As a vet and from a family where every male is a vet, I have to say this movie is one of the reasons why there is still a vastly skewed view of the Vietnam War in popular culture. I do believe the film has it's good points, but its damage to the common view of Vietnam vets is undeniable. I realize Oliver Stone was a vet, but the view is obviously one-sided. Charlie Sheen's character is based on him and therefore every character is seen through him. Everyone who smokes dope and hangs out in the psychedelic bunker are certainly the good guys and are of course the heroic, top-grade soldiers. Their "leader" is Willem Dafoe's Elias. Meanwhile the other side, led by Tom Berenger's Barnes, are just a bunch of dumb rednecks. They sleep in a bunkhouse with Confederate battle flags on the wall, drink beer and whiskey, and listen to Merle Haggard. In the field they are either incompetent cowards or crazed murderers who kill unarmed innocent women and children for fun. If you want a more realistic portrayal of the ground war in Vietnam, We Were Soldiers is your best bet, followed closely by The Green Berets (at least the first two-thirds, before the "commando" mission) and the Vietnam part of Forrest Gump.

Sgt. Barnes : Talking about killing? Y'all experts? Y'all know about killing? I'd like to hear about it, potheads.

This is actually rather intelligent, both in its plot and technical execution. It's the Vietnam War, we follow a platoon of US soldiers as they attempt to wipe out the enemy. The question that this film raises is: who really is the enemy? You have the conflict of the war itself (America against Vietnam) but within the platoon is a conflict for authority. Split between what is right and what is wrong, the moral implications of this war have taken effect on several soldiers as they question their choices. This was a smart element to include within the plot, it was easier to establish character development and build some tension. The majority of the characters were sufficiently developed and their personalities had charisma. This was mostly down to the great cast. Willem Dafoe was easily the best performance, Tom Berenger was also decent and the heated chemistry between them was well conveyed. Charlie Sheen however, didn't work for me. His acting ability consisted of monotonous dialogue delivery and shouting, perhaps he was overpowered by the rest of the great cast? I don't know, just felt meh. Didn't help that his biggest battle was with nature...we're talking ants, leeches and other insects. Obviously, animals love abit of Sheen. Oliver Stone's direction was solid, very realistic and gritty. The makeup effects were practical, the wounds and blown up limbs looked pretty damn realistic. A standout scene was the raiding of the Vietnamese village. This was the turning point where actually the American side were perceived as the antagonists, clearly communicating with our inner moral compasses. Effective, very effective. This is easily one of the best war films I've seen and winning Best Picture was fully justified.

Good scenario, very poor weapon shot effects. all this red lights like in star wars. i dont know why but it was in fury(with brad pit) film too. sound is 3/10 weapon sound hearts my ears for 1986 it is not best movie in technical. i could remove 1 point for plane effects and bomb effect. but ok. using real planes and real napalm( which i want to see) is for best films. director showed difficulties of vietnam like snakes, ants etc so +1 point for that. i didnt see that much i felt vietnam my own, so 8/10 from me