Add me to the list of those who never understood why so many disliked the Thin Red Line. I thought it was much more moving, had more depth, and was less superficial than Saving Private Ryan, personally. We Were Soldiers is on my list, to be sure. I have read some bad reviews, and some good, but my experience is that unless all of the reviewers say the same thing, it's probably a decent movie (not a jab, Rm95)...
counterpunch.org Another point of view. I haven't seen the fil, yet. . Though I am against almost all wars, I do watch many of these movies. Boycott Mel Gibson's "We Were Soldiers" By Paul Cox Kenneth Turan's review of 'We Were Soldiers' on March 1, had the courage to pan the film as simple-minded and devoid of historical context. He was right on both counts, but I must add the movie also lies massively about the historical event itself. The book on which this stinker of a movie was based, 'We Were Soldiers Once...And Young', was written by one of the battalion commanders, and a journalist who was on hand for most of the LZ X-Ray battle. While the book itself was simple minded and devoid of historical context, it is, at least, brutally clear on what went down. The movie, on the other hand, completely changes the end of the story. In the movie, after Mel (The Patriot) Gibson and his men of the First Battalion/Seventh Cavalry (1/7) kill all the North Vietnamese in the neighborhood, they left the field of battle as battered but victorious heroes, leaving nothing behind but a pile of dead Vietnamese. In reality, 1/7 was relieved by a column of troops from Second Battalion/Seventh Cavalry (2/7), who two days later were decimated in an intense ambush while moving to LZ Albany. The official count of American casualties from 1/7 was 49 dead and 124 wounded, and from 2/7 was 155 dead and 123 wounded. Thus, the movie has the temerity to end on a victorious note after only one quarter of the American fatalities had been inflicted. Why did they do this? Randall (Pearl Harbor) Wallace--producer, director and screen writer--could have easily ended the movie as he began it. The movie began with a short segment of a deadly ambush on a French column in the same valley ten years earlier; it should have ended with at least a passing reference to the dying that happened after Mel Gibson's character left the battlefield. The audience would have perhaps left the theater with a much different taste in their mouths, and a much more accurate understanding of the historical truth. However, apparently Mr. Wallace was more interested in a little flag waving, and wanted to send the audience home with a patriotic buzz. This film should have been named 'Big Fat Liar', but I understand that name has already been taken. Paul Cox served in Vietnam from 1969-1970 as a USMC grunt. He is a member of Veterans for Peace, Chapter 69 San Francisco, CA.
Could you explain to me why every reviewer alive did not strike down Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Rm95? Talk about awful movies... After I saw positive reviews for that one, and then saw it myself, I concluded that at least some of these guys (reviewers) are idiots. Oh, and there's that whole Moulin Rouge thing...
Hehe, that's funny treeman, I'm about to watch Jay and Silent Bob. I understand why people wouldn't like that one as it's basically a movie primarily for Kevin Smith/New Jersey "trilogy" fans. I loved it.
Hey, I love Jay and Silent Bob flicks. Clerks was superb, and Dogma was good too. But J&SB Strike Back totally sucked. Awful, awful movie on every possible level. So, you were one of those buttheads who gave it a positive review, and conned me into actually watching it?
SPR is my #1 movie. I also like - Battle of the Bulge - Patton - The Longest Day - The Thin Red Line - Black Hawk Down - Stalag17 - Schindler's List I will usually watch any movie about WWII/wars. "We were Soldiers" looks really good to me. I will definitely go see it.
Damn, I hated SPR...that is also the last (new) war movie I have seen (I saw it on cable during a bout of insomnia). I don't see that many movies in general and have yet to discover a compelling reason to see one of the new war films that come out every 5 1/2 weeks. I just wonder how much longer this current Hollywood craze/trend will last.
Probably until the end of the war, rimbaud. Beyond that.... It could be another decade before we see another Andy Warhol bio/film. Get used to war movies.
Well, I saw We Were Soldiers today. Not a bad movie. But it's a poor version of Saving Private Ryan, imo. I prefer SPR and Black Hawk Down over this any day. Why? I didn't touch on anything new in a war movie. I didn't think the cinematography was all that great and the nighttime lighting was horrible. I by that I mean it brought too much attention to itself. That was distracting to me (ok, maybe I'm easily distracted). Black Hawk Down's lighting at night was excellent...very realistic. Again...not a "bad" movie, just nothing special, imo. I'm not going to say anyone is right or wrong on liking this. That's just what makes us different. os
tree, The trend started well before the real life war events. In any event, I am not criticizing the genre, just the current barrage of (seemingly) interchangeable scripts. Don't assume that I only want to see "art" movies...the implication is insulting (in a neutral, happy-go-lucky way, not in a "I am really mad and hate you," way) and does not take into account the human's natural "separation of live or fade into the abyss" defense mechanism. I also have not seen the last such movie, Pollock. Not interested. I would rather watch poorly-funded p*rn.
rimbaud: I would also rather watch poorly-funded p*rn... And I'm quite sure I'll be seeing a few of those before I see another "art" movie... The "war" genre will be dominant for the forseeable future (at least the next decade), IMHO. Hollywood has found out that it's a huge moneymaker if you do the special effects just right - no matter the plot. Hope for deep and thought-provoking plots, is all I can say. If you've seen one BHD, you've seen them all.
