One of the most superficial movie on Vietnam war

Rating: 3/10 (30 December 2005)

I really dislike this movie for several reasons. First, because, from an historical point of view, it seems to me highly politically incorrect. In fact, it describes Vietnam war in a too partial and superficial way. Partial because Vietcongs (vietnam soldiers) are always and only seen as bad and cruel, whereas us soldiers are all somewhat heroes. Other movies, by other (us !) directors, like Oliver Stone, describes THAT war in a very different manner, showing heroism (sometimes) and cruelty (so often !) on both sides. In my opinion, the movie is also superficial because, talking about war in general, describes war as some sort of a "hard competition" between adult men. I am wondering if not only Vietnam war but only one of modern wars fits this description. I am afraid that all modern wars, Vietnam war included, are better described as long sequences of useless massacres involving innocent women, babies, old men and women. As a last observation, in my opinion some sequences are really absurd. Which is the probability that one survive Russian roulette FOR MONTHS ? Which is the probability that two caught soldiers get free from their enemies without any help from outside by simply taking the guns from their enemies trousers ? In this respect, I think a mistake concerning the chosen genre has been done. Some sort of things MAY happen in adventure movies like "star wars" or "raiders of the lost ark", but not in a dramatic one, where events shown needs to be believable.