|
|
|
| HOME | REVIEWS & RATINGS | BEST & WORST | FAQ | CONTACT | LINKS | FUN STUFF | POSTERS | DVDs |
| "Survey says...." Click here! And put in your two cents worth! |
Before seeing We Were Soldiers, I thought that this movie was about the after-effects of the war (I got this impression from the title and from the scenes show in the trailer). This is most definitely not what this movie is about. We Were Soldiers tells the story of Lt. Colonel Hal Moore (Mel Gibson) who led 400 American soldiers into the battle of Ia Drang that took place in what would later be known as The Valley of Death, for the Americans were surrounded by 2,000 North Vietnamese soldiers. The movie is based on a book entitled We Were Soldiers Once... and Young written by Lt. Gen. Harold G. Moore (Ret.) and Joseph L. Galloway. On the surface, it seems that the movie is about a single battle of the Vietnam war. However, a closer analysis reveals that it's about the horrors of war. It tries to deliver the message in a very simple, but effective way: by showing us the battle up-close during most of the movie. In fact, it was so effective that several people left the theatre in the middle of the movie at the advanced screening I attended. While writer/director Randall Wallace (who also wrote and directed The Man in the Iron Mask, and wrote Braveheart and Pearl Harbor) does manage to get the "horrors of war" message across, he does so at the expense of other aspects of the movie: the story is only surface-deep and the character development is almost non-existent.
The battle scenes, which make up most of the movie, are extremely violent and realistic-looking. Think of them as a mix between Braveheart and Saving Private Ryan's D-day scene. While they be gruesome at times, I think that this is how war should be depicted. All the time I was watching, I kept thinking to myself "how can people think of war as a solution to any problem?". One of the reasons why the battle scenes are so effective is that the special effects team didn't hold any punches. Everything looks great, from the "simple" bullets flying everywhere to the awesome explosions of the air-to-ground bombs. The cinematography is also very impressive, especially in the scenes involving the helicopters.
Another reason those scenes are effective is that the sound effects editing is nothing short of perfect. Sound effects editor Perry Robertson seems to have a really good understanding of space and time, which enhances the experience of the movie. Most of the time, I felt as if I were in the Valley of Death myself, and I even turned my head around a few times to check where a particular sound was coming from. Not since Saving Private Ryan had I experienced a movie in that way. Of course, it does help that We Were Soldiers takes advantage of the Dolby EX 6.1 technology, which adds a third surround channel to the Dolby Digital format, thus allowing more realistic flyover and fly-around effects. The musical score is quite powerful and moving, although it felt a bit over-the-top in a few scenes. Composer Nick Glennie-Smith specializes in testosterone-heavy movies (such as The Rock, Bad Boys and Fire Down Below), but his work shows a lot of promise for other genres as well.
When Braveheart was released, Randall Wallace was hailed as a brilliant screenwriter, which I wholeheartedly agreed with. However, I fail to recognize this talent in his more recent work. In We Were Soldiers, the story takes a back seat to the visual effects. There is an effort to give a bit of a background story at the beginning of the movie, but as soon as our heroes arrive in Vietnam, the story basically disappear, except for a few scenes of the soldiers' wives back at the base. To make things even worse, the battle scenes were often very confusing. It was hard to know who was where, who was stranded, who was attacking, and who was dead. However, one could easily argue that the people who were there actually felt this confusion. If this was Wallace's intent, bravo, but somehow I don't think this is the case.
The story is not the only thing that could have been developed further. The same is true of most characters. The only ones we get to know a little more about are Hal Moore (Gibson) and Joe Galloway (Pepper), who – surprise, surprise – are the authors of the book the movie is based on. Most of the other characters are touched on superficially, except maybe for Lt. Jack Geoghegan (Klein), who we get to know just enough to care about. This is unfortunate, since several of the characters seemed interesting, such as Sgt-Maj. Basil Plumley (Elliott) and Maj. Bruce 'Snakeshit' Crandall (Kinnear).
Despite these major faults with the screenplay, there is at least one thing that I have to compliment Wallace about: his portrayal of the enemy. Much like in Pearl Harbor, the enemy soldiers are not portrayed as the "evil" ones. They are simply shown as people who are defending their country. We witness their courage, their fear, and their pain. In terms of acting, there are a couple of performances that really stand out. My favourite was that of Sam Elliott (The Big Lebowski, Tombstone, The Contender) as Sgt-Maj. Basil Plumley. Elliot plays the character with such passion that it makes you want to know more about this tough-exterior-with-a-heart-of-gold man. Elliot's performance is reminiscent of R. Lee Ermey's as Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in Full Metal Jacket.
The other outstanding performance is given by the young and talented Barry Pepper (Saving Private Ryan, The Green Mile, Battlefield Earth). Pepper first caught my attention as Private Daniel Jackson, the praying sniper in Saving Private Ryan, but this is the first time I get to admire him as he stretches his acting muscle. This time, he plays an army reporter and photographer, and although his character appears late in the movie, we get a chance to see him go through a series of emotions. As for Mel Gibson (Braveheart, Lethal Weapon, The Patriot), his portrayal of Hal Moore is good, but his character almost seems artificial, never really experiencing real emotions. It's as if the author didn't want – or couldn't – relate his emotions towards his experience. Also, the chemistry between Gibson and Madeleine Stowe (Twelve Monkeys, The Last of the Mohicans, Stakeout) is simply not working. Stowe (who looks suspiciously young, by the way) gives a cold performance as Julia Moore, which was very disappointing for me since this is an actress whose work I usually enjoy.
As I've mentioned before, it would have been nice to get to know a little bit more about Major Crandall, played by Greg Kinnear (As Good As It Gets, You've Got Mail, Sabrina). Kinnear does an adequate job with what he was given to work with, but his talent is basically wasted in this role. I would have liked to enjoy this movie, but I simply didn't. The story is "missing in action" and the focus should have been put equally on the characters and on the events. The movie does have a few positive aspects, but not enough to fork out $13 at the movie theatre. If you really want to see this, I suggest you go on cheap night or wait for the video release. Reviewed on February 28, 2002 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ABOUT MOVIECRITIC.CA | AWARDS | FAQ | CONTACT US | PRIVACY POLICY | USER SURVEY |
|
This page was last updated on: Sunday, 21-Mar-2004 16:23:59 CST © 1998-2004 Luc-Rock Paquin. All Rights Reserved. All movie images © by their respective owners. Used with permission. Before "borrowing" something from my site, please ask me. "Reel Canadian Movie Critic" logo by FranclyGraphic.com. 
|
