The movie showed it like it really was. I did not know Vann, but two Colonels that I know did work with him. It shows who really ran the war in Vietnam. It shows Westmoreland for what he was too. The best part is that it shows how the Military had little or no say in conducting the war. It lets us see that it was a political war and that maybe it could have had a different outcome if it had been pursued correctly. The action is good, and it is authentic. Paxton is intense. His performance is often complimented on that he could have actually been Vann. Or that he could actually have been in a war. TYhe battle sequences are realistic without being overly bloody. The dialog was well presented and was mostly believable.

This movie may have low budget production values, but they did a fairly good job. Actual wartime footage is intermingled for good effect, especially in the opening sequence.I had a bit of a hard time taking Bill Paxton serious in this role at first, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that he did a very credible job portraying Lt. Col Vann with the required swagger.Though a bit over dramatic at times, and almost falling into cliché, I would have to recommend this movie. My only other criticism would be of the portrayal of the ARVN when under fire. The offices may have been beneath contempt, but when called to duty, the ARVN could mix it up with the best of them. They have been getting an unfair reputation for many years now.

I was expecting a lot more of this film than what I actually got. The acting was just awful from everyone and the story was far from impressive. It took a lot of something I don't to even follow what was going because it was so jumpy. An example of the acting is when Paxton's character, Vann, is upset the South Vietnamese colonel for so he throws some of the sand from the "sand map". It was impossible to get any idea of what he was feeling and his actions were robotic. To make things worse, I have no idea how I'm supposed to feel about Vann. He's obviously presented as the protagonist but as soon as he gets to Vietnam he starts an affair with an Vietnamese English teacher. The only thing the movie had going for it was that it wasn't particularly boring. I give it 4 stars out of 10.

A tour of duty film in Vietnam featuring a morally ambiguous soldier, who echos the moral ambiguity of the decision makers of the war itself. Bill Paxton is John Paul Vann, a U.S. military adviser, who is manipulated out of his commission, only to beg to come back to the war in any capacity that they'll have him in. Once back, his military strategy changes from looking at the big picture to fighting and winning at every turn possible. Supposedly he turned strongly anti-war, but we don't really see that in this movie. The movie, produced by HBO, does a good job of following one man's odyssey, but even the catalyst for the change seems ambiguous. Does he change because of the rotten politics surrounding the war? Or does he return because of being personally compelled to be involved in battle in whatever capacity? Rarely does a Vietnam film give such an honest depiction of the local people that are most affected by the war games that politicians play. It's hard to sympathize with Paxton because of his moral shortcomings and bizarre decision to return to Vietnam after being decommissioned. The film seems to paint him as a hero, but it's hard to see it as portrayed. I imagine that some liberty was taken with the facts for dramatic purposes. The acting is OK, but no one really stands out, including Paxton. The best scenes show the dead and dying villagers that Paxton helped earlier. Oddly enough, the film is surprisingly emotionally distant, considering the subject matter. Overall, an entertaining film concerning one's destiny in life, how we are hemmed in by hierarchies in daily life, how we are affected by those experiences, and the role they play in other decisions we make. **1/2 of 4 stars.