Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Gene Hackman is a former Marine Corps colonel who musters a handful of private Vietnam vets to go back to Laos and rescue some Americans who have been listed as missing in action. Hackman suspects that, in actuality, the half-dozen or so MIAs are secretly being held in a remote camp by Laotians to be tormented and to provide more hard labor. Hackman is being paid by the wealthy Robert Stack, whose son, like Hackman's son, is thought to be among the MIAs. But the circumstances are such that Hackman can only manage to buy old and out-dated weapons, though he manages to pick up the help of a fervid anti-communist Loatian and his two daughters along the way.

I don't think the movie was deliberately concocted to endorse the myth of the Vietnames still holding our MIAs for propaganda purposes. The myth was real enough. If anyone remembers, there were many bumper stickers in 1982 and 1983, BRING BACK THE MIAs. I think, instead, that the film was made partly in order to cash in on the myth. It was absurd on the face of it. Why would our former enemy refuse to return MIAs? Propaganda? Where is the propaganda value in something that's kept secret? To add the labor supply? They need a hundred extra laborers in Vietnam and Laos? The motives behind this movie -- with its triumphant music and high body count -- were scurrilous.

But how about the movie itself? Stripped of its theme of rescuing mythical mistreated MIAs, it's a routine paramilitary actioner, no better and no worse than dozens of others that appeared in the 1980s. Gene Hackman's performance is the only one that manages to keep its head above water. He's just about always reliable.

Of the others, this being a formulaic plot, derived from "The Dirty Dozen" among others, I kept trying to guess which of the gang would sacrifice themselves for the mission. Of the three anti-communist Asians, I figured one or more were dead meat. That's why Asian helpers appear in movies like this. (I was right two times out of three.) I also figured Patrick Swayzie as the rookie ex-officer, the youngest of the group, who'd never "earned the respect" of the others because he'd never seen combat, would also have to go in some heroic mode. Wrong. He becomes a hero, true, but survives intact. I thought there was a fifty-fifty chance that Hackman would have to go too, but he makes it out okay. The formula doesn't really stretch for originality either. Charles Bronson's claustrophobic POW escapee from "The Great Escape" is here in Fred Ward's ex tunnel rat, a claustrophobe who is forced to crawl through a drainage pipe with a snake inside it, so that he can do a recon on the Laotian POW camp.

The title, "Uncommon Valor," is from a tribute that Admiral Nimitz made to the men on Iwo Jima -- "Uncommon valor was common that day." Nimitz was certainly right about that. Whether or not the men who fought in Vietnam were all equally valorous is remote from the point. Anyone who saw combat or even came near it, putting their lives on the line for the guys in the line next to them, were heroic enough. This movie, and the way it exploits our bitterness about the Vietnam war, doesn't really do them justice.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative