Guardian Unlimited didn't publish this review, see what you're missing

Rating: Null/10 (21 March 2002)

"We Were Soldiers" Rating: 7.5/10
I almost did not see this film due to the negative reviews it received in the UK. I then recognized the public's approval and decided to give it a try. I do not agree with severity of the negative comments about this film and consequently endeavor to communicate another perspective.
A number of areas in this film are kept simple. The depiction of Colonel Moore's home life has hints of Frank Capra: the ideal relationship with an unquestioning wife, the family praying together before bed. There are also simplistic representations of Colonel Moore's relationships with his troops. An example of this is the lack of development of Moore's friendship with Sgt. Maj. Basil L. Plumley (Sam Elliot). This can be interpreted as poor film making. I do not think this is a failure of director Randall Wallace to address the negative aspects of family life or the complexity of relationships. Instead, there is a focus on the ideal and on simple messages. A message of great depth is not more powerful that a simple message, it is just delivered differently. As with all things in life, sport, business and relationships the basics are what drive positive results. This film delivers basic messages that anyone can appreciate: importance of a strong family life, belief in God for personal strength, the importance of leaders not living in ivory towers, there are no winners in war, and so on.
Although I entered the theater with an open mind, it was difficult not to compare "We Were Soldiers" with the likes of "Apocalypse Now", "Saving Private Ryan" and "The Thin Red Line". During the film I thought to myself, where are the cowards, the self-seeking senior officers and the dissident rankers (as Philip French writes) as depicted in the "The Thin Red Line"? These characters were in the film but not developed, such as the General who demanded Moore abandon his troops and the battle coordinators in Saigon who did not want a "massacre" to become public knowledge. Some critics identify this lack of development as a shortcoming of the film. I cannot personally vouch of the character of Hal Moore, but based on his accomplishments, commitment to his men, and strength as a leader I would believe that he selected and attracted the best troops. I would propose that because of the overwhelming number of courageous and dedicated troops in the battle of la Drang that footage dedicated to these other characters would mislead viewers' perception of the type of men who died in the battle. Would the battle have been won under such difficult odds if these men were not exceptional? We should not be so cynical such that belief in an event is derived from knowing that it has an unsavory element. I decided not to compare, but instead keep my mind open and enjoy the remainder the film.
I do not rate "We Were Soldiers" as highly as "Saving Private Ryan" or "The Thin Red Line" but it is worth seeing on it's own merits.