing/pacing. Scenes of the "commanders" in Saigon fall from the sky it seems and add nothing but on-the-nose exposition.
"We Were Soldiers" Is a missed opportunity from start to finish and it's a shame Wallace didn't have the chops to give the story the film treatment it deserves. Go rent/watch "Platoon" instead.