How realistic can this be? SPOILERS

Rating: Null/10 (28 July 2009)

An average film in my opinion, when viewed purely as a war film without bringing an agenda to the table. I am biased I suppose as the characters in this film were very one-dimensional and I prefer war films that explore characters without the full-on action shown here (apart from the frankly boring wives scenes). Although based on a true event, I have to question how realistic this film can be, especially as it stars Mel Gibson, who has made many historically inaccurate films. The reason I question its accuracy is because of the terrible ineptness of the Vietnamise soldiers, whose only tactic seems to be to march in a straight line into automatic fire. The soldier with the bayonet advancing towards Gibson and his group could easily have wiped them out with a burst from his AK47, and the isolated platoon could have been dealt with using grenades or mortars. Instead the Vietnamise advance whilst noisily bunched together and never seem to get off a burst of fire no matter how close they are. Were the Vietnamise soldiers really so bad as shown here? It seemed at times like some rubbishy John Wayne film. This spoiled the film for me in the same fashion that the 'ineptness' of the German soldiers in Where Eagles Dare spoilt that film for me.
The acting was adequate, I could not go beyond that. Platoon and Full Metal Jacket were much better Vietnam war films as the acting and characterisation in those films was so good.