Not a great movie, 'Platoon' is definatly better. - We Were Soldiers (2002) Discussion

[–] 32Ford 15 years ago

Platoon MAY have been a better WAR movie. I'm not going to argue that even though I do think "We Were Soldiers....." easily matches it as a war movie. Then again,I am a VN infantry combat vet who has patrolled in the hills around the Ia Drang Valley myself.

What you are missing is that "We Were Soldiers....." isn't only about war and combat. It is about people and lives. On this level Platoon can't begin to touch it. Best damn movie about life in the US Army infantry I have ever seen.

"Saving Private Ryan" was also great in this respect,but I just couldn't buy Tom Hanks as a Ranger Captain. Mel Gibson was good,and I have friends who were friends with and knew SGM Plumley personally and served with him who say Sam Elliott absolutely NAILED his character and personality.

Now,if you want to talk war movies,"Blackhawk Down" may be the best war movie of all time. This takes nothing away from Platoon,though. The one scene in Platoon where they are being overran at night was so good and true it gave me nightmares.

reply

[–] LittleIrishLady 15 years ago

I didnt find anything wrong with any of the acting in this movie. I really liked it because to me it portrayed the real soldiers in battle.It wasnt just fictional characters, it was as if I was a fly on the wall in 1965. There was no political overtures, Lt. Gen. Hal Moore once said that in battle you are not fighting for your country, Mom, or apple pie, you are fighting for the man who fights alongside you. This movie along with Blackhawk Down, and Saving Private Ryan are the best movies made about war in my opinion.

We few, we happy few, We band of brothers. For he that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

To 32Ford, All my respect and gratitude

reply

[–] Lupin-III 15 years ago

I enjoy Platoon, it's a good movie for what it is. However, I feel that it has way too much over-the-top action to it, as well as a bit too much hollywood dramatization with the whole conflict between Berenger and Dafoe. I just don't find it to be all that realistic. The focus of this film is more about anti-war, the psychological aspects and lack of discipline in soldiers unwillingly involved for a long time in a war they wanted no part of.

We Were Soldiers, on the other hand, focuses on an actual battle early in America's involvement in the war. It accurately portrayed the new tactics of air cavalry in a battle where the American soldiers were well disciplined regulars. This was not about a time in the Vietnam war when public opinion was against our involvement there. This was a time in the war before the draft lottery, before the soldiers fighting it were (understandably) bitter and against being there, and before the large anti-war protests of the late 60's and early 70's.

We Were Soldiers and Platoon are very different movies, the only thing they really have in common is the setting.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nickm2 15 years ago

That being said, in defense of 'Platoon', many folks feel that, regardless of the 'politics', it captured the essence of the 'terrain' perfectly: The heat, humidity, insects, jungle plants & wait-a-minute vines--everything except the smell...

NM

reply

[–] drjukebox 15 years ago

That some people think that Platoon was realistic can only be attributed to Oliver Stone's being a powerful and persuasive director selling his fairy tales as the truth.

reply

[–] jeroen-85 15 years ago

@Thegilb, lol, Hollywood stuff? You even watched both movies? We Were Soldiers is Hollywood, all those effects, the overhyped action, the actors, it's so unreal. Platoon is 10 times more realistisch then We Were Soldiers, not only because it's based on the experiences of the director, and because Mel Gibson looks like Rambo or James Bond in this movie, and because it's all so predictable, but also because of the characters, about what they do, the battles they were in, the ambiance and more of that. Better watch the movies before you say stupid stuff dude. We Were Soldiers is a good movie, much action, good soundtrack and all, but Platoon is a masterpeace of realism, We Were Soldiers isn't, it's blowed up and changed by Hollywood.

Platoon, The Thing, Devil's Rejects...

reply

[–] woodbob090 15 years ago

What are you saying?! Yes, WWS used more effects...because it was made almost 20yrs after Platoon! Almost everything in WWS happened verbatim to the real events. WWS is ranked above Platoon in being realistic, hands down. I seriously think you mixed them up...Mel Gibson does not, in any way, look like "Ramob" or "James Bond" (not sure how those two correlate...but whatever). Maybe you, my dear friend, should get your facts straight before you make such horrendous allegations.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] redwingjs 15 years ago

The battle they showed in We Were Soldiers was a real battle. The events that happened in the film very closely mirror the actual evens that happened at Ia Drang. Everything from a platoon being cut off from the rest of the battalion to Moore's CP nearly being over run to the constant use of artillery fire and air strikes to keep the NVA at bay to the medical evac helicopter pilots refusing to fly in to a hot LZ. You are obviously ignorant to what happened at Ia Drang.

Platoon is a microcosm of the entire Vietnam war after the US public turned against it. Everything that was wrong and bad about Vietnam is shown to happen with in the confines of a single platoon: the two sergeants at each other's throats, the officer without the guts to stop the murder of civilians, the murder of civilians and the burning of villages, and on and on and on. While things like this occurred in Vietnam, that it all happened in a single 30 man platoon is absurd.

I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.
www.werepissedoff.net

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] richardoconnor-1 15 years ago

Platoon is not even the best movie about the Vietnam War. Full Metal Jacket was better and still doesn't make the top 5. We Were Soldiers is surprisingly good because it came out 15 years past the golden age of Vietnam War movies and still stands out as original, well told, and very well acted. What made Platoon such a good movie (and I applaud the producers for this) was the extraordinary cast of young unknown actors who went on to later success. Even the secondary actors have turned out to be first tier character actors.

reply

[–] TheAwesomeness89 12 years ago

Mate, Full Metal Jacket is a piece of crap compared to Platoon. Ah well, I guess there's no accounting for taste...

reply

[–] Chiscokid88-1 15 years ago

I like both films, but if I had to choose which one is a better movie then I would say Platoon. Of course My favorite Vietnam War movie has to be Apocalypse Now.

reply

[–] Jakealope 13 years ago

It had better mass battle scenes. But Platoon was way more intense and had really interesting characters on both sides, stoners and redneck and blacks. WWS was all macho clean cut all American stereotypes.

reply

[–] bomarl1969 13 years ago

Platoon was $h!t, absolute annoying $h!t and Oliver Stone is the biggest POS in Hollywood besides Micheal Moore. I'm not defening the U.S. Government with this post either, I think America had biggest group of morons in Washington D.C. during the Vietnam Era.

WE WEre Soldiers is an accurate portrayal of soldiers under fire and fighting for their own lives and more importantly each other, not a flag, or a country, or freedom, but so they will survive the battle and return home to their loved ones...and unfornately only to shunned by the pr!ck draft dodger in America that spit on them.

I have more respect for a Vietnam Vet than I do anyone, I tear up just looking at the Vietnam memorial. If I were an adult during that era I would have proudly served and told the hippies and draft dodgers to kiss my @$$.

But back to the original point, Stone is nothing more than a movie troll trying to cause trouble. Platoon should never even be mentioned in the best Vietnam flicks of all time, that honor goes to WWS, Hamburger Hill, and First Blood (this movie was a serious drama about the effects of PTSD and the way Nam vets were treated at home before Rambo became a comic book hero).

Live for nothing, or die for something, your call.

reply

[–] Jakealope 13 years ago

Rambo, right that was so realistic. Vietnam vet goes all commandoe, what a stereotype.

reply

[–] movie_fan59 13 years ago

"Rambo, right that was so realistic. Vietnam vet goes all commandoe (sic), what a stereotype."

The prior poster was referring to "First Blood", not the political statement sequel "Rambo, First Blood Part II" that followed.

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-12-11/news/mn-177_1_family-dispute

The link above is to an article in the L.A. Times from 1991 about a Vietnam Vet murdering 4 people and forcing the 3,300 residents of the town to shut themselves in their home, closing all businesses and forcing 200 officers to conduct a house to house search. Sound familiar?

reply

[–] Jakealope 13 years ago

Of course, some vets flipped out or dropped out, but most didn't.
WWS was more of a docudrama. It was a good war action movie with some sappy Mel Gibson family man (which he never had or was in real life) ideal of home life spliced it. It was certainly better than some John Wayne macho gung ho crap like the Green Beret. Platoon was fiction but it was very realistic and really gave one the feeling he was in the jungle and/or in a firefight that is still remarkable for today. Plus it had a great ensemble cast of really interesting characters that weren't the stock cardboard ones they had in WWS.

Berenger's Barnes was one of the most interesting war movie characters of all time, you could hate him but couldn't help understanding and respecting him too. He wasn't some cliche. Then toss in Bunny, Junior, O'Neill for comic relief and the blacks. Great cast.

What are they doing? Why do they come here?
Some kind of instinct, memory, what they used to do.

reply

[–] movie_fan59 13 years ago

"...some sappy Mel Gibson family man (which he never had or was in real life) ideal of home life spliced it."

Are you saying that they should have ignored the family life completely and just made a war movie? Was there something wrong with including the impact of the training and the battle on the families?

Or is it just that Gibson shouldn't be playing a family man because you don't see him as one in real life? He was married for 19 years to the same woman, had 7 children with her and while he may not have been a completely faithful husband, how he handled his family life shouldn't have anything to do with the roles he plays on the big screen. His drunken rantings and activities do negatively impact his ability to get work and rightly so.

There's nothing wrong with preferring Platoon over We Were Soldiers. But I don't.

reply

[–] Jakealope 13 years ago

The family scenes just seemed hokey and idealized, like "Leave it to Beaver" to me. And Mel does tend to go for those scenarios. The battle side was much better. People weren't going to the theaters to see homelife on a military base.

reply

[–] CaliCurmudgeon 13 years ago

Colonel Moore, Gibson's character, did indeed have a large family, regardless of how messed up the real life Mel Gibson has become.

reply

[–] eamonn7 12 years ago

32Ford says What you are missing is that "We Were Soldiers....." isn't only about war and combat. It is about people and lives. On this level Platoon can't begin to touch it. Best damn movie about life in the US Army infantry I have ever seen.

Firstly no disrespect but your telling me we did not see that in Platoon ? granted we might not have seen kids running around or the dreaded taxis pulling up of the wife taking it upon herself to deliver the news no wife would want to hear, but come on as how can you as you say as a Vet that it does not begin to touch it.

Your not gonna say what we saw people like Barnes, Junior, Elias, Bunny etc go through was fiction, that war changes the mind set of young men who think normal and upon seen the horror they would have changes them like we saw here in different ways.

The only issue I have with WWS is the casting was horrible as Stowe over acted and was annoying as was Chris Klein, Keri Russell and a few others, I thought Mel did ok, but the standout imho was Barry Pepper and Sam Elliott.

reply

[–] dosedhost 12 years ago

An old thread but I just recently saw We Were Soldiers. 2 very different films re the timelines & depiction of Vietnam, however the biggest difference imo is that Platoon was an excellent movie, this was pretty terrible! I agree a lot with the original post, WWS actually ripped off Platoon quite a bit (amongst other Vietnam movies of that era) & it seemed like a mishmash of cliches to me. The director's insistence on making Gibson's character hero-like throughout was cringeworthy.
5/10

"Sister, when I've raised hell you'll know it"

reply

[–] Homer900 11 years ago

doesedhost, We Were Soldiers and Young, co-written by Hal Moore and Joe Galloway was the basis for this movie. It is an accurate depiction of part of the book, leaving out a second battle that occurred when a new battalion moved into the area that seriously hurt that battalion. The movie tried to depict, fairly accurately, the NVA side of the battle as well as how the Army was unprepared for the inevitable death notifications. This research too is included in the book.

Platoon was made by Stone, himself a VN vet. The battles depicted were fictional but were based on his own and others experiences there. Charlie Sheen's character was Stone's semi-autobiographical self. If watched together, watch WWS first then Platoon. To me, they represent that war in a microcosm. WWS was the first major engagement between the US and NVA. Platoon was the war a few years later when things at home and there were going badly. Both have their strengths and weaknesses and both depict a war that even 38 years after it finally ended people have a hard time understanding exactly what happened there.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]