this movie is not believable. the scene with the prostitutes is like 25 minutes too long. i saw it 5 years ago and remember thinking it was crap. no character development, no plot, nothing but a pile of poo. this movie is awful and needs a low rating.
share[deleted]
Ugh, not the Full Metal Jacket arguement again.
"That's refreshing Jenner, usually you're screaming about us."
worst movie ever? I would've thought that belongs to one of the Police Acadamy movies...
shareHamburger Hill is the best Vietnam war movie and and one of the best war movies in general (Where Eagles Dare is the best!). It is not pretentious, it is just very honest, recreated by unknown actors (many of whom have had great careers) which give it added credibility. It deals with most of the key war issues - camaraderie, green newcomers vs veterans, individuality vs obeying orders, opinions from back home, trying to keep healthy, being afraid, friendly fire, civilain casualties, leadership, gruesome death and the futility of it all. Good script, good score, great realism and as for character development, you care for these guys - so there must be a fair bit of if going on.
shareI bought this film, and I would not have is it was not decent. However it is over-patriotic and very unrealistic. If you ask vetrans they will tell you platoon is very much more realistic. Hamburger hill is alright but it did not win an award for a reason: it is not award quality like apocalypse now or platoon. It is a good hollywood flick but realism does not play a major roll. The director unlike oliver stone, never went to war and has little to base this movie on.
Some people really do not like this film, personnaly I thought it was okay and at the price I got it (15$), I'm happy to have it in my collection.
$15? what does that have to do with the quality of the picture? so if you went to a friend's house & saw it for free, you may think this was the best movie ever? I'm confused. Actually, I'm more confused that I'm on a message board for the 1st time replying to a movie I've never seen. But now that I know how to judge a movie, I'll go look for this one & Citizen Kane in the $5 bin.
shareThe writer and producer of this movie is a vietnam vet
shareThis movie is pretty realistic, especially the close in explosions of arty rounds. the dialogue to me is real-it doesn't seem like acting, it seems real, like regular joes just talking about things that are important to them. As for being the best vietnam era movie, I guess I could put a vote in for it. The other movies listed are good-but they are true hollywood where as Hmaburger Hill pretty much shows it as it seemed to be.
shareWorst movie ever? I think you haven´t seen enough cinema...
sharealcansan you have to admit this is pretty rubbish. i have 350 dvds and this is in the bottom 5
share[deleted]
Dont forget a lower-budgeted film "Seige of Firebase Gloria" with R L Ermey... or is it "attack on...". Not a huge huge production, or with A_list names, but same as Ham Hill, a well-done flick.
shareYikes! Since I recently watched Hamburger Hill for the first time in a while, I stumbled across this thread. WOW! A few points:
1) The quality of a film can be measured in many different ways. For some of you to point out what you perceive as a weakness and then to hang your total critique on that weakness...well that is WEAK. Very few films succeed on every possible level. Your criteria for Worst Movie Ever is moronic.
2) As for the quality of this film, Hamburger Hill succeeds on the following grounds:
Most of the acting is top-notch. The chemistry between a mostly (at-the-time) unknown ensemble cast is clear. Their portrayals of a diverse group of young soldiers in Vietnam is mostly outstanding. Particularly outstanding overall performances by Courtney B. Vance as Doc, and Stephen Weber as SGT. Worcester. Also I think Tim Quill's PVT Beletsky is an excellent foil for all of the conflictual personalities in the film.
The writing is generally quite good. It toes the fine line between accuracy and entertainment. Certain lines are extremely effective, albeit most of you who are on this post are clearly non-military, and especially non-Vietnam. I spent those years stationed in Panama, US Army Jungle Training School. We all know what an "AO" is. Beyond capturing the military side of the film, the writer also captures some of the human element as well. The clearly formed partnerships between the gunner and the loader on the M60s, and older "short" vets and the cherry troops who shipped in together, the NCOs and the officers, all of these are well-done.
The accuracy of most of the action scenes is unfortunately very compelling. This scenario is NOT hundreds of US troops vs. a few stray VC. Most of these battles in A-Shau Valley, much like earlier in the war in the Ia Drang Valley, are engagements between hundreds of US troops and THOUSANDS of N. Vietnamese soldiers. In both instances the Americans encountered hardcore PAVN (or sometimes called NVA) soldiers. For a VERY interesting dramatization of the kinds of operations that American small units may have encountered at this time, real John DelVecchio's The 13th Valley. Some of us will totally relate. I believe that the writer of this film must have read that book. Even the arty rounds are realistic, between the WP (Willy Pete, or White Phosphorus) rounds, the fleshettes, early forms of cluster bombs, and the napalm of the air strikes, the continuity is pretty good.
Finally, this film is exactly what it advertises: a close and personal look at a small group of grunts as they attacked (again and again) a hill that once they took, they would abandon.
One last point to all of these back and forth critiques: films do a lot of things. If there was NO reaction to this film, then it would be a shame. Films that create reaction, controversy, conversation, and critique, are therefore inherently successful. Winning awards or the box-office for that opening week is NOT a good standard for how GOOD a film is. And owning a bunch of DVDs DOES NOT A FILM CRITIC MAKE!!
chefsalad
Yikes! Since I recently watched Hamburger Hill for the first time in a while, I stumbled across this thread. WOW! A few points:
1) The quality of a film can be measured in many different ways. For some of you to point out what you perceive as a weakness and then to hang your total critique on that weakness...well that is WEAK. Very few films succeed on every possible level. Your criteria for Worst Movie Ever is moronic.
Most of the acting is top-notch. The chemistry between a mostly (at-the-time) unknown ensemble cast is clear. Their portrayals of a diverse group of young soldiers in Vietnam is mostly outstanding. Particularly outstanding overall performances by Courtney B. Vance as Doc, and Stephen Weber as SGT. Worcester. Also I think Tim Quill's PVT Beletsky is an excellent foil for all of the conflictual personalities in the film.
The writing is generally quite good. It toes the fine line between accuracy and entertainment. Certain lines are extremely effective, albeit most of you who are on this post are clearly non-military, and especially non-Vietnam. I spent those years stationed in Panama, US Army Jungle Training School. We all know what an "AO" is. Beyond capturing the military side of the film, the writer also captures some of the human element as well. The clearly formed partnerships between the gunner and the loader on the M60s, and older "short" vets and the cherry troops who shipped in together, the NCOs and the officers, all of these are well-done.
Finally, this film is exactly what it advertises: a close and personal look at a small group of grunts as they attacked (again and again) a hill that once they took, they would abandon.
One last point to all of these back and forth critiques: films do a lot of things. If there was NO reaction to this film, then it would be a shame. Films that create reaction, controversy, conversation, and critique, are therefore inherently successful. Winning awards or the box-office for that opening week is NOT a good standard for how GOOD a film is. And owning a bunch of DVDs DOES NOT A FILM CRITIC MAKE!!
And I bet Perl Harbour is in your top 5!
You should write more reviews. Anything you hate, I know will be a good film.
1st thing - if you are watching war films for ENTERTAINMENT, rather than to learn or grow, I feel that is really sad.
2nd - this is about WAR. You don't like it? GOOD! Stand for peace so kids like these never have to die like this again.
3rd - I hate to break it to you, but life doesn't have a plot most of the time, and war almost never seems to. It is largely senseless by its very nature. If you didn't want to see a realistic portrayal of these 10 days of battle, why did you go see it in the first place? Didn't you read the cover or see the trailer?
4th - I find it most disturbing that you could not identify with these characters and feel sorry that they died. Gee- do you need an hour of hero posturing and dramatic music around one person to open your heart to them or something? Yikes!
hey Galcierslug - I think alot of ppl out there are convinced - absolutely sold on the fact that a movie, especially a war movie, just HAS to be done so that when a character (even a minor when) is killed, the appropriate reaction by a viewer is to gasp, throw their hands over their mouth in despair, and worriedly mutter, "oh my gosh that's so sad!!!" I dont know where this expectation originated from, but I've been hearing it in one form or another for about ten years now, i.e. "Dude, that movie was great, man. I like, felt it when he died!!"
Connection to a character helps, but it isnt the only mark of a well-made (war) movie.
I don't think this was the *best* piece of cinematography out there but I certainly liked it and found it to be a perfectly sufficient source of entertainment.
I would hope veterans of the war in Vietnam (don't give me the "conflict" diatribe, I've heard it) would be satisfied with it, though I've noticed most often that veterans dislike overdramatization of the personal side of war (which is pretty much unavoidable when making a movie, it does have to sell tickets, after all).
I'd rank this movie well above Pearl Harbor, no doubt about it. I realize that isn't saying much, I don't put much stock in a flick where someone shoots down an airplane flying past them at over 300 mph with a shotgun.
What do you mean worst movie ever. Have you ever lived under these conditions, lived in the bush all night ambush been ambushed. Well I'm so sorry you had to put up with these men spending a whole 25 minutes unwinding. This movie was not only great its exactly the way it was there. Excellent movie. Oh did I mention its a true story! This hill was in fact taken and given back. Oh whats the use
shareIn response to bgunkle and his trivia quiz the answer would be "Front Towards Enemy". Thanks for the flashback, and to think they gave us weapons. Go figure.
share"a small group of grunts as they attacked (again and again) a hill that once they took, they would abandon"
I wondered about that. I know this is what happened, or at least that's what's been told, but no reference was made to it in the movie. I thought this was very strange, because the insanity of it all lies in the fact that, once taken, Hill 937 was abandoned because forces were needed elsewhere, and the hill was reoccupied by the NVA. So in a nutshell: all in vain, the dead died for nothing.
Anyway, so the story goes, I have no way to verify the claim, and as far as I know this is what happened.
Then again, mystifications abound. Some say: 241 US soldiers died, whereas Wikipedia says: In its 27 June issue, Life Magazine published the photographs of 241 Americans killed in one week in Vietnam, considered a watershed turning point in the war. While only five of these were casualties on Hamburger Hill, many Americans had the perception that all the dead were victims of the battle.
Funny you should mention this because I was recommended this movie be a nam vet that said it was the most realistic representation he'd seen.
He hadn't seen We Were Soldiers yet but I hear that is also pretty realistic.
Can't keep me off this escalator!
Just cause you can't last 25 minutes, doesn't mean it is unrealistic.
share