Rating: 
Summary: The Viet Nam Experience Was SHEER HELL!
Review: A No holds barred view of the conditions of war and the Hell we called Viet Nam, this DVD is a no glitz unvarnished look back at the experiences of Viet Nam Vets. This group of Marines are forced to relive their experiences on a trip back to Viet Nam many years after the war ended. Intended as a revelation of events that led up to the massacre of innocents, this experience of the hellacious events of this warfare serves as a wakeup call to those who glorify war. This war especially was HELL and this DVD captures the essence of this experience vividly!
Rating: 
Summary: Does "Under Heavy Fire" live to its name?
Review: After watching numerous Vietnam War-related documentary and fiction movies, I consider that "Under Heavy Fire" is one of the worst and most lackluster movies I ever watched. It should not be on market at all. This movie seems to be fairly offensive and distasteful because it used an male actor, Casper Van Dien in his 20s as a Vietnam veteran while the actress, Carre Otis, who looked like she was flirting, lusting, and taking pictures at this fairly egoistic whiner. Instead, it should use a real Vietnam veteran in his 50s as a leading role. The battle actions seemed too scattered, too fixed-chaos, and too much past/present time hopping. Some scenes of jungle almost looked like they were not previously touched by some soldiers of past because they did not look dense enough. It caused me to suspect that some actors of present were more afraid to walk and crawl through some areas with high density of plants, insects, and animals than the old-time actors. It painted Captain Ramsey as the king of the Vietnam tunnel battle which was very rare in Vietnam War. In reality, a lot of Americans were unable to go into some tunnels. It was one of most difficult and daunting tasks a U.S. soldier ever took. It took a very small soldier to enter a Viet-Cong tunnel successfully. He would be known as "Tunnel Rat". According to the title's polite statement(on back of DVD/VHS package), it failed to mention that it would include short sexual scenes at "present" time which was fairly unusual for a Vietnam War-related film. Because of this, it made the movie seemed fraud. Not just the statement, so does the title. The movie failed to match its title, "Under Heavy Fire". The title seems too exaggerating because of too few battle actions, poorly selected fields for a war film, and too much of bus-riding and unprofessional touring at the present time. What in the world why did the film waste its time showing some so-called Vietnam veterans staring at dirty graffit written on the outside walls? This wasted minutes should be used for real fighting action to be according with the title. The TV journalist, Kathleen Martin, treated Captain Ramsey as if he was a special person and acted like he should deserve some pleasure treatment from a good-looking woman like her. Involving some story-telling Vietnamese at the present time in the movie actually saved it from becoming totally laughingstock. Actors and actresses seemed to do well but their reputations could be affected by the movie's script. Good and organized script is very critical key to make a movie to be successful. I feel kind bad for an attractive actress/modeler like Carre Otis, to be included to Sidney J. Furie's war-related directing.
Casper Van Dien should not be used because of his age and he was not a real Vietnam veteran. He did not even wear facial make-up or mask to make him to look older. It is highly unusual for a man in his 50s to have a lot of hair and youthful skin. Dying hair white while leaving everything alone does not help at all. Carre Otis is recommended and deserved to be in the movie, she should be used properly in script term. She could be either perform a lot of sex or do no sex at all. To add sex scenes in "fictitious documentary" section many years after the war, is not best option. Otherwise, remove ficitious documentary and put in "non-documentary" fiction should sound better. To improve the movie, some sex scenes should be deleted (not because of graphics -no problem with those, just not essential), more battle time at right places, and turning too long "fictious" documentary into a brief "real" documentary with real Vietnam veterans who would not screw up against each other. It should not offend some Americans and probably Vietnamese. ( I think that it insults some Vietnam veterans because of Casper Van Dien is being picked up to be a leading role.)
Rating:
Summary: Does "Under Heavy Fire" live to its name?
Review: After watching numerous Vietnam War-related documentary and fiction movies, I consider that "Under Heavy Fire" is one of the worst and most lackluster movies I ever watched. It should not be on market at all. This movie seems to be fairly offensive and distasteful because it used an male actor, Casper Van Dien in his 20s as a Vietnam veteran while the actress, Carre Otis, who looked like she was flirting, lusting, and taking pictures at this fairly egoistic whiner. Instead, it should use a real Vietnam veteran in his 50s as a leading role. The battle actions seemed too scattered, too fixed-chaos, and too much past/present time hopping. Some scenes of jungle almost looked like they were not previously touched by some soldiers of past because they did not look dense enough. It caused me to suspect that some actors of present were more afraid to walk and crawl through some areas with high density of plants, insects, and animals than the old-time actors. It painted Captain Ramsey as the king of the Vietnam tunnel battle which was very rare in Vietnam War. In reality, a lot of Americans were unable to go into some tunnels. It was one of most difficult and daunting tasks a U.S. soldier ever took. It took a very small soldier to enter a Viet-Cong tunnel successfully. He would be known as "Tunnel Rat". According to the title's polite statement(on back of DVD/VHS package), it failed to mention that it would include short sexual scenes at "present" time which was fairly unusual for a Vietnam War-related film. Because of this, it made the movie seemed fraud. Not just the statement, so does the title. The movie failed to match its title, "Under Heavy Fire". The title seems too exaggerating because of too few battle actions, poorly selected fields for a war film, and too much of bus-riding and unprofessional touring at the present time. What in the world why did the film waste its time showing some so-called Vietnam veterans staring at dirty graffit written on the outside walls? This wasted minutes should be used for real fighting action to be according with the title. The TV journalist, Kathleen Martin, treated Captain Ramsey as if he was a special person and acted like he should deserve some pleasure treatment from a good-looking woman like her. Involving some story-telling Vietnamese at the present time in the movie actually saved it from becoming totally laughingstock. Actors and actresses seemed to do well but their reputations could be affected by the movie's script. Good and organized script is very critical key to make a movie to be successful. I feel kind bad for an attractive actress/modeler like Carre Otis, to be included to Sidney J. Furie's war-related directing.
Casper Van Dien should not be used because of his age and he was not a real Vietnam veteran. He did not even wear facial make-up or mask to make him to look older. It is highly unusual for a man in his 50s to have a lot of hair and youthful skin. Dying hair white while leaving everything alone does not help at all. Carre Otis is recommended and deserved to be in the movie, she should be used properly in script term. She could be either perform a lot of sex or do no sex at all. To add sex scenes in "fictitious documentary" section many years after the war, is not best option. Otherwise, remove ficitious documentary and put in "non-documentary" fiction should sound better. To improve the movie, some sex scenes should be deleted (not because of graphics -no problem with those, just not essential), more battle time at right places, and turning too long "fictious" documentary into a brief "real" documentary with real Vietnam veterans who would not screw up against each other. It should not offend some Americans and probably Vietnamese. ( I think that it insults some Vietnam veterans because of Casper Van Dien is being picked up to be a leading role.)
Rating: 
Summary: Under Heavy Criticizm
Review: Atmittedly, Van Dien may have been a bad choice for this film, but he doesn't do a terrible job. Just not that good. The amazing thing about this film which most reviewers seem to have missed is that a lot of it seems to have actually been filmed in Vietnam. It is also the first film to approach the subject of Veterans returning to Nam. On that note, the acting was pretty bad, quite overdone and just plain laughable at times, and the dialogue was pretty lame. The action was mediocre at best, and all the actors, the "vietnam veterans" who are revisiting Nam are clearly in their 20's and 30's. The subplots were unnecessary, and several of the dates were extremely innacurate. If you have any intrest in Vienam films, and war films in general, this film is worth at least one watch. Even better, watch Sindey Furie's other film "The Boys of Company C".
Rating: 
Summary: Under Heavy Fire
Review: I had recently watched this movie one early Sunday morning around 3:00am when I couldn't sleep. I at first thought it was one of those B rated movies so I choose to continue watching it and yes the acting wasn't all that great, but what intriqued me mostly about the movie was the fact that Veterans's were returning back to Vietnam and reliving nightmares and dealing with old demons and problems. The acting was alright considering what the movie was about. It really captured my attention when mistakes were made with the command structure and how misunderstanding and anger brought these band of brothers back together after so many years of pain. So hey the movie made it's point to me and that is why I ordered the DVD so I can watch it again. Great job Capser Van Diem and the remaining cast. Thanks!
Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable movie, superb acting.
Review: I must disagree with the former reviewer, I saw nothing racist about this movie at all. As a matter of fact, I thought the movie portrayed the good and bad sides of American soldiers quite well. In one scene, the Americans are fighting the North Vietnamese and fire into a crowd of civilians to kill one. They kill everyone in the crowd, an action that warrants the men the disgust of their leader. The movie focuses on Ramsey, who fought in the war and whose men now hate him. There are many flashbacks, showing heroism and brutality. At the end, the reasons behind the men's hatred for Ramsey are revealed...and what really happened when the men were under friendly fire. There is a lot of swearing, so it is definitely not for children. I enjoyed it nonetheless. Casper van Dien is incredible in his difficult role as Ramsey--young and old.
Rating:
Summary: The worst vietnam movie ever!!!!!!!!
Review: I rented this trash thinking it would be good. I've seen the directors other film"Boys of company C", and it was great. But this movie is done w/cheap recording, crappy acting, and a stupid ending. By far the worst vietnam movie i've ever seen.
Rating:
Summary: The worst vietnam movie ever!!!!!!!!
Review: I rented this trash thinking it would be good. I've seen the directors other film"Boys of company C", and it was great. But this movie is done w/cheap recording, crappy acting, and a stupid ending. By far the worst vietnam movie i've ever seen.
Rating:
Summary: The worst vietnam movie ever!!!!!!!!
Review: I rented this trash thinking it would be good. I've seen the directors other film"Boys of company C", and it was great. But this movie is done w/cheap recording, crappy acting, and a stupid ending. By far the worst vietnam movie i've ever seen.
Rating:
Summary: Asians bad ,Americans good
Review: This is another typical racist American movie that depicted the Americans as good guys put into an "immoral war" protecting the corrupt South Vietnamese who is too corrupt to be saved any way. This is not a new myth, this attitude have been around for a long time and have repeated in American movies time and time again with little basis in fact. I have seen this kind of attitude since the Vietnamese start arriving in this country. What Vietnamese can forget the comments printed in the Time magazine May 1975 issue where the left and the right in this country was oppose to allowing the Vietnamese coming into America with some saying that "all Vietnamese are killers and whores". The director of this movie have a long history of making films which depict American soldiers as virtuous warriors place in a bad war and the Asians in his movies is often portrayed as corrupt, stupid cowards and the Viets civilians as defenseless, helpless people who could not survive without Americans help. Take the movie "The Boys in Company C", in which a bunch of American boys who have never play soccer come to dominate the soccer game against the South Vietnamese professional soccer players. This is reality? That's like saying someone who have never play baseball before can come to America and defeat the best professional baseball team this country have to offer. I though that this director will have improve his attitude and bigotry in time but I was wrong, the movie "Under Heavy Fire" is just a repeat of his previous movie. As to the argument that the South Vietnamese are corrupt? Well, have anyone who say that ever read the book Dem Giu Ban Ngay [Darkness at Noon] by Vu Thu Hien who was a North Vietnamese officer and reporter who father is the personal Attaché for Ho Chi Minh, or the book Tu Ha Noi Den Mac Tu Khoa [From Hanoi to Moscova] written by my father, a former Communist battalion commander and former member of the North Vietnamese Bo Tong Tham Muu (a North Vietnamese equivalent of the Pentagon). The fact is the North Vietnamese have always been 100 times more corrupt than the South. Communist general Nguyen Son used to say in the 1950's that if the Vietnamese have take out every logistical officer in the Vietminh army and shoot them for corruption without a trial, they would not be executing innocent men. Do you think that the Kennedy and LBJ administration were clean? Ever read the book "The Dark Side of Camelot"? How about the Bush administration with the S&L scandal or the Clinton administration with "pardon gate" and the Elk Hill Oil Reserve scandal. Learn history before you start accusing the Vietnamese of being corrupt.
| 
