Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

rzajac After reading various comments, many of which accuse the flick of being a propaganda piece, I had to check it out.I think it's fantastic. And I'm a DFH, long-haired, radical libertarian who felt, and still feel, that the American actions in Vietnam were a war crime. McNamara shouldn't have been able to retire and write this memoirs; he should have been hung.The production, writing, directing, acting, editing simply work to tell the tale and show the strain. One commenter was bothered by the splintered, disjointed nature of the production; which feels like it derived directly from the script. I sort of wonder if the reason it didn't bother me was that the mythic payload of the production is so strong that I indulge this disjointedness and see it as a natural reflection of the attitude of mind brought on by that strain. Of course, surviving the experience, psychologically, means that you have to gather those disjointed shards and assemble them into something you can understand when you find a few precious moments to do so. Furthermore, I was often struck by the lucid beauty of these fragments of shimmering humanity; of people clinging, moment by moment to their lives and the promise of solidarity.I guess I do want to highlight the writing. I'm a sort of fuddy-duddy who believes that the highest of this kind of art must rest on a foundation of beautiful writing; and I felt the script just glowed. On one level, it was a simple matter of creating that kind of hard, sturdy, dangerous realism; the kind of realism that all too often gets jettisoned by producers, in the interest of... what? In the interest, I suppose, of avoiding the danger of telling a real story, hence, not hewing to safe, standard-issue stuff that's guaranteed to fill the seats of theaters. How did it come to pass that the script survived the process and didn't get dumbed down by a script doctor? I think I understand now why the film did lousy at the box office: It's too, too honest.And, make no mistake, I agree with the "gooks" that the American servicemen under their purview *were* criminals. They were criminals allied under a system that institutionalizes "values" of courage, fidelity, service--and all the rest of it--to the purpose of traveling half-way 'round the world to kill and otherwise terrorize in the interests of western capital. Vietnam was a war crime. And that doesn't detract a whit from the stunning drama we witness in this flick: If anything, I think it enhances it! In fact, if you're one of those who sees those servicemen as selfless servants of "freedom" and "democracy"--and despises what I've written above--watch the flick again with what I've said in mind, and see if the dramatic effect isn't even stronger.Well, I've gone and done it: I rated it a '10'; very rare for me! I can't emphasize enough what a miracle this production is, again, for its refusal to submit to the usual production process that only serves to trivialize and denigrate the subject matter. I can plainly see why it "failed" as a film "product"... and why it may well be worthy of consideration as a historical document.

Wizard-8 First of all, I feel I should say that I am not against the idea of a movie praising U.S. soldiers who were imprisoned by the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. These soldiers suffered greatly, and their stories are stories that need to be told. "The Hanoi Hilton" was obviously an attempt to tell these soldiers' stories, but it is greatly uneven. One big problem is that the movie has a number of heavy-handed touches, namely with certain characters. It's not just with some of the communists (the prison warden, a visiting Cuban military officer), but also with liberal western characters (a visiting journalist, a Jane Fonda clone). The movie also takes way too long to get to the 1970s, and then it starts moving so quickly that the viewer barely gets a chance to absorb the now quickly unfolding scenes. And Michael Moriarty, while giving good performances in other works, is really miscast here. He seems too wimpish and meek to be a military person of high rank.On the other hand, every so often there is a really good touch in the movie. The period detail is pretty good for the most part; real P.O.W.s praised the look of the movie. Some of the acting by the mostly no-name cast is pretty convincing, and there are a few scenes (a torture sequence with the audio cut out, the P.O.W.s having a Christmas dinner) that are really well done and have genuine power. So the movie is far from terrible, but it also isn't exceptional. You may learn some things from this movie, but I have a feeling that if you want to learn what it was really like for these unfortunate men, you might find a book on the subject matter more informative.

internationaldave DTUCKER.86 says it all. I served in the Army from June '73 to '76, so I had the misfortune to miss serving my Country with the true heroes. I also do a lot of reading, own hundreds of books, all non-fiction (with the exception of the only fiction book I own, The Warren Commission Report on the assassination of J.F.K.). Included in my collection are P.O.W. stories (any war) and these men went through HELL! Jane Fonda should have been THERE! Did any of you know how many of these HEROES were starved to death? The Dinks did not claim it was torture. They claimed, "no torture" because these Heroes (according to them) were "War criminals", so they were not covered under the Geneva Accords. Vietnam signed the G.A's, but in order to get away with torture, they claimed these Heroes were not soldiers, but "criminals". Anyway, I could go on. We cannot forget the men who may still be alive there. Our government never has cared. Shameful. I have never seen the movie, but I will purchase it when /if I ever come across it. Please, people, when you meet ANY veterans, please look them in the eye, shake their hands, and THANK them for the good work they did. I do, and will always do this. Vietnam vets are a forgotten breed, got shot at and hit, and #@%& on and hit when they got home. Jane Fonda COULD have been executed for what she did, but "Daddy" had a lot of pull and saved her. She half-heartedly apologized, too little, too late. Her agent probably told her it would be a good idea. Well, I intend to see this movie. Sorry about my rantings, but the Veterans out there understand and agree. Thank you all for your time.Also, "freidurchdietat" had some nasty things to say about this movie. Life in a P.O.W. camp is not an "Action Story" with p.o.w's shooting up communist captors. They weren't issued any weapons. Lucky to get a spoon. No, it was not intended for the "MTV Generation" but those "kids" should be required to watch it. "A big turnoff"? This movie is obviously way above your intelligence. Go back to "M.T.V.", your Chuck Norris hyper-action films, and leave the veterans alone. Better yet, run on down and join the Marine Corps. If you are lucky, maybe a D.I. will take you around back of the barracks and adjust your attitude. internationaldave@gmail.com

steve-692 Very compelling and realistic portrayal of life as a N.Vietnam POW and how opinion at home affected their situation. You can read Jane Fonda's own broadcasts to verify that the "portrayal" of her and Tom Hayden was not a caricature. Few Americans understood the impact their views and actions had on American soldiers and POWs. There are several standout performances, especially by Moriarity, Pressman, Jones and "Starsky and Hutch" star,David Soul. Although intentionally episodic and semi-documentary in style-the period covered was after all, 9 years -the film is nonetheless compelling. However it's main goal seems to tell the story and not make great "film".This is not Mallick's " The Thin Red Line"(a superb, introspective film). H. Hilton's view that the strength of US military training and code of honor, the value and support of religion in tough times and it's admiration of the "average guy" is more in line with Scott's "Blackhawk Down" and Stephen Ambrose's influenced Speilberg film, "Saving Private Ryan" Neither of these films are as artistic as Mallicks-but all are true to the reality of the specific event.An interesting film to view in conjunction with the H.Hilton is the fictional and quite propagandist " Coming Home" starring Jane Fonda.In that film only Vets who denounced the war(nothing wrong with that)are given credibility. Fonda's husband in the film, Bruce Dern, is not only a joke as a soldier (his metal is for being shot in the rear end)but as a man-he has never given his wife an orgasm-that's left to hero Jon Voight, a paraplegic who renounces the war. Dern ultimately drowns himself. Talk about a loaded deck. No recognition in that film that an American GI who supports his country might have the character of any of the POWs in the Hanoi Hilton. These men were the "forgotten men" of the 60's/early 70's- The Hanoi Hilton was not at all popular at the box office and vilified by many in the Hollywood community when it was made-but it was ahead of it's time content-wise and quite brave for it.