Hamburger Hill (1987) User Reviews (142)

The meat grinder effect.

[hitchcockthelegend · 8/10 · 22 May 2015]

Unfairly forgotten and left in the slipstream of critical darlings Platoon and Full Metal Jacket, Hamburger Hill can proudly fly its own worthwhile flag. There's nothing preachy or political here, director John Irvin and writer James Carabatsos approach the subject with a refreshing humane honesty, making us viewers privy to the American soldiers mindset as they cope with life in Vietnam before an assault on some turd pile strategic hill, a battle that the survivors of that particular bloody conflict would call Hamburger Hill.

No matter what one feels about the war, the politics of such etc, the fact that quite often Vietnam films zoom in on the misdemeanours and egotistical sides of the American presence in Vietnam, tends to detract from the bravery of men and boys who were doing the job their government decreed they should do. Hamburger Hill addresses this, proudly so. Pace is deliberate and literate, building up to the assault on Hill 937, with little slices of kinetic action inserted along the way to tantalise and torment in equal measure.

Not all the acting is smart, there's a cast of up and coming thesps on show that features some who have gone on to be "name" actors, while others that were out of their depth subsequently found a level more befitting their abilities. Yet this is also a cunning tactic in the film's favour, no stars needed here, young adult actors without baggage or headlines kind of feels appropriate for this portrayal of soldiers in an alien world, many of whom would lay their shattered bodies down in the mud at Hamburger Hill. 8/10

Destruction of men in their prime.

[BA_Harrison · 8/10 · 31 May 2017]

In the mid-to-late '80s, America finally came to terms with the Vietnam War, exorcising their demons via popular culture. On TV, we had Vietnam veterans The A-Team coming to the rescue of the needy. On the radio, Paul Hardcastle told us that the average age was 'n-n-n-n-nineteen', while Stan Ridgeway recounted the story of an awfully big marine. In the cinemas, Chuck Norris was Missing In Action, Rambo asked 'Do we get to win this time?', Tom Cruise was Born on the Fourth of July, Robin Williams was screeching 'Good Morning', Michael J. Fox suffered the Casualties of War, and Kubrick's jacket was of the full metal variety. Oliver Stone's Vietnam film Platoon even cleaned up at the Oscars, winning four awards, including Best Picture.

It's understandable that Hamburger Hill, with its cast of relative unknowns and second-tier director, didn't receive quite as much attention as the aforementioned heavy-hitters, but if you're serious about war movies, don't let the lack of any big names put you off: the film is just as worthy of praise as Platoon, if not more-so, the green cast only adding to the film's already palpable authenticity. Shot in the thick jungles and even thicker mud of the Phillipines, the film tells of one of the most costly battles of the Vietnam War, the fight for Hill 937 in the Ashau Valley, known to grunts as Hamburger Hill. Director John Irvin's aim is to capture the horrors of war in all their bloody detail, and the sense of realism he achieves is remarkable: when his characters die, they don't throw their arms up in slow motion to the strains of Adagio for Strings… they do so in a sudden welter of gore, hammering home the notion that war is hell.

By the end of Hamburger Hill, the viewer is left as emotionally drained as its surviving characters are physically exhausted.

A fierce and very thoughtful film.

[mhasheider · 8/10 · 12 March 2001]

Extremely brutal and fierce true story about one particular group in the 101 Airborne Division, who spend ten days and eleven battles trying to claim a muddy and well-occupied hill that's dubbed "Hamburger Hill".

The cast in this film were mostly unknown like Dylan McDermott (who made his film debut here) and Steven Weber who both play the platoon's two weary and determined sergeants, Don Cheadle is one of the five new recruits, Michael Boatman and Courtney Vance are also in the cast. It's certainly well-acted by McDermott and Vance..

John Irvin ("The Dogs of War") directed the film and here, he lets the emotions of the soldiers go very far but not too far and the same can be mentioned for the battle scenes. Also, Irvin take a page of Robert Aldrich's WW2 classic and unforgettable melodrama "The Dirty Dozen". Instead of making instant up close shots as Aldrich did, Irvin slowly moves the camera in and it captures the unpredictable feeling that any of the G.I.s have. I wasn't moved, yet I was amazed as well.

Jim Carabatos ("Heartbreak Ridge") wrote the movie's story and like Irvin, Carabatos is careful in making the tale absolutely clear and very understanding to the viewer. The point that Irvin and Carabatos are trying to make is fascinating and simple: No one here is trying to be the hero nor the villain because surviving the war is a more important factor than trying to be gutsy and wind up being killed.

"Hamburger Hill" isn't the type of war movie like Oliver Stone's "Platoon" or Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" were, but it tends to be like Terrence Malick's "The Thin Red Line" was a few years ago. It's a fierce and very thoughtful film

A rare "Real" one.

[k_rkeplar · 8 August 2004]

No stars, no over the top heroics, no secret missions. Brutally realistic and historical accurate Nam film. One of the very few so far. One can nit-pick over the dialogue interludes throughout the film, but as with any story there has to be a set backdrop for characters to develop from. You have to know a little about these guys before you can really feel for them. It's a plot device but it works and takes nothing away from the film. Well done war films are a rarity, especially Vietnam era ones. This particular film is truly a good one. I would even consider it an excellent film for history students of the war and it's times. The last scene screams out in silence what every combat vet knows and feels.

Not the kind you wanna eat...

[tenthousandtattoos · 7/10 · 13 November 2007]

"Hamburger", it conjures delicious images of meat patties, cheese and burger buns, McDonalds. But, like so many other words in the English language, it also can be used to describe something far less...um...savoury. Thankfully I've never witnessed it, but apparently when a man has been gunned down point blank by a 50-caliber machine gun, he somewhat resembles hamburger meat. Nice image huh? Imagine seeing that over and over again for ten straight days, to your FRIENDS, and you have a GI's experience taking Hill 937 in May, 1969.

In a remarkably simple story, we follow a group (a platoon) of American GI's as they embark on a mission to take a hill someone pointed to on a map. Don't be put off by the simple story. It's a well-written, acted and deeply moving one you will not soon forget.

John Irvin's direction is bold - he doesn't let us ignore the bloodshed: he lingers on the faces of the dead, making sure we see, making sure we recognise the man whose life has just ended so suddenly.

We crawl through the mud and blood, we are assaulted by the sounds of the dying, and the thunder of war. We don't just see it, we are not just shown, we are pulled down into the mud with the grunts.

We feel pain as a medic cries over a headless corpse, some anonymous GI killed in an artillery attack. He ponders the headless man, thinking aloud as he cries, "I don't know who you are..." We experience the sudden-ness of death as a man, wounded, remarks to a comrade: "See you at home..." and then quietly dies.

We witness the horror of a "friendly-fire incident", proving that in amongst the blood and the mud and the filth, it is difficult to tell the difference between a friend and an enemy.

There is no end-of-movie posturing on the futility of war. We are left almost as numb as the soldiers who look back down the hill they just came through hell to capture. We are never removed from this battlefield, and thus it remains in the mind for hours after the movie ends. The anonymous voice of the HQ radio operator trying to raise the platoon over the radio, and his calls going unanswered (the radio operator is long dead), is a haunting and chilling final moment in the film. There is no need for preaching, the images of violence in this film say it louder than any words ever could: war makes beasts of us all.

This is such a brutal, frank and unapologetic anti-war film that I just had to review it and help keep its rating up, because it deserves to be alongside Platoon in the "anti-war" canon of Vietnam movies. It's basically saying in the first 40 minutes here you go, here's a bunch of young, likable guys for you to meet.

Now, in the last 40 minutes, you get to watch most of them die.

And die horribly, at that. Thus, it's not really a "pleasant" or "enjoyable" film, but it is an essential one for any war movie buff, and actually any movie buff in general, because it's a great example of less-is-more. It is also a timely reminder that it is not the grunts our anti-war sentiment (or anger) should be directed at, it is the men and women in suits sitting behind big desks in sterile government offices, pointing at all the "Hill 937s" on maps and saying "Mine."

Not that great a /film/

[shoobe01-1 · 6/10 · 5 September 2022]

Sure sure, very realistic in many ways we are told by many who served. But also, in much the way I have heard similar complaints about Platoon from VN vets: not universally so and they don't always love it. Not every unit had drug abuse, fights, fragging, even serious FNG racism or professionalism/camaraderie issues even with a conscript force and heavy losses. Everyone knew that there was an anti-war movement but they didn't all agonize over it (and most of those didn't attack line soldiers in airports etc, though there are outliers). Also downtime recreation wasn't universally brothels, at all. People I know literally touristed! Or read books, watched movies, just relaxed and shopped, etc. So lots of this didn't ring super true.

As a movie: often visibly cheap. Not just inaccurate ways (Cobras should have been all over, etc) but there are several times a mass attack is clearly like 6 people.

Music is... irregular. Long stretches with none. Odd that with all that effort to get Philip Glass to write for it, they can't decide if they want to have it fully scored or not.

Not really a story. There's not a visible through line, and the first half or so is just a bunch of broadly disconnected vignettes which helped even less. By the time we get to the repeated big hill assaults... I don't much know about the people or care. They also were not great at helping us keep track of their core characters so when someone died and it's all awful, we have to take the word of the other actors who find them that it's very sad.

Who: are really scenery chewing. Some great actors, doing among their worst work here. This is what I'd be happy with at the second table read but in the jungle, man... try again but emote, don't yell.

We're never really oriented to the action. You don't have to cut away to the HQ, but they have a Lieutenant and visible maps but they don't really brief anyone on the action, show their position on the map, etc. This is that great cheat of war movies, that if you use it: they have briefing that fixes this, organically to the plot.

Respectful but unmemorable

[shaun98 · 6/10 · 26 September 2002]

*minor spoilers*

"Hamburger Hill" is probably one of the most realistic depictions of war on film. However, that is not to say it is one of the best. A recreation of an incident in Vietnam, it deserves respect for making such an honest attempt to do justice to its subject. Yet, as a whole, the film is not particularly special or memorable. There are some good combat scenes, but the parts in-between often slow down the movie. The material doesn't really offer any new insights into the combat experience, and pales in comparison to "Platoon," "Saving Private Ryan," or "Full Metal Jacket." It's an unremarkable experience. One that I can respect, but not one I can watch repeatedly.

At its best, it does a reasonably good job at demonstrating what war must be like. While graphically violent, none of it seems gratuitous or exploitive, except perhaps for the infamous head-exploding scene. Much of it feels more like a documentary instead of a feature film. Like "Platoon," it pays attention to the day-to-day experience of the soldiers. Some of it is good; this is one of the few films to address the issue of racism in the armed forces. However, at other times, we just get impatient and wish for some bombs to drop. None of the actors are big names, with the possible exception of a young Don Cheadle, but they all do their best. Courtney B. Vance, in particular, is good as a no-nonsense medic.

There is a good reason why "Hamburger Hill" is relatively unknown: it just doesn't add much to the war genre. In the end, I am reminded of an educational film; the subject is important, but this movie is not the best cinematic treatment it has received. It may be used as a stepping stone to other, more worthy books and films about Vietnam, but it must make way to its betters. It's too little, too late. However, there are moments of real power, such as the final image of a soldier's tear-stained face against the blood-red sky. That is an indication the filmmakers went into this project with the most honorable of intentions. For that, they are to be commended.

**1/2 (out of ****)

Released by RKO Pictures (thru Paramount)

Not in the same league with real classics

[nagan2020 · 6/10 · 23 April 2021]

This movie is worth seeing for the powerful and harrowing battle scenes. However, the character development of the soldiers was shallow and their lines were so cliched at times that they often made me cringe. It certainly is not in the same league with real classics like "Apocalypse Now" or "Full Metal Jacket".

Realism and Radicalism

[artzau · 9/10 · 23 April 2001]

This is an excellent depiction of the insanity that was the war in Viet Nam. My view as a naval officer during a scenic tour of the Mekong near the Cambodian border and the Vietnamese city of Chau Phu, permitted me to be a witness to many, many occasions involving the wholesale abuse of humans by humans. The strain on mind, body and soul takes years (if ever) to repair and this film captures it. There are brief glimpses of this agony in some of the other films mentioned here in the reviews, e.g., Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket and Platoon. Each of these films have merit but are deeply flawed. Apocalypse Now is steeped in moral allegory to the expense of an accurate portrayal of the war; Full Metal Jacket is only 2/3 completed; Platoon becomes a Levi-Straussian moral tale with an arch villain and virtuous hero-- the latter heinously slain by the former with revenge exacted by the weary sojourner on the odyssey. OK. What do we have here with Hamburger Hill? A story? Heroic acts? Action? Not really. What we have is the horror and insanity of war. The film ends on the same pointless note as it began. But, you know what? Reading through the detractors of this film who touted the other potential three and slammed this one, I would not hesitate to bet they were never there. I could glance at the reviews and pick out the vets-- not just on the basis of whether they liked this film or not but of how they reacted to it. I know and know damn well. I too was there, brothers. See this film. It's well produced, directed and the cast is damn good. Check it out.

A Vietnam movie that is both honest, realistic and moving?

[Gyrobot · 7/10 · 11 April 2000]

I can't remember how long ago it was when I first saw this film but my most vivid memory of it is when I was alone one xmas day and I sat watching it after a couple of pipes. The segment of the film that deals with the actual taking of the hill is one of the most emotionally draining battle sequences ever filmed. The despair of the soldiers is palpable and the sound effects have you ducking for cover yourself. It so real that you can't help but feel frustration at not being able to help the men you see die in front of you.

This film is, I believe based around some of the events listed in the book "The 13th Valley" by Mark Del Vecchio. If you get the chance you should read that too.

A neglected film that deserves more credit than Oliver Stone's awful "Platoon"

This Movie Pushes a Very Dangerous LIe

[jburtonprod-802-759029 · 3/10 · 16 March 2020]

Overall this movie isn't bad. It has good performances from Dylan McDermott, Don Cheadle and others. The battle scenes have an authentic feel to them. I was initially excited to see Philip Glass composed the music but then disappointed to find it was hardly used and seemed out of place in the movie when it was. In terms of story, acting and technical merits the film is probably about a 6.0 out of 10.

The main reason I'm gigging it is it pushes, very hard, the right-wing LIE of the 'spitting hippy'. I was alive during that war and my older sister's friends were all in the peace movement. ALL of them had major empathy for the troops. Many of them had brothers, friends and cousins who had been forced to enlist. Their anger was directed at our government for sending those soldiers there, usually forced through the Draft, to fight and die. Their anger was directed at the Draft.

Not once during all the news coverage of the war was there ever a substantiated report of any peace protestor spitting on or otherwise disrespecting a U.S. soldier. This movie pushes an extreme LIE of protestors throwing bags of dog feces at returning troops. THAT NEVER HAPPENED. Google it. You can see for yourself. Nowhere on the internet is there any report, anywhere, of that ever happening.

If the filmmakers had just stayed with the story of the soldiers this movie would've been better. It's not in the company of Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket or Platoon but it is still a good movie that depicts what the troops were going through and the insanity of that war, very well. They just should've left out the lies. They did nothing to move the narrative forward, felt inauthentic as the actors were saying them and just took me and I'm guessing others out of the movie.

I was there. This film gets it right.

[SquirePM · 10/10 · 24 July 1999]

I was an infantryman in the field in Vietnam. There are only 2 Vietnam movies that are even close to real - this one and Apocalypse Now, and they are both as close as a movie can get.

Hamburger Hill gets it right in many ways, the banter among the grunts, the fatalism mixed with the desire to survive a vicious war, the emotional stress of seeing your fellow GI's become casualties. The GI jargon used in the writing is the most authentic in any movie about that war. But most of all it depicts the incredible, to me mystical, bravery which drives any man into terrible battle in any war, on any side. This movie is an unpretentious marvel.

As for Apocalypse Now, it gets it right in a very different way. Everything in that movie actually happened in Vietnam, crazy as each scene may be to one who wasn't there. Take it scene by scene. Believe everything you see. (Except, of course, the whole Col. Kurtz - private army - assassination theme, which was out of the book about war in South Africa. It made a great hook for this movie, but no U. S. Army senior officer ever went off the deep end like that.)

It's going to be an uphill battle.

[lost-in-limbo · 7/10 · 29 May 2008]

I don't know why I like this depressingly bold war feature, as much as I do. Maybe because it basically stripes any sense of profound meaning to the bone, but to only focus on the men and their simple ask. And what an ask it was! The Vietnam War seemed to be a popular movie device around this time ('Platoon (1986)' and Full Metal Jacket (1987) '), but this one wasn't as spectacular as those other efforts. However while not as showy and consisting of star power, director John Irvin magnificently cooks up a raw, tough, gritty imprint of a war-torn country that's painted with drab and dank locations caught by doco-like filming. Just looking at these images, can pretty much drain the life right out of you because of the authentic styling. The vigorously random action set-pieces are grimy, bloody and covered with dirt, as nothing about it is glorified and it takes no prisoners. The final battle is powerfully engaging, but psychically demanding. Characters (which are notably characterised) come and go, with established relationship building to the rigid army orders and rather intense racial digs. Was this the act of desperation, confusion and fear? As they knew they were on a suicidal mission. But this conflict is a way they come to terms and learn how alike they are. What makes the dry, low-key material good is that it brings up many issues, without the need of pushing its own thoughts upon you. Because even so, it still manages strikes an emotional chord about the well written subtext. The performances are excellent with the likes of Dylan McDermott, Steven Weber, Don Cheadle, Anthony Barrile, Michael Boatman, Tegan West, Michael Dolan, Michael A. Nickles and Courtney B. Vance. Expert scorer Philip Glass' barnstorming score is pure ecstasy when it enters the frame, as it's deliberately sparse. Irvin soundly paces the story and cinematographer Peter MacDonald fittingly lenses the action. Irvin's Nam story is a honest and punishing look at war.

Rather boring war drama.

[poolandrews · 4/10 · 9 May 2010]

Hamburger Hill is set in 1969 during the Vietnam war, on 10 May a platoon of troops from the 101st Airborne Division lead by Sgt. Adam Frantz (Dylan McDermott) & Sfc. Dennis Worcester (Steven Weber) are sent to engage & fight the Vietnamese enemy at the base of hill 937 in the Ashau Valley in order take control of the hill. Over the next ten days the troops face eleven assaults & firefights as they try to seize control of the hill, a lot of soldiers die in bloody battles with the enemy as the surviving soldier who fought there called it Hamburger Hill.

Directed by John Irvin (who in reality had filmed a documentary in Vietnam during the war) this war film based on actual events from the Vietnam war came out between Oliver Stone's classic Platoon (1986) & Stanley Kubrick's classic Full Metal Jacket (1987) as Hollywood went nuts for a short time on Vietnam war films & Hamburger Hill is maybe the lesser known of the three & to be fair I think that's with good reason as while it's not a bad film by any means it's just not very entertaining. Sure I know that wars are not meant to be entertaining but films are. The script for Hamburger Hill places heavy emphasis on the drama & at 110 minutes long there's very little action if you want to call the battles that, the first forty odd minutes is your typical bonding exercise but a lot of the character's are too similar & it's hard to tell one apart from the other & there's the argument that war was like that & there were no individuals but it makes for a hard film to watch as there's no-one to really get behind or follow. There are plenty of details & I'm sure great pains were undertaken to make it realistic but I just thought it was quite dull. The dialogue is kept simple, they soldiers talk about sex, girlfriends, cars & the real world back home but never get too friendly for obvious reasons & that robs the film of an emotional core, we don't really know any of them & thus we don't really care about any of them. There are a few moments like the taped message by a soldiers girlfriend or a few bonding scenes that seem to open the film up a bit but they never go that far. The Vietnamese enemy are never seen & their side of the story is never shown, I'm sure it wasn't exactly brilliant for them either & I am sure they had many of the same problems & fears as US soldiers.

The battle scenes are alright, again going for dogged realism they are a little unexciting but again war isn't meant to be is it? They certainly don't hold the raw brutal power of those seen in Saving Private Ryan (1997) that's for sure. Overall Hamburger Hill is a decent drama about a bunch of soldiers trying to survive the best they can, while quite gritty & realistic I can't say I particularly liked Hamburger Hill although I will concede it's not a bad film in any regard, just one I didn't personally like or get much out of. Apparently an electrician was electrocuted & killed on set in front of the actor's & crew which almost shut production of the film down.

Filmed in the Philippines the production design is great & it looks nice enough but again realism doesn't always make for great entertainment. The acting is very good from a good cast, the performances are all very strong here.

Hamburger Hill is a film that I didn't really get anything out of, the battle scenes although realistic were bland & the character's although probably true to life were empty & not distinctive enough. Not really my cup of tea at all, if you were there during the Vietnam war I am not sure you would want to be reminded of it but you may get more out it then the casual viewer.

Great movie, but it needs a goof link.

[hawkip · 5 November 2000]

I, like most of the other people posting comments, believe it is a very realistic movie. Some have commented that they didn't like the characters. Well, I'm a military helicopter pilot and I have worked with the infantry on many missions. When they are in the field, they are subject to a raw lifestyle that few would understand if they had not lived it. I've seen them and I've carried them. They do not apologize for the way they look, act or even smell when they,ve been out for days and weeks. When you see the complete fatigue in their faces, you would not expect them to. They are who they are and I'm proud to have carried them as a crew chief on a CH47 earlier in my career and now as a UH60 pilot. But the movie does need a "goof" link for some critical errors. The men who assaulted Dong Ap Bia "Hamburger Hill" were never attacked by a UH1. The fratricide events occurred 4 documented times. Once by a Skyraider (fixed-wing) and three separate times by AH1 Cobras. The Skyraider dropped, I believe a 1000 pound bomb and the Cobras shot them up with their machine guns and rockets. Having pointed this out, I do realize that the film industry, putting out a lower budget film, might have a difficult time actually finding a Cobra to use. Hueys are easy to find and cheap to operate. Also, the scenes with who is supposed to be Col. Honeycutt in the Command and Control helicopter (you never really see him)portrays him as completely out of harms way during the battles. The fact is that he was in harms way, with NVA artillery constantly. He and his staff also ended up in a fire fight themselves. The radio traffic also leads you to believe he is uncaring and dogmatic with his people. I could only answer this by pointing out that someone had to be the commander and it was a difficult mission. But, the "ruthless uncaring leader" (almost as a matter of political correctness) is the only way Hollywood will portray a commander in Viet Nam. Too bad though, that episode with his staff would have been interesting to have seen acted out. It doesn't change my opinion of the film though. It's one of my favorites in my DVD library.

A Raw and Naked True Story

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 29 May 2004]

In may of 1969, in Vietnam, an American squad is assigned to conquer a mountain called by the Americans as Hamburger Hill. Very well protected by the Vietnamese, a very bloody battle has happened for days, with many deaths. This realistic movie shows, almost like a documentary, some days of a platoon before reaching the top of a strategic mountain. The dramatization is great, as well as the direction of John Irvin and the performance of the cast. Today I had watched first `When Trumpets Fade', another John Irvin's film, therefore the impact of `Hamburger Hill' was very reduced. Both movies are mandatory, recommended for audiences who look for raw and naked true stories of war. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): `Hamburger Hill'

I must say....

[sleded · 6/10 · 24 April 2015]

i must say... I didn't care for it.

I thought the writing was weak and cliché, tried to hard to be a Vietnam film instead of allowing it to become one (if that makes sense) i thought the acting was poor and the special effects (even for 1987) were amateurish. not one character sold me. I don't miss too many war movies...and this one had a good reputation, but im not sure where it came from.

to say it was the best Vietnam war movie ever, really takes away from some great films. maybe i went in expecting too much because of the reputation this film has, but i left disappointed

Hill that turned the soldiers into hamburgers

[Bogey Man · 7/10 · 15 July 2002]

John Irvin directed this film, set in Vietnam war and depicting one US platoon's mission to conquer one important hill for US soldiers. The mission should be somewhat easy and without major problems, but once they arrived there, they had to fight 9 days and strike 11 times until the US soldiers finally "won" the battle for the hill, named after the fight as Hamburger Hill because so many men were killed and destroyed there. So this is a depiction of true case in Vietnam war, and the result is pretty harrowing piece of cinema.

At the end of the film, there is one citation from some Vietnam veteran and that really sums up the film's message and pacifism the film ends up in. The film depicts perhaps little too much those US fighters and seems to forget those who they were fighting at, that also the "enemy" was consisted of human beings and as equally valuable individuals as the US ones. Fortunately this doesn't promote American's as Michael Bay's horrible Pearl Harbor and some other stupid and inept Hollywood war movies. Hamburger Hill is not as near as bad as those, but it should have concentrated a little more on these Vietnamese people, too.

Occasionally, the film stops for a while and that adds nothing to the film since the characters never become too interesting nor deep and personal. This film has these few negative things that tone the result down, but fortunately there are also positive things in this film.

The fight scenes are totally greatly staged and they seem so real, that they almost remind me of Saving Private Ryan's beginning and its rage. Hamburger Hill has some horrible scenes of violence (both, towards US and Vietnamese) and the film really shows the faces of war honestly without hiding anything and thinking about PG13 rating or other crap so usual in nowadays Hollywood productions. The last 5 minutes is perhaps the greatest part of the movie since there are strong images at the hill and about the carnage created. Also, the mentioned citation before the end credits is very powerful and finally shows that this film is meant to be pacifistic and right minded, as all war movies should be.

If Hamburger Hill had deeper and more interesting characters and omitted those useless and slow parts, this would be without a doubt more noteworthy piece of cinema. Now it is not as great as it could be, but still I appreciate this film so much it deserves. John Irvin has also directed another war related film, Dogs of War which is more drama oriented and pretty much criticizes developing countries' inhuman dictatorship that usually is at power there. I think these both films are recommended for people interested in history and many faces of it. These two films are not immortal pieces of art, but have still their merits. 7/10

Not the best about Vietnam

[rbverhoef · 7/10 · 26 October 2004]

Little spoilers herein.

The second half of 'Hamburger Hill' exists out of a lot of soldiers going up hill 937, nicknamed Hamburger Hill, fighting against the Vietnamese all day only to go down the hill again. They never succeed in capturing it and then suddenly near the end of the film, when heroic music starts playing, they run up that hill and for some reason they do capture it. Maybe you would think I have spoiled the film for you but if you would think twice, realizing this is a patriotic American film, you understand I have not said anything you did not know already.

We follow a couple soldiers including Sgt. Frantz (Dylan McDermott), Doc Johnson (Courtney B. Vance), Washburn (Don Cheadle) and Languilli (Anthony Barrile), just to name a few, and we see the usual stuff in films like this. We have the heroic characters, the white people vs. black people scenes, the break-ups from girlfriends back home, the few men who are really losing it, and so on. Without showing a real enemy, only a few individuals that die gruesomely, we see these problems of the characters. Because we have seen this so many times and so much better before ('Apocalypse Now', 'Platoon' and 'Full Metal Jacket' are the best known examples) we never really care.

The film has some nice moments and I must admit it is not boring, although the second half is repeating the same things over and over again. If you do not think about those much better films, compare it to 'Tour of Duty' instead, you might enjoy it.

One of the best about Vietnam

[DumaNV · 10/10 · 22 September 1999]

Drawing from a good book by the same name concerning a real battle, the film chose to concentrate on a single unit of the 101st Airborne during this engagement instead of the strategies and tactics of the battle. Fictionalizing the characters we see the typical group of soldiers, some new, some veterans, some black, some white, some Hispanic, conduct assault after assault on a hill for some reason that they only have a vague concept of. But instead of making the battle slick and interlaced with subplots about the possession of souls (such as "Platoon") or a work of art (such as "Apocalypse Now" or "Full Metal Jacket") the characters are real and the battle is believable.

Whether intentional or not, it is hard to identify individuals in this film. The viewer is aware that there are ethnic and class separations but identities are harder. I believe that this was intentional to some extent by the director so that the impression could be made that this could be any unit and the soldiers could be anyone that you may know. Like the faceless names on the Vietnam War monument during the opening of the film, these soldiers are essentially faceless forcing the viewer to place a face and personality that they are intimate with. The real star of the movie is the battle and the tragedies that resulted. As with the better, and more accurate war films, there are no heroics, just fear; there is no glorious flag waving over a captured fortification, just survivors.

Again, with the better war films it is the little stuff that separates the good ones from the "cowboys and Indians in battle dress" ilk: the radio operator calling in an artillery strike in panic and is reprimanded for not using proper radio protocol, the mud slide down the hill right in the middle of the battle, the officer trying to call for reinforcements and realizing that his radio was blown to bits along with his arm. All of these "touches" are real and give credibility to a film. In this case "Hamburger Hill" stands apart, and somewhat higher, than most films about the subject.

Harsh and Brilliant

[kevinbaconatemypants · 6/10 · 26 January 2005]

Hamburger Hill does not apologize for its material, and sends an anti-war message home to the viewer.

Although not as epic as Apocalypse Now, Hamburger Hill is a smaller more condensed story about a group of infantry men trying to get to the top of a hill.

Although there are attempts at character development early on in the film, this ultimately fails, and the characters don't really show any signs of development until there deep into there battle against the hill.

The stand outs are Courtney B. Vance as the hot tempered but caring Doc. Vance's portrayals as the unit's medic is the driving performance of the film, and one of the few characters that you truly care about.

Dylan McDermott plays the vocal point of the film as Sgt. Frantz, his speech to the new recruits in the beginning is memorial, as is his quiet talk with the men in a small hole as they drink hot chocolate. McDermott performance counter's Vance as it is more subdued. He doesn't take away from Vance's over the top Doc - but quietly he steals many scenes.

The other stand out for me was Anthony Barrilee as Vincent 'Alphabet' Languilli. He is one of the new recruits and a real wise guy, but as the movie progresses he becomes one of the few soldiers who is not at the forefront of the movie to really shine. His last moments in the film are heart breaking and he delivers some of the only memorable dialog the film has to offer.

Michael Boatman is memorable as Motown, as are Timothy Patrick Quill as Beletsky and Tommy Swerdlow as Bienstock.

Don Cheadle, in an early performance, makes you care about his character although he is given little time to develop him and is pushed aside by some of the more domineering personalities in that make up the unit.

The only performance that lacks, I felt was Steven Weber - the future pilot of the T.V. show "Wings." plays his character Worchester with a southern drawl and although he delivers a monologue towards the end of the movie, that almost makes you care for his character, he doesn't really make himself memorable enough. Which in a war film, where you have to play an ensemble of actors, is key.

This movie has one of the most brilliant syncs of film and music. As the helicopters fly into combat, and the camera pans over the men who are about to face death - The Animal's "We've got to get out of this place." plays. Brilliance.

The movie is solid, because of the performances of the at the time unknowns, and is worth your time.

I just don't see it . . .

[cavlax · 4/10 · 26 October 2008]

The only saving grace of this movie are the battle scenes. Oh, and it's always nice to see unknown (at the time) actors in their early work - Steven Weber, Courtney Vance, Cheadle, and McDermott.

Even with all of them the acting is horrendous! Despite any kind of background story (if you can call it that) I never cared once for any of them. To me the worst scene was "Alphabet's" last line. I cringe now even thinking about it.

I really can't stand this movie. I know that doesn't say much, but I just feel that there are so many better movies out there that deal with Vietnam than this one.

Realistic depiction at its artistic limit

[jackmoss88 · 9/10 · 16 January 2008]

Hamburger Hill is all too often compared cruelly (and unfairly) to Oliver Stone's Platoon, a film that predates it by a single year and marked a return to Vietnam by American cinema, almost a decade after Cimino and Coppolla set the bar for celluloid commentary on the conflict. In following Platoon's realistic approach as opposed to the stylised, more artistic nature of these earlier films, as well as Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket (another film Hamburger Hill was forced to compete with), John Irvin's film was seen as an inferior copy and is not remembered alongside these aforementioned films as a definitive Vietnam War film.

In truth, Hamburger Hill deserves to stand apart from Platoon as having its own approach and method. Hamburger Hill outstrips any other Vietnam War film in its pursuit of realism, going beyond Stone's fictionalised characters with their spiritual and ideological battles. It tells the true story of the bloody assault on Hill 937, from the perspective of a platoon of mostly new recruits (FNGs or F**king New Guys) lead by a core of experienced troops, headed by Dylan McDermott as the weary but passionate Sergeant Frantz. Irvin spends plenty of time letting us be introduced to the characters, their quirks, their cliques and their internal feuds before letting them see meaningful combat. As the film progresses, so does their relationship to each other and to the war they're fighting.

Hamburger Hill's god is resolutely in the details, and it in these details that most of the film's best moments lie. The little scenes, lines and moments have the air of true anecdotes: often brief, insignificant moments in the larger picture yet they stick in the mind and add up to create a collage of impression. Hamburger Hill is probably the most realistic Vietnam film yet made, and the wealth of details give a sense that this film is the closest we've seen to actually being a soldier in Vietnam. There's none of the involved psychological exploration of a single character like Apocalypse Now, none of Full Metal Jacket's black humour and archly artificial dialogue and none of Platoon's symbolic drama. The most important and impacting moments are always those of the actual conflict: from the headless corpse to the half-filled canteen to the agonising friendly fire scene.

Hamburger Hill is primarily a combat picture, concerned with the ugly vicissitudes of the battlefield and its impact on the people involved, and Irvin captures both the drama and the horror of combat effectively. The combat sequences are never short of either excitement, pathos or intensity. Off the battlefield, the film doesn't have the philosophical meditation that gives Apocalypse Now its enduring resonance, but it is not completely without things to say. The film is utterly anti-war but at the same time pro-soldier: it celebrates the men who fought through the horrific conditions, showing us what they had to deal with, from the anti-war protesters at home who convince a soldier's girlfriend to stop writing to him because it is "immoral" to the faceless Blackjack who conducts the bloodshed from afar and through the simple physical conditions they endured. Irvin's message is that whatever your stance on the conflict, the men there deserve respect, particularly because almost none of them are there to consciously represent any moral or political position.

Hamburger Hill's utilitarian design may prevent it from really being a cinematic classic, but the only chief complaint is that it is dramatically unsatisfying on occasions. The climax, in particular, does not feel suitably impacting compared to the violence that preceded it, and the film simply slows down to an end without any significant flourish. This, ultimately, is a product of its realism: the battle of Hamburger Hill did not have satisfying dramatic structure because it was a real event and Irvin deliberately maintains this reality right to the very end, an admirable gesture. Unfortunately, the director's fulfilment of his own artistic manifesto comes at the sacrifice of audience satisfaction: Hamburger Hill is ultimately too realistic to reach the pinnacle of artistic accomplishment.

War is Heavy

[view_and_review · 7/10 · 6 September 2019]

More than a few Vietnam War movies were made in the 80's. It seemed like some of those were dedicated to being a tribute to the soldiers that fought in that war. The movies weren't trying to make them saints or heroes, just a means of showing them respect. The Vietnam War was wildly unpopular, as it should have been, but the soldiers didn't start the war and many of them didn't even ask to fight in it, they were just doing what they were told to do. Right or wrong, they were pawns on the chessboard.

Hamburger Hill was one such tributary movie. It largely followed the 3rd Squad, 1st Platoon, a group of men who were thwarted time and time again as they tried to take the hill dubbed Hamburger Hill. The hill itself may have been insignificant in the grand scheme of things but you wouldn't know that watching the movie. Those men may have been a trifle in the big picture, but you wouldn't know that watching the movie. They were men who had a horrible job that they paid dearly for while all they hoped for was to "get back to the world."

There are very few war movies that are not jarring. I can watch one horror movie after the other, see death, dismemberment, pain and suffering and barely flinch. But with a war movie it is totally different. Those may be actors, but real people were killed in these wars-Americans and non-Americans. Both deaths cause me pain. My heart doesn't rest easy at the deaths of non-Americans, particularly innocent people who have the grave misfortune of living in a warzone.

War movies are heavy. Hamburger Hill was heavy. So, if you plan on watching be prepared for a heavy heart.

lacks personality

[dolevadoleva · 5/10 · 25 December 2012]

It has been a while that I saw Platoon, Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket. Movies that apparently are often used as a comparison in judging this movie. I read a lot of veterans say that this is the most realistic one out of the bunch. Knowing little about the reality of it i cant judge it on realistic criteria. Only things that came off a little bit unrealistic were an exploding head and the "firework". The rest was quite horrific, and i am sure thats what war is. But a movie should have more to offer then realism, and that is where the movie failed a bit. It just had little impact on me. The soldiers in this movie showed too little of themselves before and between battle to get me emotionally involved. In the dying finale on the hill i even had problems distinguishing one dying soldier from the other. It now felt as a final episode of a series which earlier episodes i missed out on.

Apart from that i noticed discussion about whether this is an anti-war movie or not. The horror speaks for itself. Do you think it's worth it?? I don't. Of course most soldiers are not happy with press hanging around the spectacle while their comrades are dying off, or for antiwar protesters for that matter. But that seems a logical perspective to me once you are out there fighting and doing your job.

offtopic: Not only in this movie, but also other stuff i watched and read about Vietnam i have gotten the image that amongst warprotestors soldiers were harassed once returning. I have also demonstrated a lot against military involvement of my country. But pointing fingers at soldiers is just screwed up. Then, as an anti-war protester, you seriously don't get it.