Customer Reviews

A Bright Shining Lie

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

I read all the reviews that were submitted...interesting. Valid points include that this film attempts to follow the tumultous life of a man of uncomprimising nature as well as an uncanny military genius w/ mixed success. Less credible are the Vann's "grandson" comments on his distain for interracial sexual relations(?), and "there's not enough action". Many Vietnam movies tend to focus on the extremes of human emotion and visceral narration (i.e grunts, fighter jocks, spec. ops. etc). If you are seeking the emotional impact and bullet time of Platoon or Apocalypse Now you won't find it here.

This movie focuses on the broader issues of the conflict, South Vietnamese corruption, U.S military leaders' ineptitude in combating guerilla warfare, and the evolution of the press affecting American sentiment toward to the long course of war. Corrupt South Vietnamese cadre, themselves products of colonialism, whose elitism pushed to average Vietnamese into the waiting arms of the communists. Also the single-mindness of the US military is clearly evident, even when their continual losses revealed their flawed strategy. General Westmoreland is portrayed as a over-conficent and narrow-minded man unaccepting of his subordinates advice. If this seems inaccurate, just watch his opinated comments in the Hearts and Minds documentary. Its seems poor Vann is the only man w/ the right ideas in a world full of officers still fighting WWII. His career is shattered because he wouldn't back down in a military system where you don't challenge your commanders. In the end, Vann finally gets his props and realizes his potential, but it was too late...American public had enough of Vietnam.

I wouldn't review this movie on its accuracy on the book or the man, this is told as a story of a man who personified the conflicted nature of the American side of the conflict. In the beginning Vann wants to fight the war w/ a conscience but as it gets uglier you see his character begin to solidify into a consumate fighter only wanting to win at any cost. His inability to compromise and adapt to a world changing much faster than him eventually consumes him.

Overall, the film breaks new ground into Nam movies by showing an abbreviated evolution of the conflict, the workings of the US brass, and the nasty underlying issues that made that conflict so controversial w/out beating you over the head. I wouldn't compare it to other blockbuster movies on Vietnam...if only this movie was given their huge budget and screen time.

I first watched this movie five years ago on HBO, and to be honest, this film inspired me to read the book, though it would take me four long years to find it.

ABSL focuses on the life of one of the most signficant, yet unrecognized in the mainstream, figures of the Vietnam War: Lt. Col. John Paul Vann, USA.

Just like the novel, the movie starts off at the funeral, then proceeds to Vann's arrival in Vietnam in March 1962. He begins to devote time advising his Vietnamese counterpart, Col. Nguyen Van Cao, played by Singaporean actor Lim Kay Tong. Vann feels something is not right when the South Vietnamese fake the VC body counts and deduce that they have no stomach for fighting the Communists-they only want to protect the Diem regime. The Battle of Ap Bac would later make the Americans and South Vietnamese begin paying for such errors in blood, as it's aftermath jacks up the war to a new level...

The film mostly focuses on the action in Vietnam. Bill Paxton portrayed the role of Vann quite well, as a father, husband, and officer. He was able to add color to his role as his Vann character gets screwed over by the military leadership over the conduct of the war, and his troubles at home. His sexual hijinks with Lee the schoolteacher and Annie the naive schoolgirl are also in the movie.

If General Westmoreland was really that arrogant in Vietnam, Kurtwood Smith did a fine job playing him.

Lim Kay Tong's Singaporean accent is evident in his role as Colonel Cao, unless the Vietnamese really speak that way.

It's obvious that there were errors in the movie that I would later discover in the novel-names changed and all of that. Vann was not there when the first Buddhist monk committed suicide by fire, for example.

The film also has original video footage of the war spliced into it, particularly those taken during the Tet Offensive-even including the famous footage of a VC spy shot point-blank by a Southern police colonel.

I never gave the Vietnam War a real in-depth look, until I watched this movie. Good thing I read the book it was based on-it filled a lot of gaps the movie obviously had.

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.

This is a well-intentioned biopic of John Paul Vann [Bill Paxton], a fascinating man who was intimately involved in the Vietnam War, both as a soldier and a civilian. It is a less than satisfying film because it attempts to cover much of our involvement in Vietnam [1962-1972] while simultaneously conveying a lot about Vann's personal life. For example, Vann was a womanizer. We see him with his wife and children in America. During his first tour of Vietnam, he takes up with a Vietnamese school teacher. His wife eventually divorces him. Later, he meets and marries another Vietnamese girl. These events by themselves could make for a complicated movie. "A Bright Shining Lie" also shows many of the highlights of the war, which itself is an even more complicated drama. The story is better suited to a miniseries. For more than a `Cliff's Notes' view, read the excellent book by Neil Sheehan upon which it is based.

Paxton is fine as Vann, but there are no pivotal scenes that define the character for us. We never feel we know him that well. Many other characters, most notable the women, appear for a while, then just disappear.

The action sequences are exceptionally well done, especially for a made for TV movie.

The film presents a point of view [someone who was a leader and an insider in the war] that's different from those in other Vietnam War movies, but it lacks the emotional impact of the best of them, such as "Apocalypse Now", "Platoon" and "Coming Home".

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!

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.

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

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.

Bill Paxton is the anchor column of this lean HBO film, but the best acting comes courtesy of Donal Logue as the reporter whom Paxon's Lt. Colonel John Paul Vann befriends early on and Ed Lauter as General Weyand. There is some very stiff work from other members of the cast, but the film succeeds on the strength of the drama it portrays.

The story of what went wrong for the US operation in Vietnam is still amenable to two or three widely differing explanations, each of which has deep plausibility. LIE portrays Paxton's character understanding the nationalist nature of the communist insurrection early on when he was posted to Viet Nam as one of the United States' first military advisors there. Gradually, however, he becomes lulled into the failed ambition to solve 'Vietnam's problem' by military means as he rises to the opportunity to become 'America's warrior' over against North Vietnam's brilliant General Giap.

In spite of some contrived work, the realism of the film's subject matter is underscored by the use of some remarkable footage from the era, including tape from the astonishing Tet Offensive in 1968. Although this Viet Cong vie for the cities during the lull of the Vietnam New Year celebration was for them a military failure, it shook whatever American confidence in the enterprise remained at that date and brought high American casualty counts and images of brutal urban warfare into American living rooms.

BRIGHT SHINING LIE is a vital film for those of us who still want to understand the American failure in Vietnam, the origins of the conflict, and how best to assure that future military interventions begin with and are sustained by a comprehension of the facts on the ground and just how malleable they may or may not be.

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.