fastball1740
I was expecting a lot more of this film than what I actually got. The acting was just awful from everyone and the story was far from impressive. It took a lot of something I don't to even follow what was going because it was so jumpy. An example of the acting is when Paxton's character, Vann, is upset the South Vietnamese colonel for so he throws some of the sand from the "sand map". It was impossible to get any idea of what he was feeling and his actions were robotic. To make things worse, I have no idea how I'm supposed to feel about Vann. He's obviously presented as the protagonist but as soon as he gets to Vietnam he starts an affair with an Vietnamese English teacher. The only thing the movie had going for it was that it wasn't particularly boring. I give it 4 stars out of 10.
CitizenCaine
A tour of duty film in Vietnam featuring a morally ambiguous soldier, who echos the moral ambiguity of the decision makers of the war itself. Bill Paxton is John Paul Vann, a U.S. military adviser, who is manipulated out of his commission, only to beg to come back to the war in any capacity that they'll have him in. Once back, his military strategy changes from looking at the big picture to fighting and winning at every turn possible. Supposedly he turned strongly anti-war, but we don't really see that in this movie. The movie, produced by HBO, does a good job of following one man's odyssey, but even the catalyst for the change seems ambiguous. Does he change because of the rotten politics surrounding the war? Or does he return because of being personally compelled to be involved in battle in whatever capacity? Rarely does a Vietnam film give such an honest depiction of the local people that are most affected by the war games that politicians play. It's hard to sympathize with Paxton because of his moral shortcomings and bizarre decision to return to Vietnam after being decommissioned. The film seems to paint him as a hero, but it's hard to see it as portrayed. I imagine that some liberty was taken with the facts for dramatic purposes. The acting is OK, but no one really stands out, including Paxton. The best scenes show the dead and dying villagers that Paxton helped earlier. Oddly enough, the film is surprisingly emotionally distant, considering the subject matter. Overall, an entertaining film concerning one's destiny in life, how we are hemmed in by hierarchies in daily life, how we are affected by those experiences, and the role they play in other decisions we make. **1/2 of 4 stars.
camel-9
The Vietnam experience seen through the eyes of an officer average american with family back home and the good intentions, often rebuffed, that are frustatingly hard to put in place. After "Good Morning Vietnam", which was a non-combat movie about Americans in Vietnam, this one comes close in describing what Americans felt in the war. This movie, however, is still a combat war movie, but sprinkled with family and personal issues, presented straight forward and down to earth. Produced by HBO, it is surprisingly a good production, with good acting.
MarioB
This TV movie is simply awful! There's no imagination, no innovation, the cast is bad (while Paxton tries hard to behonest), the story is weak and there's an army of clichés: Viet girls are easy to seduce, everybody's crying when the radio tells that JFK was shot. There was Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter, or Platoon, to tell everybody how stupid this Viet-Nam war was. But in the 1990's, HBO produce this movies in a very conservative way, for very conservative people, tryin' hard to find a patriotic hero for this nonsense war. This movie is an insult for the young people who died at this war. The 1990's are a very very sad period...
AD
