Typical Oliver Stone Bias

Rating: 3/10 (4 May 2007)

My thoughts on this film are very, very similar to those written by "Hill-1" except he was a little more tactful than I would be regarding Oliver Stone's famous Liberal bias. "Hill-1" also speaks from experience from being an infantry soldier Vietnam, and I cannot say that.
I like a good war movie but I was tired of Oliver Stone's left-wing propaganda films so I waited until the '90s before finally seeing this on VHS. He didn't disappoint me - it's biased and very profane, which is what I expected. It also had excellent acting by the two leads, played by Tom Beringer and William Dafoe and some stunning jungle photography. I didn't have to be in Vietnam to know the horrible conditions those poor guys fought under.
The action scenes were not credible in that, as Hill-1 points out, guys would have been killed doing the things they do here, such as some of Martin Sheen's actions. I rooted for the infantrymen, of course, but I didn't appreciate Stone's (and Hollywood's in general) typical stereotypes of showing a gung-ho solider as the bad guy and the more pacifist-type as the good guy. It'so so clichéd. I also think it was a horrible cheap shot, and a typical one of elitist Liberals, to portray almost all soldiers as the lowest class in American society. John Kerry did the same recently, calling the American soldiers in Iraq not the brightest people. This is normal name-calling by Liberals like Stone, and it ruins me enjoying any of his films.
You want an intense Viet Nam war movie without all the bias? Watch "We Were Solidiers."