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: 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: 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: 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!
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: 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: 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: 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: A SO-SO MOVIE!
Review: Bill Paxton gave a performance as a brutal soldier and a womanizer. A weak performance. Bad movie.
Rating:
Summary: How did it all begin??
Review: This is film falls into that unique category of Vietnam movies: how did we get into it so deeply? Based on the excellent book of the same title, the film follows Lt. Col. John Paul Vann, an extraordinary man of vision who both understood the nature of the conflict and (in the end) fell victim to American frustrations over not winning. Good performance by ol' Bill. If you liked this movie, I suggest also seeing "Go Tell The Spartans".
| 
