Rating: 
Summary: Fantastic of Vietnam era depiction advisor to near end.
Review: 1. The story takes place during the Vietnam Conflict in Southeast Asia when the world was experiencing trying yet exciting times. A country of peasant people whose leadership along with U.S. policy was corrupt. Policy appeared to be formulated to fool or misguide the people of which the survivors would inevitably have to try and build a future society. 2. The movie is trying to show us the positive and the negative side of human nature and the constant struggle between the two cultures with the Vietnamese people trying to survive. John Paul Vann helps us understand that a leader is human and may have character flaws. His decisions were subject to the situation and political policy in the same manner as the rest of us. The story also accurately depicts the conflict and the effects of divisiveness within our society. I think the author convincingly developed the story well by gradually challenging the legitimacy and goals of U.S. policy from the time of the advisor policy through the height of the conflict. 3. John Paul Vann responds to situations with the unique ability to assess the total scope of the situation he was in and formulates a plan. John Paul Vann understood he was not the overall leader, but constantly challenged leadership in one way or another. The U.S. Press Corps constantly bonded with John Paul Vann and would counsel him so he would not be put into a worse position than he already was with U.S. military leadership. 4. The main pressure on John Paul Vann and many like him that fought was that they believed in what they were doing. The problem for John Paul Vann was he, as an outcast, knew the professional arrogance and corruption between U.S. and South Vietnamese leadership was real. John Paul Vann, initially, was a U.S. Army officer that was willing to risk the truth for his own career. His belief of freedom and democracy even as a civilian aid worker trying to harness the peasant revolution resulted in a general, jealous, rivalry between John Paul Vann and the policy makers. 5. The movie shows that the American public and the survival of the combat veteran do not always come together in times when survival is dependent on it. I think a key point in the movie was that democracy does not always run its course and the people are unaware of the overall goal unless the military or even the central government is kept in check. The movie also depicts that man is ambivalent and there is a very thin line between people working for the greater good of government that in turn works for the public good and one that serves an individual or individuals. It is believed that democracy is the best form of government but it is very dependent on the character and values of those that are to be working for the good of all. The lack of ethical and moral values as reflected in the movie often do not always produce a fair outcome which reflects the necessity to have a balance of power. 6. The political symbols are the peasants; rice; clothing of both the North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese people; freedom; and democracy; and the misguided moral compass as depicted by leadership in the movie. Interestingly, John Paul Vann's belief that harnessing the peasant revolution could turn the conflict around would become the symbol of U.S. Armed forces in Vietnam. Perhaps it could be said that with John Paul Vann's relentless belief is a symbol of personified intentions and courage. The title of the book is itself could be construed as a political symbol. 7. The story gave me a better understanding of the interplay of deception within U.S. policy, power struggles, and of the selfless price the signatories of the Declaration of Independence endured. It shows how power can lead to corruption, how a legitimate a leader can be sidestepped, and how greed and impulsiveness can replace reason. The movie reinforced lessons learned throughout life, primarily that ethical and moral values combined with leadership by example is paramount. 8. Even though we live in a democracy that is alive and well. It is imperative that citizens are involved and watchful of government officials. The fact is, in order for people to make an informed decision they must be involved and demonstrate involvement within their sphere of influence. 9. Yes, I would recommend this movie to my fellow students and anyone else. It is worth a second and third viewing and even more importantly to read the book to get the most out of its message about symbolism and the meaning of truth depending on who we choose to listen to.
Rating:
Summary: A real view of the situation
Review: 10 years after I've got the opportunity to read the book, I could watch the movie. Of course it is always difficult to resume a 600 pages book in a 2 hours movie. John Paul Vann caracter is very well described as this gentleman's life was tough and excited. His view of Vietnam immediately after his 1st arrival (1962-63) is well enhanced. No future to stay longer. As usual nobody at the military establishment did believe him...If they did so it might avoid America to lose more than 50,000 young men. Really so good. Paxton plays really well. Only critic is regarding the added features . So little.
Rating:
Summary: HBO's BEST FILM
Review: A BRIGHT SHINING LIE is proof that $14 Million in today's Hollywood dollars buys a great picture. This is the platinum standard of HBO Films (nominated for an Emmy for Best Picture). Terry George shows the Vietnam War form a fresh perspective and the film moves well. The siege of Saigon is accurate and strong, as is Bill Paxton's portrayl of John Paul Vann. This film makes a prima facia case for Vann's name to be added to the Vietnam War Memorial.
Rating: 
Summary: A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do
Review: A BRIGHT SHINING LIE is the ostensibly true story of one American's involvement in the Vietnam conflict over the period 1962-1972, and strides the middle ground between the ridiculously gung-ho GREEN BERETS (1968) and the blatantly anti-war APOCALYPSE NOW (1979) and PLATOON (1986).
Bill Paxton plays John Paul Vann, a lieutenant colonel first assigned to Military Assistance Command Vietnam in 1962, and who later resigned under a cloud after telling anyone who'd listen, including the press, that the Army's top brass was botching the war - a bad career move if there ever was one. Later, he returns to Vietnam as a civilian and achieves de-facto 2-star rank as a Senior Advisor given virtual command of South Vietnamese troops opposing a North Vietnamese Army offensive before himself being killed in a helicopter crash.
Since A BRIGHT SHINING LIE came to me as a bonus DVD packaged with BAND OF BROTHERS, I thought it therefore might be rather cheesy. But, I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of this HBO original film release. Why, it was almost of Big Screen production quality.
Granted, when Paxton gets steely-eyed and juts his jaw aggressively, there's not the same heroic effect as displayed in WE WERE SOLDIERS (2002), but we all can't be Mel Gibson. However, the film effectively shows a man whose inner drive compels him to go to war, have the audacity to think he can win it single-handed, and cheat on his wife as a form of relaxation. One can almost see the testosterone sloshing back and forth.
For a small screen release, the combat scenes and special FX are quite good. As a peace statement, the producers went out of their way to include every infamous image of the era: the protesting Buddhist monk setting himself ablaze, the young Vietnamese girl running naked from her village that's just been bombed into an inferno, the captive Viet Cong being shot in the head by a South Vietnamese officer during the Tet Offensive. But, for all that, the anti-war message isn't overbearing because, thirty-some years later, the wrongness of the American presence in that quagmire is perhaps, in retrospect, a nationally accepted consensus.
A BRIGHT SHINING LIE does illustrate well, perhaps as a reminder to any superpower that wants to get involved in a Third World conflict, the pervasive local corruption that manipulates and the complete indifference, if not outright opposition, to an outside presence felt by the bulk of the populace. In that atmosphere, and under the stress to achieve some ill-conceived government definition of a win, even well intentioned and patriotic men such as Vann can be led astray by events and their own fervor.
Rating:
Summary: Bill was good---
Review: Bill has done it again---taken a seemingly boring topical script, and brings his own talent to the screen. You want to empathize with the character John Paul Vann in some instances; in others you want to scream at him to go back to his wife and kids. Obviously he doesn't agree. I never read the book, so I can't make comparisons. The special effects were good. From what I know about the Vietnam conflict (war was never declared) Vann could have done better, and the higher-ups didn't want to listen till it was too late in the game. Generals have a hearing problem when subordinates are concerned---I've seen it happen, that's why Vann was pushing so hard--because he was right in a lot of instances. Ah, well, Bill did well in a straight role, and I hope he does more of them.
Rating:
Summary: Paxton does it again!
Review: Bill has done it again---taken a seemingly boring topical script, and brings his own talent to the screen. You want to empathize with the character John Paul Vann in some instances; in others you want to scream at him to go back to his wife and kids. Obviously he doesn't agree. I never read the book, so I can't make comparisons. The special effects were good. From what I know about the Vietnam conflict (war was never declared) Vann could have done better, and the higher-ups didn't want to listen till it was too late in the game. Generals have a hearing problem when subordinates are concerned---I've seen it happen, that's why Vann was pushing so hard--because he was right in a lot of instances. Ah, well, Bill did well in a straight role, and I hope he does more of them.
Rating: 
Summary: A SO-SO MOVIE!
Review: Bill Paxton gave a performance as a brutal soldier and a womanizer. A weak performance. Bad movie.
Rating:
Summary: ok if you want a quick and pretty lame version of the war
Review: having seen many vietnam movies, i have to say this was one of the least enjoyable. I have to agree with several of the reviews below that this is a made for TV movie, which is ok. It does have that NBC type of acting to it, where the drama is a little over board to prove a point. good for education but that is about it. for those who are looking for a decent war movie, that has some education in it, rent it. for those who are looking for a documentary on the developments of vietnam, the society, the war itself, and America during the post vietnam period, I HIGHLY suggest purchasing VIETNAM The Ten Thousand Day War. That is a 5 star by far. As a follow up, buy In Retrospect by Robert McNamara. This is also on tape but leaves out a lot from the book. Both this DVD and book will provide you with in depth detail on what took place in Vietnam, and why. Why did the American Government do what they did.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Vietnam-era movie
Review: HBO Films presents this biopic of John Paul Vann, taken from the book of the same name. Vann was a former US army soldier who became a civilian leader of the war effort on behalf of South Vietnam. In addition to detailing the military actions that Vann is involved in, the film also expertly describes the many failings of Vann's personal life. Some people have criticized this film for being of the low-budget, made for TV variety. To the contrary, I think that this film was done quite well for a cable film. Of course, HBO is known for producing top-notch original films.The only beef I have with this movie is not production-related, nor is it expressed in the book, but exhibits what I feel is the bias of the director or screenwriter. The film explicitly implies that JFK was innocent of the war, and that, immediately following his assassination, LBJ instantly accelerated the war to mammoth proportions. The truth is significantly more complicated, but liberal Hollywood-types are well known for their honoring of JFK and distaste of LBJ. This political propaganda aside, this really is an excellent film about a little-known aspect of the Vietnam War.
Rating:
Summary: Bland, dull, and carelessly put together.
Review: How do people say this is Bill Paxton's best work? I doubt even he would agree with that. This movie has the pace of a driveway snail. It just dragged on and on. The cheesey romantic subplot between Vann and the Vietnamese language teacher was awful. As far as Vann's at-home situation, they should have just left that out altogether. All it did was make the movie go on and on and help fuel that sickening romantic subplot I mentioned earlier. Eric Bogosian and what's-his-name, the other reporter, gave really dull performances and almost all of the other characters were one-dimensional. The nerdy reporter's voice-over narration started to get on my nerves, too. It explained things that didn't need explaining in the first place. The action sequence near the end was horrible. The NVA and VC didn't attack in human waves like that. In fact, according to some vets you actually wished they WOULD attack like that. In the movie, these scores of U.S. army troops were letting themselves be overrun when two machine guns with interlocking fire, TWO, could have cut down that attack without fail. Instead, Hollywood AGAIN decided to portray the communist Vietnamese forces as no more than "stupid gooks" who's only way of beating the enemy was to swarm them like a bunch of dumb ants. They were a lethal, determined, and very capable fighting force and nothing like what the movie showed them to be. This movie is just chock full of Hollywood B.S. and isn't worth renting or buying. The extra star is for the way the political barriers Vann ran into were shown, which seem to be right on track. There might have been another star in for it if they hadn't had that "Where Have All The Soldiers Gone" song at the end. CORNY AS HELL!
|
