"You have to think about one shot. One shot is what it's all about".

Rating: 9/10 (12 June 2011)

My first inclination upon considering this film is that's it's a cinematic masterpiece, confirmed by it's five Oscar wins and additional nominations in various categories. However even while watching, there are scenes and events that require a certain suspension of disbelief for the story to progress. Having never served in the military, I can only surmise about the possibility of three hometown friends going into the service together who wind up consistently running into each other over the course of a war thousands of miles from home. It begins with the helicopter drop a little over an hour into the story, when Nick (Christopher Walken) and Steven (John Savage) come upon Michael (Robert De Niro) as he's taking out a Vietcong terrorizing a South Vietnamese village. The same holds true for Michael discovering Nick in a Saigon gambling den where the fictional Russian roulette game takes place. These needle in a haystack coincidences bother me in a picture, even though they often seem necessary for a film to tell it's story.
It's interesting to read the reviews of others on this board weighing in on the first hour of the story. For some viewers, nothing of consequence happens at all that has any impact on the picture's conclusion. Actually, I find the setting and interactions of the principal players as important to establishing the feel of small town America of the late Sixties/early Seventies. Three young men from Clairton, Pennsylvania are about to enter the Army shortly following Steven's wedding day. The men are accorded an understated place of honor at the reception hall where their poster size pictures are prominently displayed. The circle of friends around the principals routinely ponder whether they'll make it back and in what condition. These discussions of patriotism and loyalty exemplify what three decades later a presidential candidate would describe as 'bitter clingers to their guns and religion'.
The 'one shot' theme is given prominence during the deer hunt after the wedding, as Michael reinforces for Nick his conviction that a man must prove himself with discipline and finality. That theme is reinforced in the Russian roulette scenarios and most critically, when Michael's frustration leads him to put a gun to Stan's (John Cazale) head in the latter part of the picture. What if, just what if there was a bullet in the chamber when Michael pulled the trigger. The idea that every bullet fired has consequences in setting off a new chain of events is a powerful concept, and reaches it's utter finality when Michael witnesses Nick's death and is unable to prevent it. One could argue that Michael might have been the catalyst for Nick's death by showing up when he did, but here again you have one of those untenable plot points, whereby Nick survives as long as he did by betting the odds against killing himself.
Which brings me to one more point, and a major plot hole. Michael gets the clue he needs to locate Nick by visiting Steven at the VA Hospital, where Steven shows him the money that's arriving in the mail from overseas. Yet when Michael encounters Nick in Saigon for the first time, Nick is so shell shocked and drug dazed that he fails to recognize him - 'Michael who?' For me, this begs the question, how would Nick ever have learned where Steven ended up following his release, much less send him his roulette winnings on a regular basis.
Still, even with these pitfalls, I find the picture to be a directorial achievement, particularly for being the first Vietnam War film a mere three years following the end of that conflict. Yet the film isn't so much a war picture as it is a story of the human dynamics that are affected by war and it's consequences. For that reason, I think the movie will be watched and discussed for a long time as it holds it's place as one of cinema's best.