Mel Gibson may not grace the silver screen as frequently as he used to, but his impact as a cinematic icon during the ’80s, ’90s, and 2000s is undeniable. Known primarily for his roles in franchises like Lethal Weapon and Mad Max, as well as his directing in the critically acclaimed film Braveheart (1995), Gibson has ventured into numerous genres across a nearly 50-year career. One of the notable genres he has engaged with is war films.
While Gibson’s filmography includes a limited number of war movies, his contributions are significant. He starred in The Patriot (2000), set during the American Revolutionary War, and directed Hacksaw Ridge (2016), which tells a poignant story from World War II. Additionally, his work in Braveheart indeed qualifies it within the war movie category. Furthermore, Gibson’s exploration of military history extends to the Vietnam War, exemplified through a film that, despite initial lukewarm reviews, is now gaining appreciation for its authenticity in portraying a pivotal battle.
We Were Soldiers: A Commendable Accuracy Assessment
Gibson’s Military Film: A Realistic Take on Combat Elements
Noted former Green Beret David Harris recently critiqued scenes from We Were Soldiers (2002), giving the film an impressive rating for its authenticity. Directed by Randall Wallace, this Vietnam War drama showcases the Battle of Ia Drang in 1965 where Gibson portrays Lt. Col. Hal Moore, as he leads his men in a strategy to seize a crucial position. Although the film received only a 63% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes, its historical significance in combat depiction is now being recognized.
In a recent analysis for Insider, Harris examined the film’s portrayal of a “Broken Arrow”scenario—situations where American forces are overwhelmed and urgently call for air support. He commended the film for capturing this essence accurately, including realistic explosion effects. Below is an excerpt from Harris’ expert review:
This scene portrays the Battle of Ia Drang during the Vietnam War, and the Americans were so overrun they had to call “broken arrow” for air support. When a soldier calls “broken arrow,” that basically means you’re being overrun, your position is compromised, and you need all the air support you can get.
Because they actually told the commander where to stack, how much he had, and what he had, those are real messages you would communicate. You wouldn’t want to send two planes flying at the same elevation, hence the need to stack them for safety. Depending on weapons systems, you might specify which to drop first. In dire situations, I may ask for “danger close,”meaning close to friendly forces. Usually, formal authorizations like the commander’s initials are required.
I rate this as about a nine [out of 10]. The explosions appeared realistic based on what I’ve observed in practical scenarios; this seems likely how things looked in reality.
Implications of We Were Soldiers’ Accuracy Assessment
Conflicting Views from Another Expert
Interestingly, a previous video analysis on We Were Soldiers featured military historian Bill Allison, who graded the film much lower. Contrary to Harris’s nine, Allison assigned it a score of five, citing significant historical inaccuracies, including the misrepresentation of tactical elements and conflating different military factions.
This divide indicates that We Were Soldiers presents a complex portrayal of historical events. While the film effectively captures certain combat sequences and explosion dynamics, it falters regarding accurate historical contexts. Despite an encouraging 84% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, the film’s financial performance was subdued, grossing $114 million against a $75 million budget. Therefore, despite its mixed reviews, Gibson’s film still holds considerable merit and influence more than two decades later.
Source: Insider
Leave a Reply