hicsum John Riley did indeed lead Irish deserters for Mexico in the war. The Irish were ill-used by Nativist officers who didn't like 'croppies.' Protestant America was feeling threatened by the huge influx of Catholic Irish flooding into the US from famine-struck Ireland. Few troops have been given more reason to desert. However, the movie tells it all wrong. Riley wasn't a sergeant and didn't plan to return after getting his men to safety. He was a private who swam the Rio Grande a month before the war was declared. He responded to 'desertion leaflets' that the Mexicans had sneaked into American Camps. No US army ever had higher desertion rates.The treatment of Winfield Scott is rather harsh. Riley was actually sentenced to hang with virtually all of his men but it was Scott who commuted his sentence (the still harsh 50 lashes and branding), along with that of more than a score of his men. This infuriated Scott's Nativist officers.Riley remained in the Mexican Army after the war for a year or so and almost certainly returned to Ireland thereafter. Also, he was a young fellow, about thirty, which made it hard to accept Tom in the role. Another thing that was irritating is that there is a list of the men who served under Riley and it is amazing that the screenwriter decided to create fictional replacements instead. Why? Also, one must not forget that most Irish, despite poor treatment by prejudiced officers, did not desert. Who was more heroic, those who deserted or those who didn't?All in all, a disappointment. However, it is one of the very few films that deals with the Mexican American War, and for that I commend it.

Catherine This was a very emotional movie, which could not have been pulled off without the excellent acting by the main three characters, especially Tom Berenger. ALL history should be taught, and as Lynn said, let us make our personal judgements. It was a sad time that gave me more understanding not only to our own military, but to the frustrated Irishmen of the times. Thank you everyone, for making this wonderful vision for us all.

alhaqq It is a movie...so I expect there to be embellishments--in plot, especially, amongst other things. The acting? Well, I am not a movie critic...it was passable, not great, not horrible--most of the acting did seem flat and non-dimentional, however, you are getting just a glimpse of a few (a very few) of the major characters. What I do like overall, is, the fact that someone attempted to make a movie about this era of American History, especially, due to its pivotal role that the Mexican-American War would play in the years following the conclusion.On the historical facts of the movie, well, it has errors: for example, the Americans seem to "out-number" the Mexican forces--and as we all know the average ratio was between 3:2 and 3:1, in favor of the Mexican Army, in all the battles--which could have made the movie more spectacular--for the "bad" Americans--if they can be called that--something that was latent but not overt. As others have pointed out, it also does have a "Mexican" bias, but this is due to the arrangement of the plot of the movie...concerning the San Patricios Companies of Foreigners. I personally thought the biases of the "named" characters (at least the Americans) were "historically" correct--despite any gaffes in acting. Zachary Taylor (James Gammon) had his "damn the consequences" attitude, and Winfield Scott (Patrick Bergen) was also "true" to the history. The "Anti-Catholic" (not just Anti-Irish) sentiment as portrayed by the junior officers and non-comms in front of the Colonel of the 5th US Infantry Regiment, is also in line with the time. It is a shame that they could not work in more of the major characters (and a few of the Civil War Generals--in their baptism of fire). We see Scott, Taylor and Harney; It would have been nice to see others like Santa Anna, David Twiggs, William Worth, etc. as well as maybe Jackson as an Artillery Lieutenant moving his guns forward at Churubusco to take on the San Patrico batteries or Grant moving his men of the 4th Infantry forward, or even Lee reconoitering a position. However nice this may have been, it was extraneous to telling the movie-maker's story, and it was not to be.Not every movie can be a "Gettysburg" calibre movie...but considering the "attention span" of my fellow countrymen (most would not endure a 4 hour movie--let alone the subject matter), this movie trys to be entertaining, as well as, historically "honest". I say, "bravo".

yojimbo999 OMH is a poorly made film. The acting is mediocre, even from the normally good Berenger, and what passes for "action" is, well, not very passable. The war scenes are badly done and looks fake as well as cheap in production values.The story is interesting. Irish deserters join the Mexicans in the Mexican American war. of course, you'll have to be completely biased toward one side in order to LOVE or HATE this movie. I, on the other hand, would rather take the film at its own merits, and, well, it isn't very good.On an aside, isn't it wonderful how evil all the American characters are? The Mexicans look like saints! LOL. What a laugh. Of course, I am a student of history, and I know that the burgeoning Americans were WAY OUTNUMBERED by the Mexicans, who had a stable and massive army as opposed to the ragged and sometimes undisciplined American army. And YET the Americans still won! So what exactly is the "truth" being told here?All in all, a mediocre film. Not all that great as a war movie, and sometimes too cheesy and obvious as a drama. I do wish they'd treat everyone as people, not just cut-out stereotypes. Unfortunately, in order to make our deserters and traitors the "good guys" the filmmakers went out of their way to paint every single American soldier as less than human. Too bad, because this is a very interesting piece of history. Unfortunately it looks like a bad High School production, and that's insulting High School productions everywhere.