Danger Close (2019) User Reviews

Too close for comfort

[kosmasp · 8/10 · 31 January 2021]

Close calls and other things that indicate that danger is ... well close by. As the title already tells you, this is about the Battle of Long Tan. I was not really aware of that battle or what went down and who won (no pun intended). And I did not just pick this from my Prime to watch because one very well known Vikings actor is in it. It was fun to see him in something else than in a Vikings setting though.

And he is front and center again in this one. He has to make decisions that have impact on not just him and his crew, but many others. Now war movies are tough to watch - but if they are as well made as this one, they are also quite beautiful (and yes I'm aware of the irony, especially in this very vivid effort, that shows us the repercussions)! For some this may feel a bit over the top at places, but overall it does stay grounded. And has us in the middle of it all ... not for the faint of hearted for sure

What a story

[nathanmanson · 7/10 · 11 October 2021]

Before I get into anything (you can thumb this down if I'm an idiot) I'm confused how the major had a jug of water with ice in it, where is getting ice from in the middle of the Forrest. The film it's self was really well down with wall to wall action from the get go and it's so fun to watch. I love films like this because i didn't even know the battle of long tan even existed but now I do. When private Paul large was talking about his fiancé and Harry smith was talking about his wife and kids I just knew one of them was going to die. I was praying I was going to be wrong but when it happened it hit me hard, it definitely set off the water works. It's a very underrated war film with a lot of emotions, I recommend it highly if you enjoy war films like me.

They Were Just Boys

[diogenes-858-449167 · 8/10 · 8 February 2020]

A lot more soldiers have been killed in single battles in other wars, but not boys from a nation so young as ours was in Vietnam, August 1966. Director Kriv Stenders honed his craft in 20 years of Australian television before tackling the sticky subject of our involvement in the Vietnam war, for the big screen. The story he chose, the battle of Long Tan, eptiomises the mess Vietnam was for anti-communist allied military.

Our small number of troops had no fighting experience in the terrain and climate of south east asia. Our government instated conscription to find the troop numbers it was tasked with sending, in support of the U.S., New Zealand, and a handful of developing anti-communist asian countries. North Vietnam (communist Viet Cong) were well equipped by the U.S.S.R. and China, and knew their battle ground well. This battle of Long Tan story isn't a turning point in the war. It is a frightening reality of how close fragile human beings are to catastrophe when battlefield circumstances quickly change.

Stenders executes the story with a firm, professional hand from the outset. Ben Nott's camera work thoroughly enhances the atmosphere, character development and storyline. Visual and special effects were seriously well embedded in the action. Production values are excellent throughout. Sound and editing also deserve a special mention. While I felt he stunts got off to a slow start, once the director and cameraman found their stride, the impact of the firefights was ferocious and all too believable. This was no mean feat. A good two thirds of this movie is from the POV of young conscripts, pinned under heavy fire, surviving and surrounded by exploding artillery. Stenders manages to keep us sufficiently connected to the characters amid this deadly chaos, without resorting to usual battlefield cliche's. The result is gripping, and at times heartbreaking. And, much to Stenders credit, there isn't a wasted frame.

There are a lot of good performances rung in in this movie. Travis Fimmel nails his Majory Harry Smith role and captures the screen. This fella can act, and he knows what he gives the camera. He imbues each scene with appropriate weight and intensity. Richard Roxburgh is at the peak of his film acting powers in this one. He could have made his antagonistic Brigadier Jackson into a two dimensional character and gotten away with it. But he, too, shows his craft. He provides us solid glimpses of Jackson's conflict and humanity, trapped beneath the institution of his command.

I've said this in other reviews, and it holds true for this one. The supporting cast is uniformly good. I'm leaving many names out here that should be included, but just peruse the cast list for those not mentioned. They all equally deserve to be. Daniel Webber as the fresh faced Private Large, Nicholas Hamilton's Private Grimes,Mojean Aria's Second Lieutenant Gordon Sharp, Stephen Peacocke, Luke Bracey, Myles Pollard and Uli Latukefu, who stole scenes amid firing field artillery, show how well directed this movie is, and how much this story meant to the actors. That there was room in this film to lend the enemy a more human face is a small criticism given what is acheived. The battle of Long Tan was a frightening punctuation point in our history. While Stender's film reveals itself a study of courage under fire, it has taken Australia decades to fully understand the cost of sending these19, 20, 21 year old conscripts into battle. I hope we learn from history, this lesson is never to be repeated.

A solid war film

[BeeeMaar · 7/10 · 14 September 2020]

There's not much wrong with this film, but don't get taken in by the hyperbole in a lot of the reviews here. It certainly isn't a 10/10, and it isn't the greatest war film ever made - it's not even close to that. It's a solid, watchable film, about a real event that means a lot to Australian and Kiwi forces.

There's some decent action sequences, although I'd credit the Vietcong with slightly better tactics than simply running blindly towards automatic weapons, which seems to be the default for most of the film. You can also have fun ticking off the war film cliches - likeable character talking about what he's going to do when all this is over - check, man in desperate situation calling in fire support on his own position - check.

If you want an independent film that might actually be one of the greatest war films ever made, I'd strongly recommend Kajaki - this really isn't in the same league, good though it is.

Very good work

[Luigi Di Pilla · 7/10 · 28 December 2019]

It was very interesting and I feIt to be directly on the battle field. I bought the dvd cause i have read many good reviews about this true Vietnam war movie. The special effects were really well done and the soldiers delivered a top performance. The cinematography is very good too. The story shows how the very young Australian army planned the combat against the Vietcongs. Don't miss this if you are interested in this genre of films. Check the other one with Mel Gibson We Were Soldiers. 7/10.

Independent review from dutch guy

[stijn-7 · 6/10 · 11 December 2019]

So, I read the reviews and then watched the movie. It is not a top movie like platoon. but the movie is ok. I watched the film without skipping forward (that is a plus). But this is not worth more than a 6. Story line is somewhat vague and the acting talent is moderate. yes, if you are from australia it must be great to see this film. But be honest Aussies, this is not a 10

Recommended - moving and technically brilliant

[TrevorJD · 9/10 · 15 June 2019]

Went to the first public screening at the Sydney Film Festival tonight with members of my family and sat in the front row in a packed cinema. Director Kriv Stenders has taken a big undertaking in telling this highly recognised Australian and New Zealand battle of the Vietnam War that has however been long overdue in getting a major screen treatment. He has succeeded brilliantly. The film's relentless action and attention to detail are mixed in with moving scenes of young conscripts and volunteer soldiers grappling to stay alive in order to return to their loved ones at home. Much like Peter Weir's Gallipoli the mateship ethos shines in this movie. However, unlike that film, most of Danger Close concentrates on the battle itself, and what a technically amazing film it is in presenting and creating a visceral and tense atmosphere for the audience.The performances are excellent all round but particular mention must go to Daniel Webber as Private Paul Large, his moving portrayal of a young conscript struggling and battling courageously to help his mates and himself survive, while looking forward to returning home to his fiance and family is brilliant. As noted earlier the action in this film is relentless, from start to finish, however it never ignores the humanity and futility of war through the loss of life of many young soldiers. The roll call of ANZAC soldiers who died in the battle, noted at the end of the film with their ages, makes that abundantly clear. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

I can't stop the tears

[Gordon-11 · 29 August 2020]

This film shows how brutal the battle is. The terrifying waste of lives is very sad. I can't stop the tears, even after the film finished. I think this is a must see film for everyone.

Mediocre war/action movie

[RecklessTurtle · 6/10 · 6 August 2020]

Not sure why this movie is rated so high by some viewers. Maybe all Auzzies joined forces to up the score? Who knows... Anyhow, the movie is a decent Vietnam war movie with a twist, looking into the issue with Australian eyes. Yet I was excepting some deep, conflicting discussions among the soldiers and top-brass to dissect the issue of "what the hell are we doing here, fighting the American's war?" but it was never explored. Some good aspects: The locations and set pieces were nice. The acting is above average. It is always good to see Ragnar in a crazy person role. Unique Auzzie weapons was a nice touch. To compensate all that, some bad points: The story is unnecessary convoluted. You don't follow-up what happens where and why and who is in danger now. Pacing is also off. Dialogues are cheesy most of the time, especially between the two main characters. This movie could have been much better if the screenplay was written by a more competent writer. Such a missed opportunity.

Iconic Australian Movie

[adamer-74973 · 10/10 · 16 June 2019]

I watched this movie at the Sydney Film Festival ahead of its official release. Thank you to everyone involved in making this movie. It is important that Australian stories such as this are told. The Australian values of mateship and the larrikin spirit are at the centre of this true story. If you identify as being an Australian, you need to go and see this movie when it comes to cinemas in August. I'll be going to see it again when it is officially released. It is one of those movies which leaves you thinking about it well after leaving the cinema. 10 out of 10.

Aussies and Kiwis before my time (August 18, 1966)

[Bernie4444 · 7/10 · 28 October 2023]

I volunteered on 28 Oct 66 and did not make Vietnam until 1967-68. I only saw a hand full of Diggers.

During the battle of Long Tran, 108 Australian and New Zealand soldiers held off a North Vietnamese force of over 2000. 18 Australians and an estimated 245 Vietnamese lost their lives.

The terrain and the artillery pieces looked quite different as they are shown in the movie. Filming Locations: Village Roadshow Studios, Oxenford, Queensland, Australia. The SLR rifles looked real, but the M16s were not E-1s or E-2s; actually, the 16 rifles were not introduced to the Australian Army until 1967. You could use the flash suppressor of the E1 to break the bands on "c-ration" cases. I still have an AR15.

However, this is a movie, and it does not have to be factual. It is the people integration that makes or breaks this movie for the viewer. Oh, yes and there is a lot of action for those that like a lot of action.

Talking about action, we get an APC charge that looks like Tarzan and the elephants at the last minute. The only problem with that is that no one would be caught in an APC. We always rode on top (usually including the driver) as one good RPG shot would burn a good two-inch hole in the aluminum hull on its way through. I had to clean up body parts from an RPG that went through the driver and into the engine compartment taking a lot of drivers with it.

The U. S. military was not as professional at the time, but they were disciplined and not arrogant as the soldiers in this movie are portrayed.

You get to hear "These Boots Are Made for Walkin'" Artist: Nancy Sinatra Release year: 1966

"He's my Blond-Headed, Stompie-Wompie, Real Gone Surfer Boy" (1964) Emmy Dougall played the singer Little Pattie

Also, you get to hear "I was only 19 (a Walk in the Light Green)" by John Schumann.

In memory of those members of D COY and 3TP IACP Sqn who gave their lives during the Battle of Long Tan on 18th August 1966.

To make the movie entertaining they added fictional characters and incidents.

Be sure to watch the credits.

Bad Start, But Good Finish

[AngelHonesty · 8/10 · 28 January 2020]

The movie took a little while to get to the action, making the beginning a little boring; they also didn't add in any background story to the main characters in the film, which down graded it a little more. But Once the movie picked up and you got to the battle scenes it turned into a good war film. It was very intriguing to know that this was based off of a true event that happened. Knowing that it was true made it worth while to watch. The filming was great and the actors were extremely believable. The war scenes were greatly filmed and action packed as the explosions and gun fire looked extremely real. It's defiantly worth a watch if you like war movies.

solid war movie

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 19 November 2019]

It's 1966 South Vietnam. Australia and New Zealand have sent their soldiers to support the Americans. Many are inexperienced conscripts. After a mortar attack, a platoon of a hundred soldiers are dispatched to search and destroy any nearby enemies. They run into and are attacked by overwhelming forces. This is a solid war movie with harrowing action. The characters are mostly one-dimensional which is expected. I would have liked more from the Vietnamese side especially their strategy. They are basically the cannon-fodder Indians in an old western. I don't like one specific montage and a few acting choices. Of course, the fight ends with the cavalry arriving at the nick of time. Quite frankly, this movie relies on a few too many old Hollywood war movie tropes. This is pretty solid.

An episode of Tour of Duty is better

[butikkmb · 4/10 · 16 May 2022]

Acting is hit and miss. Some is good, a lot of it is wooden

Dialogue is pretty cliché

No character development, so it's just two groups of people shooting at each other and you don't really care about how it ends

Obviously filmed on a farm and Queensland. Felt nothing like Vietnam.

As an Australian, I expected to feel more, but it was just a mechanical box-ticking movie that I didn't connect with due to the cliché lines, wooden acting, zero character development and off-location filming.

A missed opportunity...

[pbank · 6/10 · 5 December 2019]

An important event in Australia's involvement in the war in Vietnam, I was looking forward to this film. In this film I found the atmosphere too "clean", the script lacking and the acting pedestrian. There was no feeling of the horrors and the insanity of war and battle. It's a shame because it appears the budget was there, just some very poor choices.

Superb new Vietnam war movie shown from another perspective

[omendata · 7/10 · 8 November 2019]

I love my war movies and this is a particularly good one but shown from the non-USA viewpoint this time.

Most people I would imagine don't have a clue that the Aussies and NZ boys were involved in the Vietnam war due to all the previous films and its been a long time since we have had another Vietnam war movie since the excellent and my favourite Vietnam war series TOUR OF DUTY was made or movies like HAMBURGER HILL and PLATOON so this is also a refreshing surprise. It also gives the viewer a bit more of the history and involvement of other nations in the Vietnam war!

Negatives - Although the characterisation is a bit lax and the acting could be a bit more intense; it seems a bit laid back at times which affects the suspense, nevertheless the movie still moves at speed, has some great slow-mo scenes similar in style to the recent superlative Russian movie T-34. The location however does not really feel like it was shot in Vietnam or any jungle anywhere but somewhere in NZ Or Aus.

Nevertheless it shows what the Aussies went through during the war and gives a real feel for the conditions and sheer terror of that war in a way that is more visceral and true to life than Platoon or any of the American variants did and if you are into your action sequences then you will absolutely not be disappointed.

I rarely give a movie more than 5/6 out of ten stars these days; if even that but this one is lifted well out of the average bracket and gets a fair 7/10 from me!

It was a rubber plantation, stupids!

[jonsmith-87219 · 7/10 · 24 October 2021]

So many idiot reviewers complaining about the supposed lack of authenticity of the "Vietnamese jungle" the perfectly spaces trees, etc.

If they had bothered to listen, it was mentioned and illustrated many times the battle took place in an enormous rubber plantation in South Vietnam.

Even if it was not mentioned, it should have been plainly obvious, the rubber sap being collected from the trees, etc.

This was a good film good but not epic.

A gripping war film. One of the best I've seen.

[tommy-291 · 9/10 · 30 July 2019]

I viewed this at my local cinema with no preconceptions. I'd not seen the trailer and all I knew was it was an Australian film set during the Vietnam war.

It was gripping from the very beginning and had me entertained throughout. The special effects and action sequences were on par with anything Hollywood has ever produced and the Australian accents and story resonated with me as an Australian myself.

The cinematography, music score and sound overall is impressive leaving me ducking in my seat as bullets and mortar rounds fired.

I have no knowledge on how historically accurate the film is but it does make references to the specific events that unfolded in 1966. The war servicemen who lost their lives are honoured and it portrays the ANZACS with deserving respect. I'll be recommending this film to my friends and family to see at the cinema. I hope to see it available on home movie streaming services in future to watch again.

HOW DO YOU GET THE PRINCIPLE WEAPON WRONG?

[welly-4 · 7/10 · 9 August 2019]

From the outset I have to say that I have been waiting 30 odd years for this film to be made after first reading the books about it, so my expectations were high. Overall, a good film, but I do have some issues with it. First and foremost is the inexcusable over-use of American M-16's throughout the film. The 7.62 mm L1A1 self-loading rifle (SLR) was the standard infantry weapon used by the Australian Army during the Vietnam War. Occasional M-16's may have been used here and there by forward scouts (not in this film), but that's a pretty obvious and sad mistake to make. The absurdity of this would also play out when D Company ran critically low of ammunition and required a gallant aerial re-supply - the distribution of two different size types of ammunition; 5.56mm (for the M-16's) and 7.62mm (for the SLR's) on the battlefield would be shambolic at best. There is also a scene in the film that shows the patrolling soldiers all with their weapons pointing the same direction (left). Australian Army infantry patrol with every other soldier's weapon pointing the opposite direction to the man in front (ie; left, right, left, right, and so on) - so that when a contact is made - return fire can be laid down immediately towards the enemy regardless of where the contact came from. My other main criticism of the film is the portrayal of the chain of command being portrayed as so un-professional that every soldier of rank in the film at some stage disobeys direct orders from their superior officer. They even have a scene were a private physically attacks a Major in the field - which then somehow inexplicably evolves into an unlikely schmaltzy bromance. For me this bromance was probably the weakest part of the film (besides using the wrong weapons - did I mention that?) Thankfully the stronger parts of the film such as the initial 'contact' and ensuing battle in the rubber plantation with artillery rounds crashing all around them is outstanding. The impact of soldiers being hit by enemy fire and thrown around like rag dolls from explosions is brilliantly executed. Most of the CG used in the film was OK, - not brilliant, but better than usual for an Aussie film. The scene with the U.S. F4 Phantoms was getting my blood going until the aircraft banked to the left, making me wonder if the CG computer artists have ever actually watched footage of a jet aircraft bank and turn in the air (this criticism isn't in any way reserved for Australian films either - other U.S. big budget blockbusters have equally failed with realistic CG aircraft motion). To conclude, the strong elements of the film in most ways make up for the weak elements and mistakes. The sad part for me though, is that the weak parts and mistakes could have been so easily avoided or overcome that they could have, should have made a more superior film.

Exceeded my expectations

[RR1107 · 10/10 · 17 June 2019]

I had high hopes for this movie, retelling this famous battle of the Vietnam War. I had previously seen the excellent documentary by Red Dune Films, and was expecting that this film would draw largely from it. However, this is a film and not a documentary, built around the experiences of the main characters, underscored by a brilliant sound track. The action sequences were about the best I've seen for a war movie. The ending is very moving. I'm glad I took the opportunity to see the pre-release at the Sydney Film festival.

Great battle scenes, medicore character development

[ragingbull_2005 · 6/10 · 30 January 2022]

Along with the US, other nations also had a tumultuous time in Vietnam.

This is about a stand off between one platoon of Aussie and Kiwi soldiers against a battalion force of North Vietnamese VCs.

The character development is amateurish and the editing, of non action scenes, is below the mark.

The battle scenes are a different story altogether. Running for almost 75 minutes out of the 105 minute runtime, these are intense, gory, thrilling with men on both sides being blown to smithereens, in their attempts to lay claim to the land. _Danger Close_ in the title comes from an artillery term, which means that the enemy is mortally close and the shell launch has to be calibrated carefully.

Their ferocity surprised me and made me forget the passage of time, for many moments.

Recommended, for fans of action / war movies.

Historically Accurate record of the Battle of Long Tan

[jdkarmch · 10/10 · 19 August 2019]

As a retired Australian Army Officer who trained for the type of battle depicted in this story and having been trained by several of those depicted in this movie, I found Danger Close to be both technically and historically correct. Any student of the Battle of Long Tan will relate to this film. It takes you there and makes one feel that they are really at the scene of the battle. I was impressed by how the film portrayed several incidents which actually happened. While this is a dramatisation I found that it was handled well. It gives one the sense of understanding of what actually happened. This is a landmark production for Australia. It is a film that tells the story, a story which many Australians have heard about but don't understand. I came away feeling deeply moved and will be going back to see it again. I highly recommend it. Truly a story that has to be seen.

Just a typical shoot and scoot

[nogodnomasters · 6/10 · 11 February 2020]

Australian troops get lured and pinned down at the Long Tan rubber plantation on August 8, 1966. The film is based on a true story and most of the production is gunfire and guys getting killed. There is some early character build-up and a performance by Little Pattie (Emmy Dougall) an Australian pop-star who was actually there and eventually married one of the boys in the band.

The title comes from the request for artillery fire which was required to be "danger close" because of the proximity of the enemy. For some reason, the battle didn't make that great of a film. Maybe if they had shown part of it from the NVA view.

Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity.

Ludicrous drama

[jameskerr75 · 4/10 · 13 July 2020]

I have to admit I didn't watch this all the way through. I just couldn't deal with the pointless drama, terrible script and cringe worthy acting. I just don't understand why the writers and director couldn't have historians, military experts and actual veterans on the set to make the whole thing less laughable. Picture the pride of the Easy Company veterans watching Band of Brothers, knowing they'd been well represented as a professional and successful fighting force. Then picture Delta Company watching themselves drink, fight, smoke on patrol, argue with the chain of command pointlessly and refuse to stand to because of a card game. Great idea, poor execution.

The visuals and early development are great, but the ending is not very good.

[sininjae · 6/10 · 31 August 2022]

At the beginning of the character build-up, the character between each character was on the good side. However, if you watch the battle against the Vietcongs in the second half, it is developed from a very general point of view, so sometimes you get goosebumps. Of course, it's an enemy from Australia's point of view, but it's only used too much. Take, for example, director Cleat Eastwood. He made a movie called Flags of Our Fathers and a movie called Letters From Iwo Jima. You can feel the irony of humanity and war while watching each movie. In particular, Letters From Iwo Jima received a higher rating than Flags of Our Fathers and was a box office success, so it is ironic in some ways. However, this film portrays the Viet Cong as an axis of evil that is too mechanical in a way that is too general. Not good. However, other factors were generally satisfactory.