One of the most under-rated films of all time

Rating: 9/10 (18 December 2005)

I have always been mystified as to why this movie has not gotten greater recognition. Maybe because Penn's portrayal of Meserve seems like over-acting. Or maybe because Ericsson seems too clean. In any case, I did a research paper (for a film/literature class) on this movie a bunch of years ago.
For those of you wondering how close the film is to the original report in the October 1969 edition of the New Yorker: the answer is "pretty darn close." Even the names used in the film match the "fictional" names used in the magazine article. And, believe it or not, Ving Rhames' speil about his 'hospital experience' was actually reported in the article.
Without making this a "spoiler", the main differences are: 1) There was no one named "Brownie". But it is easy to figure out the dramatic reason he was included in the film. 2) There was no "Hatcher". Instead there was a second "Diaz"...apparently they were cousins. 3) Captain Hill was not quite the jerk he is made out to be in the film. He was reluctant to do anything substantial...but he did have an occasion to tear a strip off of the guys in the squad. 4)There was no railway scene and the dramatic act that is presented there actually happened one day later than the film would have you believe.
Anyway, I just think that this movie is perfect because it shows so well (at a micro-level) why Vietnam was a war that couldn't be won. You can't win a war (serve the political objective) when you don't have the support of the people. Watching this film, it is easy to be sympathetic (or at least understand) how each group felt...even Meserve. The underlying politics meant nothing to either side (the US soldiers or the South Vietnamese). The result was a total disregard from each side and for each side (and they were supposed to be on the same side). This movie shows that perfectly.