For a TV Movie, this film was good. The film didn't look amateurish and the overall quality was generally very good. One scene that especially stood out was when Bill Paxton rushed to the village only to see it get destroyed. However, this movie could have been much better. The most critical error of this movie is that it tries to cover too many elements and ultimately fails to fully address them to any satisfying extent. It lacked focus. There were a lot of good ideas, such as the hidden propaganda, the conflict of war strategy of various people, the familial problems, to the questionable moral and ethical values of the main character..., but most of them were dealt with not more than a dozen lines! In short, this movie needed to be more developed and needed another revision before it was released.
23 Reviews
Moral Ambiguity Abounds
CitizenCaine24 November 2003
Warning: Spoilers
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.
Not the Usual Suspects
rmax30482311 April 2002
The ordinary trajectory in a film like this during times like these is for Vann, like Philip Caputo, Ron Kowalsky and numerous other figures before him, to enter the service on the verge of exploding with patriotism, idealism, and gung-ho-ness, then to learn that the Vietnamese war was a big mistake as he is turned around by the events he witnesses. Kind of like what happens to David Janssen in "The Green Berets," only in reverse. Not so here. This is a complex and admirable story of a complex and not entirely admirable man. He is sent to Vietnam as a Lt. Colonel, bursting with enthusiasm and with his eye on promotions, true, but he does not undergo an epiphany in which God or the Buddha appears shaking a finger at him. He wants to win the war but feels it's being fought inefficiently. We need to coopt the communist revolution by getting rid of the corrupt and cowardly Vietnamese officers and giving the rice back to the peasants or something like that. He makes his views known to the press and is more or less forced to resign his commission. (The story is a bit murky on this point.) After a few years' dry spell at home he is called back to Vietnam as some sort of civilian advisor who now wears the two stars of a general and issues military orders. He has not lost his enthusiasm or his idealism and comes to believe that we can now win the war by conventional means, even after Tet. He orchestrates a heroic victory over the North Vietnamese army, then his career ends, as does his life. That's not what I would call the usual ten-cent trajectory in character development. It isn't nearly linear enough. And in that nonlinearity it resembles life more than it does fiction. Is Vann a hero? Undoubtedly. Is he a good man? Well -- yes and no. After his marriage (to the character played by Amy Madigan) he sleeps with the 15-year-old babysitter. In Vietnam he evidently lies to a beautiful young woman he seduces and tells her he's separated from his wife. On his return to Vietnam he looks up the girl again. She seems just as gorgeous, at least to these eyes, but she's changed her hair or something so he avoids her. Instead he takes up with a schoolgirl and gets her pregnant. When confronted with his self-evident guilt by the girl's father, he marries her. On the other hand, he doesn't smoke or drink. There is an attempt to account for his misbehavior by means of some half-hearted palaver about how his mother was a whore. He was an illegitimate child and blames this status for keeping him out of West Point and getting him booted out of the army. The film betrays itself here if the writers and producers really meant to put forward this information as a pat explanation of his various failures, but if they meant it mainly as the way the protagonist attempts to justify God's ways to Vann, they hit the nail on the head. (Sure I'm flawed. Wouldn't you be, with a mother like mine?) The combat scenes are pretty effective, and so is Ed Lauter, playing a sympathetic guy for a change. Too bad the leads aren't. Whatever "charisma" means, Bill Paxton as Vann doesn't have it, though he looks the part; and the reporter from the New York Times, with whom Vann has a falling out, generates a rather large hole whenever he is on screen. The girls are indescribably delicious. Neil Sheehan, on whose book this story was based, has a tendency to stretch for drama and characters that aren't there. His earlier book could not turn the Captain of the USS Vance into Queeg. But judging from this film, he has presented a more complicated picture of a man here, a more adult portrait, warts and all. All together, the time spent watching this movie is well spent. I'm not sure how close I would like to get to a man who didn't smoke or drink and who called down artillery fire on his own position but it's fascinating to know something about him at this remove.
But Who Are the Liars???
okieindian29 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Who benefits from attempts to tarnish the US Military, Political leaders, American allies and America's need to BE involved in keeping the world safe from those who would destroy us. Could it be the idiot journalists that were there, who benefited, even though they never left the "parties" of Saigon except to visit secure areas? Journalist that provided the stories that the "media" wanted. Could it be the media that benefited, and if so, what was their motive? Could it be the same motive they have today which is to destroy the image of this country all over the world. Could it be the ringleaders of the Peace movements who were nothing more doped up morons who spent much of their time seducing underage girls, getting high and raving regarding things they knew nothing about. Could it be the educational "communities' which have long been a hot bed of radicals (read that those with communists leanings? There are a lot of foreign "professors" who have been planted in American universities, as well as American born morons, who constantly "preach" against America, against God, against family values, patriotism and all the things that made America what was once upon a time. All the above and all anti-American, anti-military, anti-freedom morons, benefit greatly from their attempts to destroy a country that allows EVEN the, most simple minded, inexperienced and do nothing scum of the earth to express the most uninformed opinions.
I enjoyed the movie, because it had just enough fact to show that there was a war going on. However the Bright Shining Lie is the one told by the one who wrote the book, the ones who made the movie and those who seem so eager to make John Paul Vann look like a slime ball by presenting unproven and unwarranted "episodes" of his sexual activities and presenting him as an arrogant asshole. However if one were to check those who attended his funeral, among them were some of the war's most outspoken critics and they must have thought that John Paul Vann deserved a little respect. All things considered the movie is one continuous lie, tied together with disguised bits and pieces of factual information and combat footage. The simple minded will watch it, believe it and think that's the way it was. That's a shame!!
I enjoyed the movie, because it had just enough fact to show that there was a war going on. However the Bright Shining Lie is the one told by the one who wrote the book, the ones who made the movie and those who seem so eager to make John Paul Vann look like a slime ball by presenting unproven and unwarranted "episodes" of his sexual activities and presenting him as an arrogant asshole. However if one were to check those who attended his funeral, among them were some of the war's most outspoken critics and they must have thought that John Paul Vann deserved a little respect. All things considered the movie is one continuous lie, tied together with disguised bits and pieces of factual information and combat footage. The simple minded will watch it, believe it and think that's the way it was. That's a shame!!
Quite good actually...
paul_haakonsen20 August 2023
I have actually never heard about this 1998 war drama titled "A Bright Shining Lie" before now in 2023, as I happened to stumble upon the movie by random chance. And seeing that the movie had Bill Paxton in the lead, of course I wanted to take the time and sit down to watch it.
The storyline in "A Bright Shining Lie", as written by Neil Sheehan and Terry George, proved to be entertaining and providing a different approach to the archetypical Vietnam War-based movies. And I found that to be a refreshing thing about the movie. The storyline has elements of both the archetypical warfare, as seen in countless other movies, but also have elements of politics and powerbroking, so there was something more than just your run-of-the-mill jungle warfare.
The acting performances in the movie were good, and it was nice to see Bill Paxton in the leading role, because he carried the movie quite nicely. The movie also have the likes of Donal Logue, Amy Madigan, Harve Presnell, Robert John Burke, Vivian Wu, Ed Lauter, Ed Lauter and James Rebhorn on the cast list, so there are many familiar faces on the screen.
The cinematography in "A Bright Shining Lie" was good, because it was a nice mixture of steady camera work and a more action-packed style of camera work during the action sequences. I enjoyed that about the movie. However, I don't understand why they opted to cram in stock footage from the days of the Vietnam War, but to each their own I suppose.
If you haven't already seen "A Bright Shining Lie", and have an interest in movies based on the Vietnam War, then give director Terry George's 1998 movie a chance. I did so, and I was genuinely entertained throughout the course of the 118 minutes that the movie ran for.
My rating of "A Bright Shining Lie" lands on a six out of ten stars.
The storyline in "A Bright Shining Lie", as written by Neil Sheehan and Terry George, proved to be entertaining and providing a different approach to the archetypical Vietnam War-based movies. And I found that to be a refreshing thing about the movie. The storyline has elements of both the archetypical warfare, as seen in countless other movies, but also have elements of politics and powerbroking, so there was something more than just your run-of-the-mill jungle warfare.
The acting performances in the movie were good, and it was nice to see Bill Paxton in the leading role, because he carried the movie quite nicely. The movie also have the likes of Donal Logue, Amy Madigan, Harve Presnell, Robert John Burke, Vivian Wu, Ed Lauter, Ed Lauter and James Rebhorn on the cast list, so there are many familiar faces on the screen.
The cinematography in "A Bright Shining Lie" was good, because it was a nice mixture of steady camera work and a more action-packed style of camera work during the action sequences. I enjoyed that about the movie. However, I don't understand why they opted to cram in stock footage from the days of the Vietnam War, but to each their own I suppose.
If you haven't already seen "A Bright Shining Lie", and have an interest in movies based on the Vietnam War, then give director Terry George's 1998 movie a chance. I did so, and I was genuinely entertained throughout the course of the 118 minutes that the movie ran for.
My rating of "A Bright Shining Lie" lands on a six out of ten stars.
A Soldier with a Sordid Past Devoted to a Doomed War
tom-darwin14 May 2006
Neil Sheehan's masterpiece tells the Vietnam War story through a single biography. John Paul Vann was an American who overcame a humble background & made a distinctive, heroic career as a soldier, adding a beautiful wife & 3 kids along the way. Preparing for promotion to high rank, he went to Vietnam in the early 1960s as an adviser, one of the select few to take the fight against Communism right into combat. But Vann was also a man with deep personal issues: haunting, shaming memories of childhood poverty, a weak father & a libertine mother, leading perhaps to his own aggressive infidelities including one with an underaged girl that nearly led to court-martial. And his "fight" in Vietnam was merely a series of bureaucratic exercises in which the Americans were bogged down by South Vietnamese intrigues, both unwilling & unable to do what was necessary to defeat the Communists. Terry George explores this theme with the steady pace, methodical yet engrossing, that was later such a triumph in the remarkably similar "Hotel Rwanda." Paxton has his work cut out as the very complicated Vann, a dedicated soldier who is not only everything an Army officer should be, but also a true warrior whose devotion to victory trumps his loyalty to the establishment & thus even his own career. Yet Sheehan's Vann has a shocking capacity for self-harm, hating the ignominious background that was not his fault, indulging himself in sexual adventures that wounded his family & threatened his career as readily as he embarked on reckless combat missions. It's all Paxton's show & he takes us on a fascinating odyssey of an officer whose slow realization that the Army would rather lose the war by the book than win it by tossing away the book (it's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game?) causes him to leave the Army but, after a short, sad foray into business, return to Vietnam as a civilian administrator who steadily accumulates unique, vast military authority. Paxton's Vann wants to understand Vietnam's people & culture--but only enough to help him in his war effort--leading him to turn his back on his tormented family & take a Vietnamese wife (Wu). But for Vann, everything in his life is devoted to victory, a personal goal, an intense obsession, that he will achieve whether America or Vietnam like it or not. Paxton is suitably restrained, uttering no war cries like Stallone or Norris, making no personal journey of self-awareness or redemption as in "Apocalypse Now" or "Uncommon Valor." The professionalism of the art of war is his mantra, the belief that the everlasting principles of the true warrior will realize the high ideals of democracy & capitalism over the despair of communism. George doesn't give Paxton the opportunity to go too deeply into Vann's personal life (the book WAS very long, after all), so Vann comes across as a complex but not quite complete antihero. The other actors are there to help paint the Vann picture rather than those of their own characters. Madigan is very fine as Vann's loyal wife driven to despair as much by Vann's obsession with the abstract concept of victory as his gross infidelities. The superb Kurtwood Smith gives the best film portrayal of Westmoreland ever on screen--decisive, firm, unapproachable, unhearing--though he has only minutes to do it. Kay Tong Lim is as restrained as Paxton in depicting the clever Colonel Cao, Vann's ARVN partner & as self-serving as Vann is idealistic, who goes from being Vann's great hope to his frustration to his nemesis. The action scenes are low-budget & unremarkable, but audiences were long ago falsely conditioned to view Vietnam as a series of either personal or spectacular cowboy-vs-Indian fights. Vann's presentations for Pentagon & White House big-shots, in which he dramatically holds up handfuls of rice to underscore the importance of winning over Vietnam's farmers, are far more poignant. If the Vann of Sheehan, George & Paxton has a valediction, it's that the war was lost in Washington, not in the field--a view that's hardly original but is still very hard to wrap one's mind around. Many viewers will find "A Bright, Shining Lie" quite unsatisfying entertainment, but that's the problem with dramatizing nonfiction, the risk of presenting a story that's trying to teach. But, if it tries to teach, it doesn't try to preach, and at least the sun doesn't set in the East.
Earnest B- tv flick about an American who lived to die for Vietnam
=G=13 April 2002
"Bright Shining Lie" is a tv miniseries bio-docu-drama novel knock-off which tells of the exploits and adventures of an idealistic, single-minded maverick U.S. Army officer and curious mix of saint and sinner, John Paul Vann (Paxton), who lived for the war which eventually killed him. An earnest journeyman production, this 70% drama and 30% action flick gives a reasonably realistic, non-exploitive overview of the messy Vietnam war, its futility and its failures. Worth a look for those interested in the history of the Vietnam war.
As it really was
jhcc779545 June 2005
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.
They Call Themselves Actors?
fastball17403 February 2004
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.
Low budget, but good
alex128k2 May 2004
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 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.
Should have listened to my brother
Tim-12122 November 2004
I had received the book and DVD for Christmas last year. Being ignorant on much of the Vietnam War, I decided to read the book to see if I could apply anything to the Iraq situation. My brother told me to watch the DVD first because if I read the book first, the movie would be a huge disappointment. I read about 3/4 of the book and then watched the movie. Needless to say, the movie was a disappointment.
It tries to cover way too much in a short period of time. Bill Paxton is OK as Vann but every scene is way to short. Several characters are composite characters rather than the actual person. Donal Logue appears to be a composite of David Halberstam and Neil Sheehan. Eric Bogohosian is completely miscast as a composite of Doug Ramsey and Daniel Ellsberg (I think they call him Doug Elders in the movie).
The beauty of the book is the detail that it has. There's about 100 pages on Vann's 1962 stint and how he became completely frustrated with the American leadership in the war. There's about 100 pages on the history of Vietnam. There are about 100 pages on the Battle of Ap Bac and the fallout. The book weaves Vann's life in and out of the story of the Vietnam War. The movie makes Vann the centerpiece, so it becomes very difficult to get the background information and non-Vann information that one needs to understand Vann and the war. How could you do that in two hours?
It tries to cover way too much in a short period of time. Bill Paxton is OK as Vann but every scene is way to short. Several characters are composite characters rather than the actual person. Donal Logue appears to be a composite of David Halberstam and Neil Sheehan. Eric Bogohosian is completely miscast as a composite of Doug Ramsey and Daniel Ellsberg (I think they call him Doug Elders in the movie).
The beauty of the book is the detail that it has. There's about 100 pages on Vann's 1962 stint and how he became completely frustrated with the American leadership in the war. There's about 100 pages on the history of Vietnam. There are about 100 pages on the Battle of Ap Bac and the fallout. The book weaves Vann's life in and out of the story of the Vietnam War. The movie makes Vann the centerpiece, so it becomes very difficult to get the background information and non-Vann information that one needs to understand Vann and the war. How could you do that in two hours?
Don Juan of Vietnam
view_and_review16 November 2020
It's 1998 and we're revisiting the Vietnam War; something that had been done copiously in the 80's and a lot better.
In this flick we're focused on John Paul Vann (Bill Paxton). Why? I don't know. From what I gathered in this movie he was a self-aggrandizing adulterer. Maybe some people like that sort of person. When he wasn't screwing every young girl from America to Vietnam, he was pursuing his second passion: war. Like many arrogant men, John Paul believed he could win the war for America, the south Vietnamese, and democracy. Let him tell it and we would've had the war won in a matter of months, not the years it took for the U.S. to sheepishly withdraw.
I didn't like this movie because I didn't like the main character. He came off as the typical American: brash, sex-driven, and patronizing. Even when he was doing "good deeds" it looked like an attempt to show the poor misguided Vietnamese that Americans are good (hence better). He was going to show those Vietnamese how things should be done whether they liked it or not, and he would help himself to a couple of pretty, young, Vietnamese women while he was there. Even Vann's courageous moments too seemed self-serving.
I don't know why we needed this movie. Who asked for it? If I didn't know any better, I'd say it was written, produced, and directed by John Paul Vann. I will never understand the green light process of movie making.
In this flick we're focused on John Paul Vann (Bill Paxton). Why? I don't know. From what I gathered in this movie he was a self-aggrandizing adulterer. Maybe some people like that sort of person. When he wasn't screwing every young girl from America to Vietnam, he was pursuing his second passion: war. Like many arrogant men, John Paul believed he could win the war for America, the south Vietnamese, and democracy. Let him tell it and we would've had the war won in a matter of months, not the years it took for the U.S. to sheepishly withdraw.
I didn't like this movie because I didn't like the main character. He came off as the typical American: brash, sex-driven, and patronizing. Even when he was doing "good deeds" it looked like an attempt to show the poor misguided Vietnamese that Americans are good (hence better). He was going to show those Vietnamese how things should be done whether they liked it or not, and he would help himself to a couple of pretty, young, Vietnamese women while he was there. Even Vann's courageous moments too seemed self-serving.
I don't know why we needed this movie. Who asked for it? If I didn't know any better, I'd say it was written, produced, and directed by John Paul Vann. I will never understand the green light process of movie making.
Down to earth Vietnam retrospective
camel-920 December 1999
The Vietnam experience seen through the eyes of an officer average american with family back home and the good intentions, often rebuffed, that are frustatingly hard to put in place. After "Good Morning Vietnam", which was a non-combat movie about Americans in Vietnam, this one comes close in describing what Americans felt in the war. This movie, however, is still a combat war movie, but sprinkled with family and personal issues, presented straight forward and down to earth. Produced by HBO, it is surprisingly a good production, with good acting.
Made for TV fare
guyb-213 September 1999
Shame to see an interesting story diluted into standard "Vietnam made for TV" fare. Usually HBO movies are a substantial cut above TV. Bill Paxton was a pretty good choice for the lead role, but wasn't given much to work with.
A Great Effort
tgtround15 February 2001
While not in the same league as Go Tell The Spartans, which had the presence of Burt Lancaster if nothing else, this is a commendable effort to bring a huge and impressive piece of non-fiction to the screen.
Never shown in the cinema in the UK, my wife and I saw it on imported DVD. She was very impressed (having not read the book) and thought it conveyed something of the complexity of the subject very well and was very enlightening.
Never shown in the cinema in the UK, my wife and I saw it on imported DVD. She was very impressed (having not read the book) and thought it conveyed something of the complexity of the subject very well and was very enlightening.
Could have been better
Alex-37228 February 2002
This movie recounts the life and times of John Paul Vann, one of the movers and shakers of the US's non-military programs in the then South Vietnam. Although made in 1998, the movie has a very early to mid-1980s feel to it where production values are concerned and seems to be ignorant of and learned nothing from any movies and series made on the subject since (Tour Of Duty, Off Limits, 48 Charlie Mopic, even Hamburger Hill). The only really good effect was the artillery explosions when Vann apparently called in artillery on his own bunker.
A much more interesting and exciting movie could have been made of another book on the non-purely military aspect of the Vietnam conflict (which was essentially economic and political in nature and solution) is Orrin DeForest's "Slow Burn", a book about the much neglected area of military and political intelligence. It has intrigue, suspense, intelligence, (real) romance and comradery that in this movie is only touched on.
Anyway, because this movie is based on a book, it has a rather shallow feeling, because again (as usual) the director tries to put in too much, and doesn't connect the material and scenes in a way that is anything other than chronological. He should have picked the ones that could have blended together into a more interesting story.
A much more interesting and exciting movie could have been made of another book on the non-purely military aspect of the Vietnam conflict (which was essentially economic and political in nature and solution) is Orrin DeForest's "Slow Burn", a book about the much neglected area of military and political intelligence. It has intrigue, suspense, intelligence, (real) romance and comradery that in this movie is only touched on.
Anyway, because this movie is based on a book, it has a rather shallow feeling, because again (as usual) the director tries to put in too much, and doesn't connect the material and scenes in a way that is anything other than chronological. He should have picked the ones that could have blended together into a more interesting story.
A good story spoilt by a lousy script.
CharltonBoy10 July 2000
The first thing that i thought of after watching this film was who is the film critic for the New York post who described this film as"More powerfull than Apocolypse Now". Who ever he or she is she need to be shown the door. This film does cannot hold a light to Apocolypse Now. The story had potential but the script and the acting stank. Bill Paxton is so wooden he should be classed as a fire hazard and the diologue is abysmal. I can also pick fault in the director who made every scene short which made it confusing but more importantly ever scene had Paxton in it and his irritating southern drawl. You can tell this is a movie made for TV. 5 out of 10.
Excellent casting
gumby-2321 May 2000
This made for TV movie was absolutely fantastic as far as I am concerned. I think Dianne Crittenden did an excellent job with the cast. Bill Paxton as John Paul Vann did a great job. I don't really care for Amy Madigan, but she portrayed Mary Jane Vann divinely. Donal Logue made the perfect reporter as well.
I liked it a lot. The movie seemed to capture the earlier years WAR very well
michael-214-220 September 1999
I liked this motion picture. The work done in preparation and the use of documentary style presentation was effective, and gave the movie and story credibility. The acting was good. The part of Mary Jane was especially good, given the limited amount of screen time. Amy Madigan seems to have a knack to play the angry housewife/mother. She is GOOD at it. Just enough, not too much, just right! Bill Paxton did a believable job as lead character. The story itself is one that needs to be told over and over again, until the American people get the message of truth and LIES surrounding Viet Nam.
America's War In Vietnam In Microcosm
timdalton0078 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Truth is stranger then fiction as the saying says. If nothing else A Bright Shinning Lie proves this to be true. This 1998 HBO film is adapted from Neil Sheehan's 1988 bestseller about the extraordinary life of John Paul Vann. Vann, who came to Vietnam first in 1962 as American military adviser who later resigned from the Army before returning to Vietnam and becoming the first American civilian to have a General's command, is the film's subject and whose journey becomes a tale of America's war in Vietnam in microcosm.
Bill Paxton plays John Paul Vann, the man at the heart of the film's story. Paxton proves himself up to the task of playing Vann as man of a complex nature and contradictions. Paxton's performance as Vann covers all angels from soldier to husband to man of the world to outraged participant. While Paxton may be lacking the charisma that the real Vann is said to have had, Paxton gives us a portrait of an extraordinary man whose story is a microcosm for the Vietnam War.
The film also features a nice supporting cast of characters. Amy Madigan gives a nice, if underused, performance as Vann's wife Mary who tires to understand her husband and his actions. Donal Logue plays the film's narrator in the form of reporter Steven Burnett (based in apart on the book's author Neil Sheehan) who befriends Vann before the two later differ over the war and it is Logue's performance that makes Burnett an interesting contrast to Vann. Eric Bogosian, like Madigan, gives a nice but underused performance as Vann's fellow aid worker Doug Elders (who is based on Daniel Ellsberg who worked with Vann before later becoming famous for leaking The Pentagon Papers). The cast also includes nice performances from Vivian Wu as a Vietnamese English teacher who becomes one of Vann's lovers, Kurtwood Smith as General Westmoreland, James Rebhorn as the U.S. Ambassador and Kay Tong Lim as Vietnamese Colonel Cao Huynh Van. Together they make a nice supporting cast for Paxton's leading role.
Considering this is a relatively low budget film, production values of A Bright Shining Lie are pretty good. The film features some staged the combat scenes that convey the various forms of combat featured in the Vietnam War without being overly graphic in nature as seen during the Tet Offensive sequence. The sets come range from the highly convincing (such as the U.S. embassy in Siagon) to what one expects of a TV war movie but, for the most part anyway, they work. The film also features some nice music from Gary Chang as well as some fine use of source music and stock footage. A fine example of the marrying of source music and stock footage is the film's opening credits which features footage of a napalm raid on the jungle and Jefferson Airplane's "Somebody to Love" which struck me as odd when I first saw the film but having seen it again the use of both sums up the film and (the song at least) the character of Vann himself. As this was originally made for cable, the film doesn't betray its budget.
The film's real major faults lie in its editing and script. Both find director/screenwriter Tony George trying to condense Sheehan's nine-hundred page book (and ten years of history) into just under two hours and the results are mixed. While some sections (such as Vann's initial 1962 stint in Vietnam and his return to the United States) are covered nicely other areas, such as the Tet offensive are done in a rather rushed fashion. Vann's personal life is also explored in some detail which helps to flesh out the story though ti would have been nice to have seen more detail.
Yet while the condensing might have been somewhat mixed the story holds up. The story of John Paul Vann is, in its own way, a microcosmic version of America's war in Vietnam. Vann (like the U.S.) comes to Vietnam in the early sixties seeking to fight the Communists in what Vann himself calls "the war of the future," only to find that the South Vietnamese army is corrupt and only interested din protecting its own corrupt leaders. When Vann tires to get his superiors to listen he finds them in denial, his superiors wanting to believe that these people are capable of fighting on the supposed front lines of the Cold War. Vann ends up resigning and returning the Vietnam later on as a civilian trying to prove that the war is about the people and taking their rights away from the corrupt government. Yet as time goes on and America becomes more deeply involved in the war and as Vann (and the country's leaders) become more and more separated form the war at home, Vann becomes a part of the bright shining lie at the heart of the Vietnam War. The bright shining lie being that the United States (with help from the South Vietnamese) could win a guerrilla war by conventional means. It is a lesson learned by reporter Burnett but lost on Vann by film's end. The condensing of events might be rather mixed the story is a tale which can keep the viewers attention and asking (as Burnett does) how could it happen?
A Bright Shinning Lie is one of HBO's finest films. Though hampered by the mixed results of its script and editing the film has many pluses. From the performances of Bill Paxton and the supporting cast to well staged battles, some nice set work, a nice score and the fine marrying of stock footage and source music. Yet, the ultimate success of the film is in its story. For the extraordinary tale of John Paul Vann in Vietnam is America's war in Vietnam in microcosm. It is tale that keeps the attention of the viewer and leaving them seeking answers.
Bill Paxton plays John Paul Vann, the man at the heart of the film's story. Paxton proves himself up to the task of playing Vann as man of a complex nature and contradictions. Paxton's performance as Vann covers all angels from soldier to husband to man of the world to outraged participant. While Paxton may be lacking the charisma that the real Vann is said to have had, Paxton gives us a portrait of an extraordinary man whose story is a microcosm for the Vietnam War.
The film also features a nice supporting cast of characters. Amy Madigan gives a nice, if underused, performance as Vann's wife Mary who tires to understand her husband and his actions. Donal Logue plays the film's narrator in the form of reporter Steven Burnett (based in apart on the book's author Neil Sheehan) who befriends Vann before the two later differ over the war and it is Logue's performance that makes Burnett an interesting contrast to Vann. Eric Bogosian, like Madigan, gives a nice but underused performance as Vann's fellow aid worker Doug Elders (who is based on Daniel Ellsberg who worked with Vann before later becoming famous for leaking The Pentagon Papers). The cast also includes nice performances from Vivian Wu as a Vietnamese English teacher who becomes one of Vann's lovers, Kurtwood Smith as General Westmoreland, James Rebhorn as the U.S. Ambassador and Kay Tong Lim as Vietnamese Colonel Cao Huynh Van. Together they make a nice supporting cast for Paxton's leading role.
Considering this is a relatively low budget film, production values of A Bright Shining Lie are pretty good. The film features some staged the combat scenes that convey the various forms of combat featured in the Vietnam War without being overly graphic in nature as seen during the Tet Offensive sequence. The sets come range from the highly convincing (such as the U.S. embassy in Siagon) to what one expects of a TV war movie but, for the most part anyway, they work. The film also features some nice music from Gary Chang as well as some fine use of source music and stock footage. A fine example of the marrying of source music and stock footage is the film's opening credits which features footage of a napalm raid on the jungle and Jefferson Airplane's "Somebody to Love" which struck me as odd when I first saw the film but having seen it again the use of both sums up the film and (the song at least) the character of Vann himself. As this was originally made for cable, the film doesn't betray its budget.
The film's real major faults lie in its editing and script. Both find director/screenwriter Tony George trying to condense Sheehan's nine-hundred page book (and ten years of history) into just under two hours and the results are mixed. While some sections (such as Vann's initial 1962 stint in Vietnam and his return to the United States) are covered nicely other areas, such as the Tet offensive are done in a rather rushed fashion. Vann's personal life is also explored in some detail which helps to flesh out the story though ti would have been nice to have seen more detail.
Yet while the condensing might have been somewhat mixed the story holds up. The story of John Paul Vann is, in its own way, a microcosmic version of America's war in Vietnam. Vann (like the U.S.) comes to Vietnam in the early sixties seeking to fight the Communists in what Vann himself calls "the war of the future," only to find that the South Vietnamese army is corrupt and only interested din protecting its own corrupt leaders. When Vann tires to get his superiors to listen he finds them in denial, his superiors wanting to believe that these people are capable of fighting on the supposed front lines of the Cold War. Vann ends up resigning and returning the Vietnam later on as a civilian trying to prove that the war is about the people and taking their rights away from the corrupt government. Yet as time goes on and America becomes more deeply involved in the war and as Vann (and the country's leaders) become more and more separated form the war at home, Vann becomes a part of the bright shining lie at the heart of the Vietnam War. The bright shining lie being that the United States (with help from the South Vietnamese) could win a guerrilla war by conventional means. It is a lesson learned by reporter Burnett but lost on Vann by film's end. The condensing of events might be rather mixed the story is a tale which can keep the viewers attention and asking (as Burnett does) how could it happen?
A Bright Shinning Lie is one of HBO's finest films. Though hampered by the mixed results of its script and editing the film has many pluses. From the performances of Bill Paxton and the supporting cast to well staged battles, some nice set work, a nice score and the fine marrying of stock footage and source music. Yet, the ultimate success of the film is in its story. For the extraordinary tale of John Paul Vann in Vietnam is America's war in Vietnam in microcosm. It is tale that keeps the attention of the viewer and leaving them seeking answers.
awesome, great film
dantonstl23 November 2017
i really liked this movie. I never got into Bill Paxton too much, but this was as good as I've seen him act. The film seemed really authentic void of a few scenes and maybe even relationships. Donal Logue is pretty young and Im pretty sure this is one of his first films to have starred in. A lot of the characters are recognizable, be it from Clint eastwood Dirty Harry films to even Robocop. Eric Bogdosian pops up within the film surprisingly for a stint as a coworker soldier and even plain civilian I think. There's not much for me to say because I wasn't alive during this time, but the film basically goes from 1963 to 1969 during its duration.
An American tragedy
MarioB4 August 1999
This TV movie is simply awful! There's no imagination, no innovation, the cast is bad (while Paxton tries hard to be
honest), the story is weak and there's an army of clichés: Viet girls are easy to seduce, everybody's crying when the radio tells that JFK was shot. There was Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter, or Platoon, to tell everybody how stupid this Viet-Nam war was. But in the 1990's, HBO produce this movies in a very conservative way, for very conservative people, tryin' hard to find a patriotic hero for this nonsense war. This movie is an insult for the young people who died at this war. The 1990's are a very very sad period...
honest), the story is weak and there's an army of clichés: Viet girls are easy to seduce, everybody's crying when the radio tells that JFK was shot. There was Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter, or Platoon, to tell everybody how stupid this Viet-Nam war was. But in the 1990's, HBO produce this movies in a very conservative way, for very conservative people, tryin' hard to find a patriotic hero for this nonsense war. This movie is an insult for the young people who died at this war. The 1990's are a very very sad period...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
