Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

dantonstl 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.

adonis98-743-186503 Something in his past keeps career Army man John Paul Vann from advancing past colonel. He views being sent to Vietnam as part of the US military advisory force a stepping stone to promotion. However, he disagrees vocally (and on the record) with the way the war is being run and is forced to leave the military. Returning to Vietnam as a civilian working with the Army, he comes to despise some South Vietnamese officers while he takes charge of some of the U.S. forces and continues his liaisons with Vietnamese women. A Bright Shining Lie is unfortunately a very mediocre film and although the acting was good i felt that Bill Paxton was very miscasted here and i did not like the way they flash out his character also most of the things that happen here are actual real life footage and i totally get it this is a TV Movie and also from HBO but if Forrest Gump could do it so could they right? But overall a life disappointment (5.5/10)

jhcc77954 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.

fastball1740 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.