I was wondering if someone can tell me whether the 2nd disc of Gettysburg soundtrack is worth buying? Do you know if it contains the music that is played when we see the scout surveying the lands in the introductin sequence? I know that one wasn't on the first soundtrack.

Offensive was a word often used.

--Goofball

The Reviews have been overwhelming positive with vets from the battle gave given it their thumbs up. When I saw the film, I only saw the American flag once...and that was at the end of the film. As far as propaganda, no way.

The "film review" over at AICN was a piece of **** , I'm sorry. The guy takes his own political agenda and talks about the US killing civilians in Afghanistan rather than focusing on the film. Besides, he's already taking some major heat in the talkbacks over there.

Today Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and New York Times as well as Washington (not sure which paper) have given it their thumbs up.

The line "Tell My Wife I Love Her" may be corny, but check out the history of this line by reading this post: http://www.weweresoldiersfilm.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1150

Okay, did I say I loved the movie? :0P Don't flame me!!!

P.S> If you're thinking this is another Pearel Harbor, think again.

"Addressing his men in an airplane hangar as they begin their advanced training, Moore declaims, "We are the new cavalry, and this is our horse!" - and at that exact instant a helicopter thunders by outside the hangar, unseen and unheard until Moore gave it its cue. Later, while he's reading a bedtime story to his five-year-old daughter, she interrupts him to ask, "Daddy, what's a war? Is somebody going to try to take your life?" Maybe I've just seen too many war movies; maybe it's made me too cynical. But if you can sit through moments like that without rolling your eyes to the ceiling, you're a lot stronger than I am."

A bit of digression:

I actually enjoyed Pearl Harbor. I actually enjoyed the love triangle PREMISE (NOT execution). I know I will get scoffed at for writing this, but I sincerely believe the movie should have been AT LEAST 4 hours long. Of course, it was Zimmer/Jablonsky/Badelt and the rest of the MV team that really saved the movie.

Now back to "We Were Soliders":

quote:

---

Originally posted by BMUSTANG:
I wouldn't say I hated him and wished he would leave.

---

Personally, I think this movie looks more trite than anything else. Though I didn't fight in Vietnam and don't have any direct connection to it, it still strikes a nerve in a lot of people (including me). The previews and TV spots make this movie look like more of a hoaky action-movie, BEHIND THE LINES with an R rating and phony moral agenda popcorn flick than anything of real value. Then again, that's me passing judgement on a movie well before it's release. I guess only time will tell.

I just read a great review of this new piece of crap, starring Mel Gibson, which should never be done and, more important, should be bashed to oblivion by everybody with a working brain...

quote:

---

"Hey Harry, I'm steadicam, and I'm a political science and film theory double major here in UB. I was able to go and see the new Randall Wallace movie "We Were Soldiers" and I thought I should report, as all other reports seemed to come from these ultra-patriotic military people. I should warn you ahead that my language might not get pretty. My hands are shaking as I'm writing this, rarely, if ever has a movie insulted and enraged me so much. Not even Pearl Harbor, for forgetting Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or any movie that Britney Spears or Mariah Carey was in. Hell, I wouldn't be so enraged if it was decided that Episode 2 would be acted out completely by N'Sync, and that their music would be replacing John Williams'. I am shouting. I am cursing. I smoked two unfiltered Camel's and I haven't even felt them on my tongue. This is a horrible, horrible movie, lacking any sign of intelligence or humanity. It is the ultimate pro-war movie, and it is sadly perfect in its timing.

Let me start off by saying that this movie begins with the "This is a true story" words. In basic sense, these words are the greatest lie that can be told, and I am against any movie that actually does grace such letters. A movie, with its reenactment, acting, production, camera everywhere, and furthermore, poetic license, can never, ever be a true story. It is a lie to manipulate us in feeling more towards the characters and story. So we can tell the next day to our friends "Dude, you won't believe the **** that happened in 'Nam." So we can change and destroy history.

After those letters we hear the voice of Barry Pepper, whom we 2/3's in the movie meet to discover he is a reporter who saw all the events. One thing to everybody- doesn't it feel surreal to see some actors always in war movies? This guy was in "Saving Private Ryan", remember in how many recent war movies we saw, say, Tom Sizemore. Anyway, the voiceover informs us that he doesn't know where the conflict of Vietnam began, and we see some French troopers. The voiceover cuts away, and we hear their leader mutter the words "****ing country"- just then a bullet enters his neck. The Vietcong enter, and brutally kill and murder the French - we see French soldiers scream and we see how they look at the "evil" Vietcong, unmercifully kill a soldier who looks into their eyes and sadly mutters "no"…this scene is a basic summary of what the movie is. Evil, brutal, barbaric Vietcong, poor French/American soldiers, how they suffered, etc. It seems by watching the movie that the Vietcong didn't suffer at all, or that everything the American's did is justifiable.

People who now will say that I am too political, then here is my response - war is one of those things where there is politics heavily involved in. Obviously, in the midst of battle there are no real politics - but portraying this is another matter. Everyway the camera moves, the actors talk, etc. is political. And if the director denies this, that there are no politics in the movie, than he lacks the intelligence to direct a war movie. Especially in a time like we are in right now, such movies are really important, and impossible to dismiss by saying "Don't look at its politics."

Anyway back to the movie. We meet Mel Gibson, respectful Christian, seven kids. He's a Harvard graduate in International Politics and a Korea veteran. We see what a beautiful life he has, and what a great guy he is. WE see the surroundings the place where the families of soldiers live. We meet Chris Klein, infamous from "Rollerball" (which is a good movie next to this) and we see what a great guy he is, what a beautiful family he has. There is a scene which so lacks in intelligence and script writing ability that it is stunning- all the wives of the soldiers wives meet. One of them complains that the local laundry says "Only Whites" and that she also wants to wash her color clothes there. Somebody explains that this sign actually means no black people. Then one of the wives, the only black one, makes the melodramatic speech, complete with slow camera-close up and melodramatic music, that she knows what her husband is doing will in the end be worth it. All the other white wives applaud her when she finishes with a one-liner. It is interesting to note how politically correct everybody is. I guess in real life, people were like this- but wait, then how come signs like that were actually posted?

There are no bad Americans in this movie. It's crazy what the fear of being sued does to movies. Everybody knows that there were at least some racist people in the Army- there are still sayings about it. This movie is the denial version.

Anyway, let's move on. Chris Klein gets a kid. He becomes Mel's favorite soldier. We meet Greg Kinnear who is a pilot, but there is not much of him in the movie. Nixon announces that these guys have to go to Vietnam. For some odd reason, all the wives are always together when receiving important news. There is an insane scene where Mel looks at a picture of Indians killing American soldiers brutally, and looking at shots of the massacre the Cong did on the French. Great, now Wallace is denying the Indian genocide and justifying all the killings the Americans did as a side-note. Later Mel makes a dramatic speech to his soldiers that all of them there are equal, that there will be no racism between them. The soldiers are painted with such political correctness and perfection in character that you wonder whether that speech was necessary at all.

They go to 'Nam. Lots of blood, lots of evil Vietcong surprising and killing young baby faced Americans. While all the American deaths are capitalized on with bloody slow motion shots, rarely do we see such close-ups for the Vietcong. And when we do, there are so many sparks invading the scene that you would think it's the 4th of July, stand up celebrate. We get the classic "Tell my wife I loved her" and the "Well, I'm glad I died for my country" last liners. Chris Klein becomes a friend with the only black soldier- he dies melodramatically when trying to save him. Many more Americans die in the same slowmotion shots. We see scenes of the Cong high command, living in dark caves, surrounded by evil red communist flags making decisions, while we hear a tribal and primitive percussion music score in the background, a contrast to the romantic and symphonic music that we hear with the Americans.

For a second there is hope that this movie will not be as racist as it seems. We see shots of a Cong who thinks of his girlfriend. Yet we lose all sympathy with him when he tries to kill good old Mel by charging at him with a knife attached to his rifle. Beyond that all the scenes of the Cong, and them trying to be politically correct seem fake and artificial. Wallace doesn't have the guts to embrace his ultra-fascist ideals.

There are scenes when we meet the reporter and he lets go of his cameras to take a gun in his hand and fight, and there is a just funny sequence when he picks up his camera again to document what is happening around him.

That's basically what the movie is. It ends by showing how the public ignored the poor veterans when they returned home, and by giving the names of the platoon we saw in action. I must quickly give credit to Pepper, Gibson (eventhough I despise them both) and Kinnear- they try their best to make the horrible screenplay look a bit good. There are a few shots that look nice- drops of water on grass and some evening shots (that remind you more of Star Wars gunfights more than anything else.)

Beyond that, this movie is a travesty. It copies off so many war movies its crazy- the napalm bombings of "Platoon", the documentary style of "Saving Private Ryan", the looking at animals from "The Thin Red Line", the surreal reds of "Apocalypse Now".

This is cinema at its worst folks. It is a banal movie that it just wrong. It is uses gore and blood to trick us, not as a tool of realism, but of melodrama. It is manipulatively racist. It justifies everything America did in Vietnam and acts as if they were the hero's there. We all know what the truth is about Vietnam. This is not it. I have sympathy for the veterans- they were stupid enough to believe the propaganda of the nation that they were about to lose all their values by a small defenseless country. This movie believes all the propaganda that was told to the soldiers then and tries to make us believe it.

My greatest problem was something else though- in a moment when everything seems lost for Gibson and co., Kinnear saves them- and the audience behind me applauded. I was pretty much ready to see a bad movie, so I had my bullet-proof vest on. But that hit me right from behind my head. In that moment I realized, that despite all its crude banality and obvious fakeness, the patriotic feelings of the people got triggered. Everything that happened to this country was suddenly exposed. I understood that in such a time, such films can explore our emotional state, and completely rethink certain things, certain facts. We all knew that Vietnam was the craziest thing America ever got involved in. In that moment, everybody just forgot. The only thing this movie was missing is a "Be All You Can Be" sign.

That is why this movie is evil. It really is. Nobody can ever justify Vietnam, just as nobody will be able to justify the over 6,000 CIVILIAN deaths in Afghanistan today. We forget history. If you people want to see a movie about violence see "Taxi Driver". If you guys want to see Vietnam see "Platoon" and furthermore, "Born on the Fourth of July" directed by a real 'Nam volunteer veteran. If you want to see war see "Apocalypse Now", "Full Metal Jacket" or "The Thin Red Line". Please do not see this movie. And if you do, think of what I'm saying. Process it through your brain, don't just let it go from one ear to another. I await your reactions RIGHT HERE."

---

I will say only this--judging a book by its cover or a film from its preview or premise is shortsighted. You and I have chatted about the roots of your anti-American agenda when it comes to politics and the military, and I cannot say that I wholly disagree with you. But to get so worked up over a film--that will have little to no effect on the country or the world in the grand scheme of things. It is just a movie. If you don't like the subject material--don't go see it. But don't use a couple hours of fluff to fly the anti-American political rancor flag.

I for one will see the movie and remember that I am eating popcorn and watching celluloid. If I want truth and accuracy about Vietnam then I will read a book. Sure its say "based on a true story"--but when was the last time anyone saw a movie that lived up to that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
It is just a movie. If you don't like the subject material--don't go see it. But don't use a couple hours of fluff to fly the anti-American political rancor flag.

---

Funny. Everytime someone doesn't agree with USA imperialist agenda (a true and well known fact which some movies just reinforce and help to spread), he is called "anti-american" - something that is nonsense from the begining, since I am an "american" too (remember America is a continent)...

So, following this kind of thinking, when I say I love a movie like... L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, does it mean I am "pro-america"?

Besides, movies are not JUST movies. They reflect in large scale the society which make them and, yes, can help to disseminate political, religious and social dogmas. And everybody who is in the business know this, otherwise they would never invest so much money making movies and the midia circus around it would neve be so calculated big and overwhelming.

And if MOVIES WERE JUST MOVIES, Washington would never call Hollywood executives in order to help them to reinforce USA "patriotic spirit" or whatever they call their brain-washing process now...

So, Movies AREN'T just movies. Saying this is denying the obvious.

How many people do you know that had their lifes changed BECAUSE of a movie - for better or for worst? I know a lot, including myself, so...

But we can never forget what movies REALLY mean to our society or for most of the people which live on it and still can't raise their heads above the mainstream thinking - and when I say this I am not implying only unitedstadians! Here in Brasil people are even worst... they don't have what to eat, but still dream of buying an Audi or a Nike tennis.

In Journalism class, we are taught that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist, and in this case, the critic, is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a FAIR and comprehensive account of events and issues. This is what makes EBERT so great today. Conscientious critics from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a critic's credibility, and in this case, of AICN. Harry loves movies for what they are--moving pictures, and that's why he's the only critic on that site that I respect.

But, that's just me.

Here's a list of the positive reviews that are out. I forgot to mention that I coulnd't find any negative reviews....maybe because there aren't any I'm telling you, the film IS THAT GOOD. The trailer doesn't do it justice.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/living/0227benning.html The Atlanta Journal, "The Best Vietnam Movie Ever Made"

http://www.weweresoldiersfilm.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1665 West Point, "A Most Awesome Experience"

http://www.nydailynews.com/2002-02-17/New_York_Now/Movies/a-141554.asp New York Daily, "New film salutes those who fought"

http://www.vfw.org/magazine/feb02/14.htm Veterans of Foreign Wars Magazine, "Hollywood Gets it Right"

http://www.fyicalgary.com/cgi-bin/niveau2.cgi?s=films&p=53626.html&a=1 Calgary Sun Times, "An Amazing Film"

http://www.weweresoldiersfilm.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1797 Variety, "Incredible"

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hollywoodreporter/reviews/article_displa y.jsp?vnu_content_id=1352538 The Hollywood Reporter, "Wallace Achieves"

http://www.weweresoldiersfilm.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1826 Hollywood Reviews, "Flick has Bravery and Heart"

link Internet Reviews, " *** 1/2 stars!"

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/archive/weweresoldiers.html Slant Magazine, "Soldiers is Genuine"

[/url]http://www.nuvo.net[/url] NewsWeekly, "'We Were Soldiers' displays an evenhandedness unlike anything I've ever
seen in a war movie"

http://www.dailypress.com/news/yahoo/dp-34300sy0feb25.story Daily Press, "Incredible. The only thing missing is the smell"

Other positive reviews (just dont' have the time to find 'em) "Washington Post", "Houston Chronicle"

Oh, don't get me started on what the Vets thought. Many didn't leave the theater until 30mins after.

By the way, all of those reviews are good examples of honesty and integrity.

"The Best Vietnam Movie Ever Made"...
Yeah, sure. What's the worst then???

(I always thought, Andre, that one of the worst Viet Nam movies ever made was Green Berets, even if it was scored by Rozsa.)

By the way, does somebody know about a release date for the score soundtrack? I heard it's supposed to be released, but haven't found any date yet.

Regards,

GrizzlyMV

Of those I've seen, it'd have to be Born on the Fourth of July.

If we really want to get started about stupidity, let's start talkin' Oliver Stone. July is an incoherent mess, making no political sense whatsoever.

Fact of the matter is that Hollywood films are often biased and bigoted...but almost always to the left, not the right.

Think about the "propoganda" issues in relation to newspapers.

Mention the Washington Times to a liberal and he'll start laughing. Ask him why he's laughing, he'll say it's because the Times is an unreliable, biased paper. Ask him where he heard that, and he'll hesitate and then say, "Well...the NY Times or Washington Post."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bulldog:
Fact of the matter is that Hollywood films are often biased and bigoted...but almost always to the left, not the right.

---

Hahahahahaha... welcome to wonderland, Alice!!

Or maybe "Hollywood's left" is located right in the midle of their "right"...

Gee, this is funny coming from a guy who vehemently defends someone like George Lucas, accusing his critics of being jealous because he makes so much more money than they do. But alas, this is the voice of anti-american ignorant hypocrites.

Plain and simple. These are the facts. The "horrible" American presence is what has saved this planet from being overrun by tyrannical hatred. And right now it is "in" to be patriotic about this country, so suck it up. It is the separation from this patriotism which allowed the infliction of the bruise this country suffered on Sept. 11th.

While I feel he movie WE WERE SOLDIERS doesn't deserve the utmost praise based on its mediocrity, I think it accomplishes what it sets out to do.(By the way this opinion comes from an inforemed individual because I actually saw the movie.) And it does shows the other perspective with symapathy towards our Vietnamese enemies much in the same way THIN RED LINE did.

As far as lack of patriotism for this America, I resubmit a factual testimony from our Northern "American" counterparts:

Thank you Canada!!

TRIBUTE TO AMERICA

The following, from a Canadian newspaper, is worth sharing.

Its subject is "America: The Good Neighbor"

Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a
remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a
Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his
trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:

"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the
most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the
earth. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were
lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in
billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these
countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to
the United States.

When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans
who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the
streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that
hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were
flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.

The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into
discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing
about the decadent, warmongering Americans.

I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the
erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any
other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet,
the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them?
Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes?

Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on
the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You
talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about
American technocracy, and you find men on the moon-not once, but several
times-and safely home again. You talk about scandals, and the Americans put
theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their
draft-dodgers
are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of
them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars
from ma and pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down
through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the
Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody
loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of
other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone
else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside
help
even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned
tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing
with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their
nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope
Canada
is not one of those."

Stand proud, America!

This is one of the best editorials that I have ever read or heard
regarding the United States. It is nice that one man realizes it. I
only wish that the rest of the world would realize it. We are always
blamed for everything, and never even get a thank you for the things
we do.

If you go to www.amazon.com and do a search for "gettysburg deluxe" under "popular music," you'll get a listing for the 2-CD set; unfortunately, they only give a track listing for the first disc, but if you scroll down to the customer reviews, you'll get some opinions (and some mention of the tracks) for the second disc (you'll want to click on "see all customer reviews").

I don't own this soundtrack, so I can't give you an opinion myself.

Probably the worst war film I've ever seen.

Manipulative, forced, and most importantly OBVIOUS, this film offended me in more ways than one. In fact, the best thing I can say about the film is that it reminded me of the great war films it so often tried to immitate only in failing to do so properly (a few of those films... The Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan, Apocolypse Now, Platoon, and even the recent Black Hawk Down).

I could really go on for hours on why this film is poor, but I don't want to bore you all. Let me try and summarize.

First off, what I liked...

I thought the portrayal of the vietnamese was solid, and appropriate. They were made out to be humans, and that was put across nicely... Second, the whole "wives" issue. I thought that the hardships the wives went though (as minimal as they were shown on screen) was effective, and I enjoyed these scenes FAR more than the rest of the film... Lastly was Pepper's bit as the photographer, of which I enjoyed as well despite its cheesiness...

And you know why I enjoyed these bits? Because they were elements that, at least from the war films I've seen, haven't been shown OVER AND OVER AND OVER...

Now to the rest of the film. The battle; 90 minutes of unrelentless, gory, harsh war... Problem is, it isn't pretty. I didn't catch who the cinematographer was, but let me just say he should be put out of a job; the shots were bland, generic, dull, etc... They were lifeless, almost "made for TV" quality, and made me yearn for the glorious photography in The Thin Red Line or the in your face but hugely effective camera work in Saving Private Ryan. There just wasn't a consistent visual style to this film, and it looked more amateur than anything. Furthermore, it didn't help one bit that as derrivitive and messy the action scenes were in the first place, they had to drag on and on for over an hour. NOTHING in all the of this showed any sign of uniqueness, innovation; I'd read Wallace had a few tricks of his own up his sleeve, but I sure as hell didn't see 'em. The blood n' guts was in abundance but somewhat phony looking, and it was almost as if they were simply trying to throw as much violence in as possible to shock the viewer (which, really, nobody was... C'mon, this is like the 7th war film in the past year, what'd they expect?)

Then, of course, there was the totally obviousness of the whole thing, both on and off the battlefield. I consider myself an inteligent moviegoer, and I consider We Were Soldiers a film made for the average movie goer. How many times do I have to watch one soldier get hit, only to see another soldier go help him out, only to see THAT soldier get killed in slow motion? Once, ok... Twice, more than enough... I swear though, I saw more than ten instances of that here, including the fate of one of the main characters (who I won't give out the name). I don't like to be pounded over the head in such a way, and like I said, I found it offensive.

For the record, my favorite war film is The Thin Red Line. That film, more than anything, felt real. I felt like I was watching real soldiers, dealing with real problems, horrified and confused at what was happening to them... I got a backstory, with a strong narrative, to many of the characters, but even those without such, I felt the fear because of their performances and the dialogue they were given.

I got no sense of fear here; I just watched thousands of extras get ketchup on them and shoot blanks. The character development was non-existant... We see men with their families, and really that's about the extent of that. If phony scenes where a little girl says "are they going to try and take your life daddy?" can tug at your heart, I ain't gonna get in your way, but they sure as hell didn't move me.

I don't know, I just didn't see any reason why this film was to be made. Sure, it was a bad conflict, but did it really need to be put to screen? There wasn't anything special or unique about the conflict, and the result is a mediocre, average war film that takes too much from others and forms no personality of its own... That, plus the fact that Wallace is a rather poor director and takes advantage of his viewers way too often make this a film that I simply cannot recommend.

Hot damn this was a long post, and probably more than likely messy (I know I left some things that would take pages to rant about)...

Like I said, though...

Manipulative, forced, and obvious, but above all that, technically poor as well.

I'm hoping the answer will not be no.

Jz