Tetrady not as good as all the hype

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Jerrie It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

drystyx This is a fascinating war story, but it's more than that. It's a "psychological expose", and to this day I am not sure if even the writer realizes what he exposes.On the surface, we see a tragic war incident go awry due to a misunderstanding and lack of communication. From the point of view on the surface, it seems that the members of an American squad try to accomplish a task by what has to be an insanely stupid method. They believe the tragedy occurs because of one man whom they actually set up to cause the tragedy.In this case, the tragedy involves a "fake skirmish" in which the Germans can avoid being executed by their own army for surrendering.And that's where the writer implicates the "mob" instead of the "one soldier". We get a look a "mob mentality". There simply is no way to whitewash this as the mania of the character played by Gary Sinise. Instead, this "vindicates" his character, and implicates the other Americans.There simply is no way to deny that the other members of the squad intentionally set it up for disaster, though one can say their intent was "subconscious". However, I don't buy this, and only a fool would buy into it.I've been in such situations where the "mob majority" purposely sabotaged one person, no matter what the results, just out of a demonic need. This is not "miscommunication". It's demonic hatefulness.War is an arena for such maniacs to try to play God, but as we see, they are fully incompetent. It doesn't turn out the way they intend it to. Had they "communicated" the "fake skirmish" to the one soldier they sabotage, everything would work out. Their desire to sabotage him is so great, as is their desire to see blood, that they believe they can create a situation to dishonor their own "comrade".It is this lack of "camaraderie" that is exposed. It isn't a lack on the part of one soldier. He is painted as the sociopath, when in fact the narration vindicates the one as a team player and the rest of the team as the true sociopath lunatics.I would like to think the author intended it this way, but had to disguise it in order to slowly draw the many sociopaths of young armies into recognizing the truth.In any event, it is revealing if one views with a mature and objective mind.

joed1667 I first saw this movie when it came out in the theaters and have the DVD, which I watch every December. I thought it was very well made but was very disappointed when I learned this movie is not factual but a work of fiction, based on the book by William Wharton who was 19 in 1944. The movie was unlike those phony John Wayne type war movies of the 50's and 60's. This movie showed the soldiers fears they had to deal with and the conditions for which they lived. Their brief stay in the Château must've been a life of luxury compared to living in a tent back at base or manning a foxhole on the front lines. Frank Whaley's dying scene seemed so real, unlike all those other phony Hollywood war movies from the years mentioned where the soldier clutches their wound, falls to the ground and gives a passion speech before peacefully dying.The one posters comments from his father of "I was a political prisoner of Franklin Delano Roosevelt" is disturbing and he must not have made it to liberate the concentration camps to understand why we were there and fought the Germans. This review could very well be in German if not for FDR and the blunders made by the Japanese and Germans.

Zando777 The reason this film is not as good as "Private Ryan" is that Ryan shows the horror of war, but also makes clear that it sometimes must be fought to prevent greater evils.Films like "Midnight Clear" are instead heavy-handed morality plays that ignore the greater moral need to fight evil when it appears.Does war suck? Yes. It would be nice if people didn't make it necessary. But as long as they do, war will be necessary to avoid oppression and injustice, larger wars, and genocide. It was, of course, anti-war sentiment that allowed Hitler and his Japanese allies to become as large and destructive as they did. I recall not being particularly sympathetic to this movie throughout because it seemed to ignore the above facts, and created unnecessarily (non-credible) tragic situations. Ethan Hawke is also an incredibly annoying actor.

sdscooper In over 40 years of war movie viewing I have to say that this is one of the worst I have ever seen. I was tempted to turn it off after the first 10 minutes, but suffered through another fifty or so until the Americans threw a grenade at the Germans and the Germans threw a snow ball back. Off the VCR went. The screen play, the script and the characters were awful. While they made a commendable 1992 effort at making the Americans look authentic, they fell flat on their faces with the Germans. The 1960's T.V. series "COMBAT" had better looking German uniforms. I won't even go into commenting on the poor girl who lost her love in the war-turned hooker scenes. The whole movie (what I could stand watching of it) showed a complete lack of understanding of the period and combat conditions it portrayed. While I may not agree with the politics of "PLATOON's" director, he did an outstanding job in conveying a feeling of authenticity to the viewer. By the time I turned "A MIDNIGHT CLEAR" off I found myself daydreaming more than watching the movie. How this movie can receive so many great reviews is beyond me, but I guess to each his own.Be forewarned