Rating: 
Summary: Bill was good---
Review: I have seen this film several times; each time I understand it better. However, I feel that it should have drawn out more as in a miniseries. More of the combat scenes would have been left in. Three-fourths of the film dealt with Vann's being a civilian/general in Vietnam. Not enough was done to bring out Vann's leadership and guidance during the early years. Paxton does justice to Vann, albeit time constraints. I suggest if you want to really get the impact of the movie and what really happened, read the book "A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam". Neil Sheehan gets down and tells it like it was; openly, candidly. Here's to the 101st Airborne Screaming Eagles (otherwise known as the Puking Buzzards at Ft. Campbell, KY!!) US Army RET SSG
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent.
Review: I have seen this film twice. Once before reading the book and once immediately after reading the book. The film is a very faithful rendering of a long and detailed book. The film is very well produced. I was particularly impressed by the scene where the B-52's huge bombs are dropped within yards of Vann's bunker. It gives one an idea of the massive destructiveness of these weapons. See it if you have any interest at all in Vietnam and American involvement there.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent.
Review: I have seen this film twice. Once before reading the book and once immediately after reading the book. The film is a very faithful rendering of a long and detailed book. The film is very well produced. I was particularly impressed by the scene where the B-52's huge bombs are dropped within yards of Vann's bunker. It gives one an idea of the massive destructiveness of these weapons. See it if you have any interest at all in Vietnam and American involvement there.
Rating:
Summary: In my opinion the best film from William Bill Paxton
Review: I saw lots of films with W.P., but i think A bright shining lie is the best film from W.P. I saw it on Jamaica on HBO for about 3 times, and i loved it. I also saw Twister at the same time, but he plays in this film like it was his first time in front of a camera. Sorry about my bad language, but its the best i can do....
Rating:
Summary: ONE OF BILLS FINEST MOVIES!!!!!!
Review: I would definately recommend this DVD. I was so happy when I bought it. And saw that it was a good movie. If you are not into war movies, you don't need to worry. Because it's more less a drama with some action based on a true story. The story line is excellent. You will enjoy this movie as much as I did!!!!
Rating: 
Summary: a bright shining lie
Review: It is a movie for TV with low budget and low performances. The ideas for the movie is good for educating my young children. To teach them a bit history of Vietnam war. I complete agreed with the review of Gabe Michael Bugielski. I got this DVD in a package of seven. I wish they excluded it.
Rating: 
Summary: historically inaccurate; simple-minded
Review: It's not that I have a personal need to defend my grandfather, the subject of this film; I readily admit that I cannot concieve of the selfishness which enabled him to cheat on my amazing grandmother, and leave her at home for ten years. Also, I have always reserved a special disrespect for men who slap thousands of years of their ancestors in the face with the typical military mentality of being sexually attracted to Asian women, whom they think of as exotic sex objects. But for the sake of historical accuracy, I must object that my grandfather was not the southern-accented good ol' boy he is portrayed as in this awful film. He was as sophisticated as they come, extremely well-educated, and regarded by many officers involved in the Vietnam conflict as the most talented officer in the nation. He had an incredibly sophisticated sense of humor, operated as an agent of the CIA and the State Department, and was killed while working on a PhD (not to put to much value on the modern PhD). These attributes are a few of many that radically depart from the character portrayed by Bill "Chet" Paxton. They illustrate the fact that the subject of my Grandfather, and the Vietnam war in general, is a little more complicated than this simple film could suggest. The book by the same name, flawed in a few areas as it is, is an enormously better work and is available from Amazon. 'Bright Shining Lie' is definitely LESS powerful than 'Apocalypse Now.' I am shocked to see that the promoters of this video would stoop so low as to suggest that it is not.
Rating:
Summary: One Man's Struggle to Make a Difference in Vietnam
Review: One man can make a difference. Lt. Col. John Paul Vann is portrayed as that man. To me, I saw a man driven by an obsessive personality to be a "true soldier" in every sense of the phrase. He had to be a part of the war. And he had a code of honor that continually drove him to make choices as his decade in Vietnam wore on, that he believed were in the best interest of the People of South Vietnam. He sacrificed everything in his "selfless" quest to be a "true soldier," his family, his career and in the end his life. The ultimate irony is, as the movie states at the end, that His Name does not even appear on the Vietnam Veterans' Wall in Washington, D.C. This man is the meaning of the words "hero, patriot, and freedom fighter." Thank God his story has been told. Even with his "personal character flaws," Lt. Col. John Paul Vann is a power of example of what is good about America, and what being a "Soldier in the Eternal Sense," means, dedicated to his mission and his own personal definition honor and duty. He is the closest link to a medieval crusader in the twentieth century portrayed on film. I am honored to know such a man existed in this modern era and was an American, and as is always the case because he did not go with the party line, he remains unknown and unhonored until this brilliant film
Rating:
Summary: A Bright Shining LIFE not lie; best depiction of M113 AFVs
Review: There is no better geopolitical/military Vietnam movie than "A Bright Shining Lie" (should be LIFE). We need to be glad that Hollywood has even made such a film of someone whose virtues they would abhor--in fact this is why LTC Vann's womanizing receives more prominence in the film than what's depicted in the book. To sum up the flaws in the film; 1. Too much emphasis on Vann's womanizing 2. Failure to portray the battle of Ap Bac correctly--the book's portrayal of this fight is more accurate, showing how Vann almost pulled off a victory by parachute airdropping ARVN troops to catch the VC from retreating, the film perhaps due to budget $$$ didn't even mention this aspect. 3. Forgets to mention Vann's successes at pacification Despite the film makers wanting to portray the typical Vietnam War-is-futile nonsense, the film makers succeed powerfully on the following points which are unique and vital: 1. They portray LTC Vann as the military innovator and maverick that he was. This is indeed Bill Paxton's break-out from comedy acting role, I hope he continues to play strong, intelligent heroes from now on. Jeff Daniels did the same playing Col Chamberlain in Gettysburg. He is THE role model for a good, technically and tactically proficient American Soldier who gives a darn and is willing to fight for what is right even at the cost of his career. Don't let Gen-X/Y revisionism and snobby film narration deceive you that just because Vann had marks on his record that there was "no career" at risk. Go ask Col David Hackworth about this. Standing up for what is right could get you prison and court-martial--reflect on Gen Billy Mitchell's experiences in the 30s. The montage scenes where Vann talks about "rice" being the center of gravity using different pieces of different briefings/speeches is brilliant and shows how hard he fought to rally the Army and America to the correct way to fight an insurgency. Another maverick military leader depicted was General Frederick C. Weyand, who single-handedly saved the day during Tet by keeping his troops nearby and not being suckered into the diversion the marines surrounded at Khe Sanh was. It was good to see the actor Ed Lauter play Weyand--a good guy for a change. Point of it all---one or two men can make a differance. 2. If you first don't succeed, try, try again A lesson the current generation doesn't know is tenacity and perseverence--to have them you have to believe in something strong enough to keep fighting. When Vann's Army career ends, he doesn't just give up. He stays involved, he writes letters, he stays in touch with Army buddies, he by staying within "calling distance" gets called back to active duty in an amazing way--back to Vietnam where though not depicted in the film, he has amazing successes. Read the book to learn about this. The lesson here is to NEVER GIVE UP. A lesson America needs now more than ever. Vann didn't whine that he wouldn't become a General, and in the end he became one. If your values are right, in the end, good triumphs. 3. The scenes where troops are fighting in M113 Armored Personnel Carriers are tremendous---correct me if I'm wrong--but these are the first depictions of mechanized infantry ever seen in Hollywood. The ARVN Track commander who without gunshields at Ap Bac gets shot into the troop compartment, and in a later scene, Vann's hopping into the back of a M113A1 using the troop door instead of the rear ramp, speeding to the American embassy under siege during the Tet offensive while bullets ping off the armored sides is priceless. If you combine the book's thrust that at Ap Bac Vann almost defeated the VC by 3-D maneuver using parachute forces and the film's depiction of the utility of shielded M113 armor protected mobility you could "John Paul Vann" an Air-Mech concept for today's battlefields that would be very powerful. 4. After Tet--the VC were wiped out--this film shows the military victory it was for the U.S. though a political victory for the enemy at home in the U.S. using 4th GenWar means. The war would have to be fought using external NVA forces and in the climactic battle, Vann and a handful of advisors skillfully use air strikes to stop the 1972 invasion, saving the day. I love the speech Vann makes during that desperate hour. Well, let's not beat around the bush, shall we? What is the importance of John Paul Vann and this film? HAD VANN LIVED SOUTH VIETNAM WOULD BE FREE TODAY. If Vann had not died in the helo crash, he would by his presence on the scene as the most visible and vocal American insured America would not have "cut and run" the next time the NVA came marching south in conquest. Vann would have corrected corruption and made the ARVN a better Army by not trying to just emulate U.S. Air Assault tactics using light infantry/firebases with tube artillery. He would have realized that the NVA were getting longer ranged artillery to pound the fire bases at will, surface-to-air missiles to shoot down the ARVN helicopters and saw to it that America supplied the necessary tools. Vann had the necessary military experience to combine arms more effectively (see how he almost saved the battle at Ap Bac) and the civilian political clout to keep America engaged. Think of British military protector General Charles "Chinese" Gordon played brilliantly in the film, Khartoum by Charlton Heston. Or General MacArthur in the Philipines. If America could have identified more with South Vietnam by men like Vann we wouldn't have turned our backs on them in their hour of need. The message of this film is clear despite the film makers wanting to in some ways discredit Vann: go out and live life like he did, care, think, and do not let evil run over that which is good. Live A Bright Shining Life. Airborne!
Rating:
Summary: A Bright Shining LIFE not lie; best depiction of M113 AFVs
Review: There is no better geopolitical/military Vietnam movie than "A Bright Shining Lie" (should be LIFE). We need to be glad that Hollywood has even made such a film of someone whose virtues they would abhor--in fact this is why LTC Vann's womanizing receives more prominence in the film than what's depicted in the book. To sum up the flaws in the film; 1. Too much emphasis on Vann's womanizing 2. Failure to portray the battle of Ap Bac correctly--the book's portrayal of this fight is more accurate, showing how Vann almost pulled off a victory by parachute airdropping ARVN troops to catch the VC from retreating, the film perhaps due to budget $$$ didn't even mention this aspect. 3. Forgets to mention Vann's successes at pacification Despite the film makers wanting to portray the typical Vietnam War-is-futile nonsense, the film makers succeed powerfully on the following points which are unique and vital: 1. They portray LTC Vann as the military innovator and maverick that he was. This is indeed Bill Paxton's break-out from comedy acting role, I hope he continues to play strong, intelligent heroes from now on. Jeff Daniels did the same playing Col Chamberlain in Gettysburg. He is THE role model for a good, technically and tactically proficient American Soldier who gives a darn and is willing to fight for what is right even at the cost of his career. Don't let Gen-X/Y revisionism and snobby film narration deceive you that just because Vann had marks on his record that there was "no career" at risk. Go ask Col David Hackworth about this. Standing up for what is right could get you prison and court-martial--reflect on Gen Billy Mitchell's experiences in the 30s. The montage scenes where Vann talks about "rice" being the center of gravity using different pieces of different briefings/speeches is brilliant and shows how hard he fought to rally the Army and America to the correct way to fight an insurgency. Another maverick military leader depicted was General Frederick C. Weyand, who single-handedly saved the day during Tet by keeping his troops nearby and not being suckered into the diversion the marines surrounded at Khe Sanh was. It was good to see the actor Ed Lauter play Weyand--a good guy for a change. Point of it all---one or two men can make a differance. 2. If you first don't succeed, try, try again A lesson the current generation doesn't know is tenacity and perseverence--to have them you have to believe in something strong enough to keep fighting. When Vann's Army career ends, he doesn't just give up. He stays involved, he writes letters, he stays in touch with Army buddies, he by staying within "calling distance" gets called back to active duty in an amazing way--back to Vietnam where though not depicted in the film, he has amazing successes. Read the book to learn about this. The lesson here is to NEVER GIVE UP. A lesson America needs now more than ever. Vann didn't whine that he wouldn't become a General, and in the end he became one. If your values are right, in the end, good triumphs. 3. The scenes where troops are fighting in M113 Armored Personnel Carriers are tremendous---correct me if I'm wrong--but these are the first depictions of mechanized infantry ever seen in Hollywood. The ARVN Track commander who without gunshields at Ap Bac gets shot into the troop compartment, and in a later scene, Vann's hopping into the back of a M113A1 using the troop door instead of the rear ramp, speeding to the American embassy under siege during the Tet offensive while bullets ping off the armored sides is priceless. If you combine the book's thrust that at Ap Bac Vann almost defeated the VC by 3-D maneuver using parachute forces and the film's depiction of the utility of shielded M113 armor protected mobility you could "John Paul Vann" an Air-Mech concept for today's battlefields that would be very powerful. 4. After Tet--the VC were wiped out--this film shows the military victory it was for the U.S. though a political victory for the enemy at home in the U.S. using 4th GenWar means. The war would have to be fought using external NVA forces and in the climactic battle, Vann and a handful of advisors skillfully use air strikes to stop the 1972 invasion, saving the day. I love the speech Vann makes during that desperate hour. Well, let's not beat around the bush, shall we? What is the importance of John Paul Vann and this film? HAD VANN LIVED SOUTH VIETNAM WOULD BE FREE TODAY. If Vann had not died in the helo crash, he would by his presence on the scene as the most visible and vocal American insured America would not have "cut and run" the next time the NVA came marching south in conquest. Vann would have corrected corruption and made the ARVN a better Army by not trying to just emulate U.S. Air Assault tactics using light infantry/firebases with tube artillery. He would have realized that the NVA were getting longer ranged artillery to pound the fire bases at will, surface-to-air missiles to shoot down the ARVN helicopters and saw to it that America supplied the necessary tools. Vann had the necessary military experience to combine arms more effectively (see how he almost saved the battle at Ap Bac) and the civilian political clout to keep America engaged. Think of British military protector General Charles "Chinese" Gordon played brilliantly in the film, Khartoum by Charlton Heston. Or General MacArthur in the Philipines. If America could have identified more with South Vietnam by men like Vann we wouldn't have turned our backs on them in their hour of need. The message of this film is clear despite the film makers wanting to in some ways discredit Vann: go out and live life like he did, care, think, and do not let evil run over that which is good. Live A Bright Shining Life. Airborne!
| 
