Résumés(1)

Le dimanche 14 novembre 1965 s'est livré la bataille la plus furieuse de l'histoire des Etats-Unis. 400 soldats américains se retrouvent encerclés dans la vallée de la mort par une armée de 2000 vietnamiens qui les attaquent sans cesse, nuit et jour, jusqu'à l'épuisement... Avec la certitude dans les deux camps que l'issue de ce premier affrontement dépendra la victoire finale ! (StudioCanal)

(plus)

Vidéo (1)

Bande-annonce

Critiques (8)

POMO 

Toutes les critiques de l’utilisateur·trice

français Une contribution très respectueuse au genre, handicapée uniquement par une forme visuelle bon marché et un pathétisme excessif (ralentis). Sinon, We Were Soldiers ne manque ni de rythme, ni de réalisme brutal, ni de base de réflexion dense, ni de personnage de leader fort sous les traits de Mel Gibson. Il est le meilleur dans tout le film. ()

novoten 

Toutes les critiques de l’utilisateur·trice

anglais As long as Wallace attacks in the mode of heroic soldiers who shoot, run, or die in slow motion, each shot or fall affects me so strongly that I began to search for a handkerchief surprisingly quickly. However, once the pleasant pathos starts to melt into words and endless diluted phrases about pride, wives, or dying for the homeland, the charm disappears. Then suddenly the sloppiness of the screenplay or occasional visual routine starts to surface. If it weren't for the fact that Hal is literally written for Mel Gibson, who can shoot to the absolute maximum in similar roles, the outcome would be one class lower. ()

Annonces

3DD!3 

Toutes les critiques de l’utilisateur·trice

anglais Le Massacre... deserved a better screenplay. But leaving out a couple of things would have been enough. The introductory elimination of the French unit is great. So are the excellent battle scenes in the second half, they give that proper touch of reality and the burned, half-dead soldiers will make you feel pretty bad. The disparity with the utterly pathetic lines about dying proudly for one’s country is irritating. Much better movies have been made about Vietnam. Fix bayonets! ()

Marigold 

Toutes les critiques de l’utilisateur·trice

anglais 50 years behind Stone and 100 behind Coppola. A propaganda film with a blue-eyed hero and nickel-and-dime moralizing. Some of the action sequences are nice, but they are far away from building on the gems from the 70's and 80's. Incorrigible cinematography, which, after magnificent filmmaking with the idea of turning to the subject of war again, turns to cheap poses and pathos (although undoubtedly well-meaning). ()

Lima 

Toutes les critiques de l’utilisateur·trice

anglais Randall wrote Braveheart for his buddy Mel, and his buddy Mel promised his buddy Randall he'd be in his movie, a film that pretends to be a profound and well-crafted work, but it is not. The problem is that Wallace is not a very skilled director, the locations that are supposed to simulate Vietnam are very unconvincing and some scenes (especially the one with the angry photographer) look so awkward that I was ashamed of him. A truly unexpectedly bad film. ()

Photos (91)