We Were Soldiers Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Fathers, Brothers, Husbands & Sons.
We were... young, brave, husbands, wives, sons, mothers, daughters, soldiers.
400 U.S paratroopers. 4000 Vietnamese soldiers. 12 000 miles away from home. 1 man led them into battle.
In a place soon to be known as The Valley of Death, in a small clearing called landing zone X-Ray, Lt. Colonel Hal Moore (Mel Gibson) and 400 young fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons, all troopers from an elite American combat division, were surrounded by 4,000 North Vietnamese soldiers. The ensuing battle was one of the most savage in U.S. history. We Were Soldiers Once...And Young is a tribute to the nobility of those men under fire, their common acts of uncommon valor, and their loyalty to and love for one another.
| Barry Pepper | Joe Galloway |
| Madeleine Stowe | Julie Moore |
| Greg Kinnear | Maj. Bruce 'Snake' Crandall |
| Mel Gibson | Lt. Col. Hal Moore |
| Sam Elliott | Sgt. Maj. Basil Plumley |
| Chris Klein | 2nd Lt. Jack Geoghegan |
| Keri Russell | Barbara Geoghegan |
| Duong Don | Lt. Col. Nguyen Huu An |
| Ryan Hurst | Sgt. Ernie Savage |
| Robert Bagnell | 1st Lt. Charlie Hastings |
| Marc Blucas | 2nd Lt. Henry Herrick |
| Josh Daugherty | Sp4 Robert Ouellette |
| Jsu Garcia | Capt. Tony Nadal |
| Jon Hamm | Capt. Matt Dillon |
| Clark Gregg | Capt. Tom Metsker |
| Randall Wallace |
7.00 out of 10 (17524 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Very Favorable
posted on 29 Aug 2009Having been a war movie buff since a child, `To Hell and Back', `Attack' (one of the most underrated movies, but at the top of the list of best war films) I have to say, `We Were Soldiers is one of the, if not the best Vietnam movies made. They stayed with original uniforms for that era, and showed the pride the members of the Armed forces possessed at that time.I feel the script was well written, the actors did a more than superb job, and the special effects were excellent.This is a very hard-hitting movie, which will bring back a lot of memories for many Veterans, good and bad.It should be required viewing in every American High School, to show what the last generation of true heroes were like, how they hurt, cried, yet got the job done under extreme conditions. Something sadly missing in today's youth.The war was wrong, we shouldn't have been there in the first place, Johnson was a egoist of the first rate, and the brass had their collective heads up in dark moist places most of the time, but if the politicians and upper staff realized that this wasn't their average line war, maybe, just maybe, there wouldn't be so many names on that Black Marble Wall In Washington.The effects of the Taxi/Telegrams scenes were heartbreaking.Overall, I recommend viewing this movie.
The best Movie about the Vietnam War
posted on 27 Aug 2009I have never seen a movie that was more true to the actual facts of a battle than this one. The fact that most of the major characters helped work on this movie was one reason. The main one is that Hal Moore did a great job on his book.I admired his leadership. As a Vietnam Vet myself I can tell you that while there were a lot of jerks in command, the majority of commanders were decent men trying to do the best they could in a bad situation.My wife really like the depiction of the wives and how they handled the worst part of war, they death of their husbands.Finally, I was impressed with the depiction of the enemy. The North Vietnamese soldiers were tough, battle hardened professionals and worthy opponents.Great film and about damned time!
If Hal Moore says that Randy Wallace got it right, that's good enough for me.
posted on 25 Aug 2009After seeing "We Were Soldiers" on DVD, watching the docu "Getting it Right" and reading some of the comments on this site, I wonder if we all saw the same movie. Personally, I thought it was a very good, moving film. Not perfect, of course (no film is perfect), but good nonetheless. I do "get it." Apparently some of us don't.I also wonder if not everyone realizes that this movie is based on a book about a REAL battle in a REAL war with characters based on REAL people who died. Of course, it has been fictionalized and dramatized, but isn't it trivializing the deaths of these young men to even refer to their celluloid depictions as "cliches?" What we see may be just a movie, but a whole lot of American soldiers died for what some might say was no good reason. Nothing will change that. This film, as I see it, is a tribute to them and the ones who survived.If Hal Moore says that Randy Wallace got it right, that's good enough for me.
Good idea, bad script
posted on 15 Aug 2009Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan revolutionized the way to make a war movie. Every director making a war movie now has realism in his or her mind. Randall Wallace's We Were Soldiers has a modest take on realism, but its true problem lies on its script. It fails to give the heightened emotional impact that previous great war movies have.We Were Soldiers was also written by Randall Wallace based on the book `We Were Soldiers Once… and Young' written by Lieutenant General Hal Moore and Joseph L. Galloway, a war photographer who also narrates the movie. The movie documents the battle of The Valley of Death, the first encounter between the Vietnamese and American soldiers. It follows several characters, but it centers on Moore played by Mel Gibson. Moore is a war veteran who was assigned to the battle because of his experience in Korea.The story also follows 2nd Lieutenant Jack Geoghegan played by Chris Klien. Geoghegan is a new father and is questioning his dual role as a father and a soldier. Perhaps the aspect that the movie most successfully portrays is its portrayal of the Vietnamese side. We are presented how the Vietnamese general devises his strategy, and how it compares to Moore's plans.But the main focus of We Were Soldiers is not war. Instead, it focuses on the soldiers' families and how they were affected by the war. Before the movie goes to the battle scenes, it takes us to the American camp and we are introduced to the soldier's wives and children. The wives attend meetings and talk about the war and its implications. During the war, we follow Moore's and Geoghegan's wives (Madeleine Stowe and Kerri Russell) as they hand out telegrams announcing the death of soldiers to their wives.The movie tries so hard to elicit an emotional response. In its attempt, it fails because it used all too familiar clichés and cheesy lines. In a scene where Moore's young daughter asks him what is a war, he responds that it is where `people try to take the lives of other people, and it is the soldier's job to stop them.' In an another familiar scene in a chapel, Geoghegan talks with Moore about the war and asks, `what do you think about being a father and a soldier.' Moore responds, `I think being good at the one makes me good at the other.'The war scenes look good but never introduce anything new. These scenes have already been played out a lot of times in previous movies. By the time some soldiers get killed, the audience is not involved enough in the story to care for them. Some of the battle sequences are confusing because we don't know who is involved and what it is about. It also lacked the action and adrenaline to keep audience energized.We Were Soldiers could have been better with improved editing and stronger writing. As with Randall Wallace's last script from Pearl Harbor, the dialogue is weak and overly dramatic. His direction, though, is modest, and the cast did a good job of acting. We Were Soldiers is not terrible, but if you want an inventive and more action filled, go with Black Hawk Down.
SUPERB WAR FILM - But Beware of Madeleine Stowe's Giant Lips!
posted on 03 Aug 2009"We Were Soldiers" is rather different from the majority of American Vietnam war films. Instead of the drug-taking, baby-killing, officer-fragging draftees that arrived later in the war, here we have the confident professional U.S. Army in its first major battle with North Vietnamese regulars in 1965. This is the famous slugfest in the Ia Drang Valley, recounted in the book the movie was based on, "We Were Soldiers Once. . . and Young". Mel Gibson does a generically heroic job as the gung-ho Colonel Moore leading his 7th Air Cavalry battalion into this new "valley of death". Unlike the nonetheless fine "Black Hawk Down", this film does a better job with the individual personalities, the human element of the soldiers under terrible fire.The combat scenes are first-rate as are the effects. Battles are realistic and bloody enough for anyone. The effects of napalm are depicted graphically on an American mistakenly hit by some. The final American fixed-bayonet charge reminded me of the famous charge by the 20th Maine regiment in the movie "Gettysburg" - although they did not have massive air support. American air power was the reason the Vietnamese were stopped, and, eventually, it hardly seemed fair.The wives of the fighters are shown at length as oak-like pillars of strength, even despite the Army's callousness in delivering death notices by telegrams via yellow cab drivers. Entirely distracting, however, was Madeleine Stowe - a formerly gorgeous lady who now has surpassed even Melanie Griffith for the worst collagen lip-job in Hollywood. Stowe's puffed-up lips made her almost unrecognizable, and clown-like. Too bad.Especially good in this movie was the sensitive way politics and the Vietnamese were handled. Lyndon Johnson's dark, deceitful shadow hangs over all these needless deaths; in fact, if the movie has a fault it does not adequately show how good men were foolishly used by Johnson and the Pentagon. The Vietnamese Army was depicted as heroic and as human beings; the final comments at the end of the movie by their colonel about how the battle would change nothing in the long run except the number of casualties was thoroughly appropriate. I recommend people also see/rent "Go Tell the Spartans" with Burt Lancaster. It was a fine and somewhat neglected film of this same period. "Go tell the Spartans we die here obedient to their word" was the last message sent by King Leonidas at Thermopolae against the Persians. And is ironic in the Vietnam context.For those interested in historical anomalies, Gibson as Col Moore was spotted early in the movie carrying the book "Great Battlefields of the World", that in 1965. Unfortunately, it wasn't published until 1984.A well-done war movie definitely worth seeing.
Could have been a truly great movie, but sadly it wasn't.
posted on 01 Aug 2009I went to the bookstore to look through the book this movie was based on. In the prologue, the author criticized Hollywood for screwing up all movies about Vietnam and for not telling how war really is. Hollywood did not do justice once again ironically this time to this very book.After watching the movie, all I could say to myself is, "Come on, that didn't happen..." This is sad because there are many Americans and viewers around the world who also demand not to be insulted by how Hollywood often likes to. Even sadder is that there are others who are prone to believe that the film really depicts reality... that American soldiers do shoot like Rambo... that the enemy just packs up and leaves seeing defeat... that the Americans clearly won this battle.It always felt all throughout the film wanted to stay truer to the book and thus to the events that transpired. But after all it is a product of Hollywood which we all know is motivated by profit. That means, the script has to be padded with action, explosions, and moments of patriotism. The fudged-up story confuses fact and fiction and denies all of us the valuable lessons that the brief, brutal, tragic events in the small patch of land in Vietnam could have offered. The decisions to compromise integrity made the difference between a truly great film and a mediocre Vietnam flick.However, I felt "We Were Soldiers" shined in the opening sequence. I always thought that the beachhead opening scene in "Saving Private Ryan" could never be topped. True, it was filled with action, scale, and immediacy. In "We Were Soldiers" though, the opening sequence in less than two minutes strikes right in your face the savageness and absurdity of war. Highly effective, absolutely brilliant.
Rambo didn't fight here.
posted on 01 Aug 2009Mind you, this is not a gung-ho war movie. Rambo didn't fight here. It is brutal, honest, and at times painful.This film, although assuredly graphic in nature (what war is not?), pulled some emotions from me that I did not expect:AWE: My father is a veteran of Viet Nam; I realize now that my mother is the bravest woman I know.PRIDE: My husband, a veteran of Desert Storm, continues his military service today.GRATITUDE: Finally, a war movie that honors the efforts of the soldiers of Viet Nam. It's as if, at long last, Hollywood has offered the Heroes' Welcome to these brave men.A movie worth seeing, if only to remind ourselves not to let such disdain for necessary evils happen again.
We Were Soldiers, Were You?
posted on 30 Jul 2009I am extremely disappointed by some of the commentaries that have been posted regarding the reviews of "We Were Soldiers." As a former Marine, as well as someone who actually read the book "We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young" prior to viewing the movie, I feel that this movie was an extremely accurate portrayal of the book into film format. Any movie that has the author's approval (as former Lt.Col, now retired General Moore has given) is good enough for me. The man was there and finds that the movie accurately portrayed what he was trying to bring into focus with the written word. For those of you that find that this movie is not in the "Apocalypse Now" or "Full Metal Jacket" genre, you're right . . .because it portrays a different and more pro-U.S and pro-military timeframe in the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War that General Moore was portraying in his book, and that Wallace brought to the screen is not, and was not supposed to, in my view, be the later war of the early and mid 1970's that those movies bring to life. This movie was of the U.S.' early involvement in the war and the patriotism and mind-set of that time-frame, not the Vietnam War of "Platoon" or similarly negative viewpoints. The movie did not glorify war, nor sugar-coat why the U.S. was involved, but rather offered a viewpoint of the men (and their families and their women) that fought it and why they volunteered to do so. The basic premise of both the book and the movie was that men fight on the battle field, not for glory or honor, but for the comraderie (or love) of the man next to him. Admitedly, there wasn't enough time to go into the thorough characterizations that many would have preferred on the individual character, but how long do you think the movie could have lasted then? I do believe that for the best appreciation of this movie, it should serve as a companion piece to the book, then you could fill in all the gaps that many have noted they feel are weaknesses of the movie. But seldom have I went to see a movie after reading the book first, that I felt was more aptly truthful to the book. And yes, there was some flag-waving and sugar-sweet moments early on, but they ARE accurate to a point as well. The best of the military will tell you that they train for war, not for love of it, but to better prepare and defend their country in time of it. The entire nation (and world for that matter) always missed the point, as far as I am concerned, about the Vietnam War. You can, and rightly so, abhor what occured in Vietnam; however, at no time EVER should the men and women who fought, sacrificed, suffered and died been made the victims of the public's scorn for U.S involvement. In short, the book is great, the film is excellent, and I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Even if it is biased, uninformed, and dangerously narrow-minded. Semper Fi!
A good movie, but far from great.
posted on 22 Jul 2009I expected this film to be a lot better than it was, but I guess I could say it dissapointed me. The movie was a tribute to vietnam war veterans, and that is something they truly deserve. I thought Full Metal Jacket and Platoon were better than We Were Soldiers, but that doesnt mean the movie was bad. It's just that it paled in comparison to those two classics. However I thought it was better than the Deer Hunter and Apocalypse now. It was more emotional, and Mel Gibson was at his best in this film. I liked the way he portrayed Col. Moore as a good man with a heart, who represented the bravery of all who served in nam. God bless the veterans who served in this war. Definatly in the top ten list as far as war flicks go, but not better than Black Hawk Down or Saving Private Ryan. The b plot in the movie was about the soldiers wives, and it came at the wrong moments in the film, during battle scenes, and that took away the feeling of being on the battle field with the soldiers. But I still give the movie *** stars. Definatly worth having in my collection.
Inadequate film for its time
posted on 20 Jul 2009Had We Were Soldiers been made 10 years or even 5 years ago it would have really resonated with me. But after Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, Enemy at the Gates, and Black Hawk Down this movie really does not reveal much about war or human reactions to it. Instead it is an amalgam of the bloodiest scenes current technology will allow and gratuituous family time scenes which add little to the drama.I will admit that in spite of this that watching the film did affect me, but I believe that it had more to do with sitting directly behind a Vietnam Vet who throughout the film would turn to his wife and remark about how he remembered this or that and next to a West Point cadet who was told early on that the average life span of a 2nd Lt. in Vietnam was 15 minutes and was now watching that statistic come to life. But the film did not affect me, the serviceman's reactions to the film did.If you like Gibson and want to see him in a war film see Gallipoli, he was younger, less arrogant and seemed to care more about the soldier's experience. I like Gibson, but his actions at the West Point showing of the film definitely hinted that he was more interested in the box office success of the war film and less about the soldiers' story. I hope I am wrong about him and his attitudes, but I fear that I'm not.Not a bad war movie, but there are so many better.
Brave yes, but why were they fighting there in the first place?
posted on 16 Jul 2009This would be a decent war movie if they had only tried to give some explanation as to why we were sending the brave soldiers to fight in Vietnam in the first place. After listening to Gibson go on and on about why we fight wars (to defend the innocent from the bad etc), I expected at least SOME attempt to establish why we were fighting that war, that battle. As it is, with no explanation and using Gibson's logic in the movie, I couldnt help think to myself that we were the invaders, the bad guys. I love a good war movie, but you cant leave loopholes like this in it. Im a conservative, but you cant just send troops to fight somewhere without a compelling reason, and this movie presents NO reason, let alone a compelling reason.
Realistic and True!
posted on 10 Jul 2009Typical liberal pacifists slam this movie. But, this is true, honest, and delivers a message. If you don't like the message, SHAME ON YOU!!!Gibson and Kinear give a stellar performance. The soundtrack reminded me of Vangelis, but hit the emotional button harder. This film not only showed the war-front experience, but also showed the tensions of the family left behind. Editing is superb. The only minor complaint might be the explosive special effects, but you're so caught up in the movie, that you don't notice.Ranks up there with the best!!
Sentimental, cliche, patriotic... boring
posted on 04 Jul 2009I watched this movie because someone told me that it was mutch like Black Hawk Down, witch I loved, but this was nothing like it. This is such a sentimental movie, including all the cliches in the genre, even including the "Tell my wife... I love her" before someone dies. Jesus! Haven't we heard that enough by now? And since when is about every important person in a movie politically correct? Hal Moore Gibson couldn't have been any cheesier! He's not only intense religious, he's also the perfect father, the perfect husband, the perfect combat leader... and OH NO! Here comes a speech about how everybody is equal and stuff! If they wanted to make a hard combat movie (witch it claims to be, when you see the action scenes), they should have left all this crap out of it. The contrast between the action and the sentimental cheesy parts are really to big to make any sense. It's like they made 2 movies and than merged them together into one, so they could say: "This movie has it all: great action and drama". Maybe it's true it has both, but that doesn't mean this is a good movie!3/10
Portent of Things to Come
posted on 02 Jul 2009I wasn't expecting much from this film because many of the reviews I'd read at the time of its release argued that it, and the book it was based on, were retrograde. The US soldiers provide the heroes and the North Vietnamese the villains. But it wasn't nearly so simple as that.Obviously it's been heavily influenced by "Saving Private Ryan", at least in one respect. It's even gorier than SPR. If a phosphorous grenade explodes, we see the Grunt with the flaming stuff stuck to his skin and clothing, burning holes into him, and we see a buddy cutting away the burning flesh of his cheek with a knife. When a Grunt is caught in a friendly-napalm blast he really burns and afterward his charred flesh is blackened, so that when a buddy tries to take his legs and pull him towards a Medivac the flesh of both legs from the knees down peels off into his buddy's hands. And of course there is squib charge upon squib charge exploding in slow motion, an unfortunate cliché by now.One wonders just in passing how far this trend towards realistic gore can go -- and what the purpose behind the trip is. Well, it can't go much farther than it has. It seems just a short time ago that "M*A*S*H" had one shocking scene in it -- a wounded soldier in a hospital whose arterial blood pumped out of his body towards the surgeon. Actually it was more than thirty years ago. But our cinematic carnage has progressed by leaps and bounds. "M*A*S*H" was an early milestone. So was "Bonny and Clyde," which introduced slow-motion death to American movies. "Saving Private Ryan" was a shocking blood bath. Now we have "Blackhawk Down", with a still-living soldier whose lower half has been blown away. And now there's "We Were Soldiers."As for WHY there has been such an increase of realism in violence, well, that's a different question whose answer can only be guessed at. Many cinematic movements like this one seem to follow a trajectory in which each film must out-do the previous examples of the genre. If gore is good box office, then more gore is even better box office. There may be a sincere desire on the part of the producers to show combat as it really is, but like all motives this one may be mixed, with some commercial interests thrown into the stew. And the motives of the audiences who turn these films into marketable products? It would be nice to think that they leave the theaters having learned something about the results of combat. But if that's the case, we don't seem to be showing much evidence of having grasped the lesson. In a sense, sensational gore cheapens and degrades the experience of the men and women who have lived through these extreme situations. So much suffering brings tears to the eyes, especially when we see the survivors visiting graves and monuments after the battle, as we do both here and in "Saving Private Ryan." And then, having wept, the audience leaves the theater and embraces the next war. The arousal jag is over. Good intentions, when viewed from a slightly different angle, have an uncanny way of resembling exploitation.Okay. Enough philosophy. The movie is better than I'd expected it to be, the excess of gore and the slow-motion clichés aside. (I was also confused by the topography, although locations are clearly labelled. Where exactly is the creek bed?) There isn't much in the way of home-front scenes, but what there is neatly reflects the anxiety and pain of those left behind. The combat scenes are exhausting. A few hundred Americans opposed by some four thousand regulars of the North Vietnamese army. (About the same ratio of Americans to adversaries as General Custer faced, only he had no air support. Custer is brought up several times.) But, most important, this is the first film I can remember seeing about the Vietnam war in which the enemy is presented as something other than outright evil. There is a good deal of irony in the movie. Mel Gibson prays before the battle. Take us under your wing, and so forth, he asks. Then throws in, "Ignore those pagans praying to a different God." Much later in the film, long enough for us to have forgotten Gibson's racist plea, the commander of the North Vietnamese army is also seen praying -- presumably to the same God. And one of the NV soldiers is humanized to the extent of keeping on his person a diary written to his wife. (The soldier wears glasses so we can tell him from the other North Vietnamese and remember him.) He dies heroically and when the Americans take the diary from his body and flip through it, they find a picture of his wife, a woman who bears an uncanny resemblance to Gibson's wife, played by Madeleine Stowe. We win the battle (Ia Drang) of course, but even this is undercut by irony. The NV commander looks at the piles of bodies after the Americans leave. He shakes his head and says, "What a tragedy." The worst part of it, he muses, is that the Americans will treat this as a victory and the war will go on to its necessary end, although now it will mean just that many more deaths.Should you bother watching this? I think so. This one would have been a true original if it had appeared twenty years ago.
We Were Boring
posted on 26 Jun 2009This film has the potential of a classic, but I ended up wondering what was the REAL PURPOSE behind the film. Money? Ego? The script is horrendous and filled with every cliche imaginable to man. Characters don't develop (except for Mel Gibson to some degree because everyone loves Mel Gibson and this is a Mel Gibson movie). They only have one purpose and that is to make you cry with silly dialogue, and also Chris Klein just became a daddy right before he gets reluctantly shipped off to war. THIS IS HEART BREAKING STUFF. I think it's asking TOO much from the movie when we wanted the second coming of Oliver Stone's classic Platoon, but hey, this is supposed to be a movie to respect Vietnam vets, right?5/10
Gripping
posted on 20 Jun 2009This is by far one of the best war movies I have ever seen. The characters are developed well without being overly dramatic. The action scenes are some of the best I have ever seen. It also deserves credit because the movie focuses on the men of the air calvary unit and does not clutter itself with side plots involving family conflicts or love affairs. This movie is Blackhawk Down's equal. I can not decide which one I enjoyed more. This movie does not present itself as a history lesson like Blackhawk Down, but still is very informative. I highly recommend this film for all those interested in military history or fans of war movies.
Horrible.
posted on 12 Jun 2009One of the worst movies that has been made. These patriotic movies make me want to throw up. To hide the defeat in Vietnam they make a movie about a small battle they actually won (!!), so that they for once can praise American soldiers. The movie itself is just like any other American Vietnam movie, "good guys" (americans) attacking the "evil communists" to save the world! Isn't that just great?.
good
posted on 12 Jun 2009good war film not the best film ive ever seen but a great one mel gibson is great i recomend it its great better than Saving Private Ryan see it its great um what more can i say about it oh yeah of all the onslaught of war movies that came out around early 2002 late 2001 this is one of the best Behind Enemy Lines was ok, Black Hawk Down and Windtalkers were pretty good and this was great see it now
I don.t agree
posted on 08 Jun 2009Sorry for my poor English, but this is a movie that says to me that to be a killer is what your country wants you to be. Freedom? I don't think so. Slaves - yes may be. Big stick Diplomacy - Who will work for you? First you come with peace and when they don't want work for you for nickles then you pick up the big stick? And after that you say to me that men who was fighting for the Corporations were heroes? The only thing that Ameria wants is to find another slaves, and if they don't agree - kill them. Kill them all and what remains - be a slave. I hope that I will not be another American slave. My generation is educated enough. P.S. I am Bulgarian and I will FIGHT for my free will if I have to. P.P.S. We are Christians, not Muslims. P.P.P.S. Who are you and who do you think you are? We know who we are. Adolf Hitler dared to attack Slavs (underrace). The result we all know.
Interesting, well done, but could have been more.
posted on 29 Aug 2009I read the original book a few years ago and looked forward to the movie treatment. I found the battle scenes technically outstanding, and full of tension and drama. However, some of the personal developments were lacking. I also was severely disappointed to see the Welsh Lt Rick Rescorla completely excised from the film, something that did not help overseas interest in the film. Lt Rescorla was a former British Army Paratrooper who fled his native Britain to be a mercenary in Africa, and later escaped to the United States. Besides SGM Plumley & LTC Moore, he was one of the few officers with combat experience. He was awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in the battle, and was later killed on Sept 11th, 2001 in the World Trade Center attack. As for the movie itself, it's good, but not great. During the combat scenes, Mel Gibson completely changes, becoming a commanding presence who is completely believeable. However, I was disappointed in Galloway's potrayal. I think he could have been an excellent counterpoint to the gung-ho Moore, & Galloway's big scene was a ridiculous montage that was completely out of place in the movie. I was also pleased to see that the true origins of the Vietnam War, rampant European colonialism, was presented. I find this is best looked at as a prequel to "Platoon." In "Platoon" Sgt Elias (Willem Dafoe) wears a combat patch of the 7th Cavalry, making him a possible veteran of the Ia Drang. During a conversation with Pvt Taylor (Charlie Sheen) character, Elias says that America is going to lose this war, and Taylor is shocked and told him that that isn't possible. Sgt Elias responds with something like: "Yeah, back in '65 I believed that." That's the problem, the people who have criticized this film as a whitewash don't know history. This was 1965, before years of Pentagon lies & bodybags soured America on the war, before the highly trained and motivated young recruits were replaced with sullen, unmotivated draftees. Mixed feelings, but worth a look.