MonsterPerfect Good idea lost in the noise

Manthast Absolutely amazing

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

pgszondy For those who think of the San Patricios as "traitors," here's a clue: the title, "One Man's Hero" is completed by the other half of what I thought was a well known aphorism: "…is another man's traitor." It's not just a film about Mexican and American history. It's a timeless philosophical statement about the nature of differences in perspective and the primacy of the individual as being at the heart of any free society. I was happy to see that most reviewers on this site actually got the point of the film, which, by the way really works on an entertainment level and is a great movie experience. For all of that, I was somewhat saddened that very few mentioned the high quality script. This film began as a labor of love, the personal obsession of screenwriter Milton S. Gelman. He was a Purple Heart veteran of WWII and understood war and valor as much as he understood the human spirit. He clearly saw Riley as a hero, because he, like Riley, believed that if freedom is not personal and just, it is not freedom at all, no matter how much "patriotic" prattle it's wrapped in. I know, because I was there when he wrote it. Milt Gelman was my mentor and good friend. He died 8 years before this picture came to the screen and it is to the Hools' credit that they shared his vision and completed the task. Bravo.

janskelton This is one of the most powerfully moving films I've ever seen. Maybe it does lack some technical expertise, but I got so totally lost in the storyline, I didn't notice that. This film is precisely what I appreciate so much about Tom Berenger: it seems that Tom Berenger can take a small episode of history and make it memorable--so memorable, in fact, that I've seen this movie only twice, but scenes from it keep playing in my mind.

alhaqq It is a movie...so I expect there to be embellishments--in plot, especially, amongst other things. The acting? Well, I am not a movie critic...it was passable, not great, not horrible--most of the acting did seem flat and non-dimentional, however, you are getting just a glimpse of a few (a very few) of the major characters. What I do like overall, is, the fact that someone attempted to make a movie about this era of American History, especially, due to its pivotal role that the Mexican-American War would play in the years following the conclusion.On the historical facts of the movie, well, it has errors: for example, the Americans seem to "out-number" the Mexican forces--and as we all know the average ratio was between 3:2 and 3:1, in favor of the Mexican Army, in all the battles--which could have made the movie more spectacular--for the "bad" Americans--if they can be called that--something that was latent but not overt. As others have pointed out, it also does have a "Mexican" bias, but this is due to the arrangement of the plot of the movie...concerning the San Patricios Companies of Foreigners. I personally thought the biases of the "named" characters (at least the Americans) were "historically" correct--despite any gaffes in acting. Zachary Taylor (James Gammon) had his "damn the consequences" attitude, and Winfield Scott (Patrick Bergen) was also "true" to the history. The "Anti-Catholic" (not just Anti-Irish) sentiment as portrayed by the junior officers and non-comms in front of the Colonel of the 5th US Infantry Regiment, is also in line with the time. It is a shame that they could not work in more of the major characters (and a few of the Civil War Generals--in their baptism of fire). We see Scott, Taylor and Harney; It would have been nice to see others like Santa Anna, David Twiggs, William Worth, etc. as well as maybe Jackson as an Artillery Lieutenant moving his guns forward at Churubusco to take on the San Patrico batteries or Grant moving his men of the 4th Infantry forward, or even Lee reconoitering a position. However nice this may have been, it was extraneous to telling the movie-maker's story, and it was not to be.Not every movie can be a "Gettysburg" calibre movie...but considering the "attention span" of my fellow countrymen (most would not endure a 4 hour movie--let alone the subject matter), this movie trys to be entertaining, as well as, historically "honest". I say, "bravo".

yojimbo999 OMH is a poorly made film. The acting is mediocre, even from the normally good Berenger, and what passes for "action" is, well, not very passable. The war scenes are badly done and looks fake as well as cheap in production values.The story is interesting. Irish deserters join the Mexicans in the Mexican American war. of course, you'll have to be completely biased toward one side in order to LOVE or HATE this movie. I, on the other hand, would rather take the film at its own merits, and, well, it isn't very good.On an aside, isn't it wonderful how evil all the American characters are? The Mexicans look like saints! LOL. What a laugh. Of course, I am a student of history, and I know that the burgeoning Americans were WAY OUTNUMBERED by the Mexicans, who had a stable and massive army as opposed to the ragged and sometimes undisciplined American army. And YET the Americans still won! So what exactly is the "truth" being told here?All in all, a mediocre film. Not all that great as a war movie, and sometimes too cheesy and obvious as a drama. I do wish they'd treat everyone as people, not just cut-out stereotypes. Unfortunately, in order to make our deserters and traitors the "good guys" the filmmakers went out of their way to paint every single American soldier as less than human. Too bad, because this is a very interesting piece of history. Unfortunately it looks like a bad High School production, and that's insulting High School productions everywhere.