Mr-Fusion Pretty good Vietnam (anti-)war movie, with Hackman trapped behind enemy lines and Glover standing by on the radio for moral support. Occasionally, this brought to mind Bruce Willis and Reginald VelJohnson, but this doesn't maintain Die Hard's tension levels. The middle really sags while the third act lays on the violence and the savagery. It's the acting that makes this stand out, particularly with the camaraderie between the two leads, and a solid Jerry Reed as supporting.7/10

airborne60 Initially I thought this was a quite thrilling movie, based on a true story. I carried my usual suspicion for Hollywood versions and cringed as usual on the huge amounts of gasoline used in the explosions.Then I read about the true story about Gene Hambleton's rescue, and was grossly disappointed in the movie. What remains is some respect for Gene Hackman's acting, good footage and two good scenes (from an acting point of view at least, they apparently did not happen).Why on earth did they not stick to the true story? You can read about it in a thread on the IMDb board. It is vastly more exciting than this Hollywoodized version which I cannot understand.Do not watch this movie if you have any thoughts on the true story. But do if you just want some piece of Hollywood action with a very vague true background.

sddavis63 This is less a war movie than it is the story of one man coming to terms with the realities and the human cost of war that he had been largely shielded from. That one man is Lt. Col. Iceal Hambleton (Gene Hackman). Hambleton is a soldier who "directs" war but doesn't really "fight" it. When possible, he's on a golf course, perfecting his already excellent game. When necessary, he's generally either behind a desk or high up in the sky, where the effect of bombs and missiles aren't obvious. But one day, flying a mission over North Vietnam, Hambleton's plane is brought down and he finds himself behind enemy lines, waiting desperately to be rescued. His primary lifeline to the outside is reconnaissance pilot Bird-Dog (Danny Glover). Bird Dog isn't really happy to be directing the rescue mission. He's tired and he's resentful of this guy who might cost a lot of lives to get out. As a war movie, this is pretty standard, with nothing much to differentiate it from any other war movie. It's Hambleton and Bird Dog - and their growing relationship over radio - that make this movie move forward. Hambleton is the more interesting of the two. For a guy who's spent his entire adult life in the military, he has little experience of war and its impact. As he tries to get to a rescue point, he discovers the cost of war. He encounters a civilian and has to kill him or be killed, and then, having done the deed, he encounters the man's three sons as he dashes away. He encounters a young boy who does him a kindness and saves his life. He watches helplessly as, in an attempt to rescue him, the US Air Force bombs a village that still has many civilians in it - "women and children" as he cries over the radio to the pilots. He learns that war isn't anonymous, it isn't clean, it isn't sanitary and it has a huge cost beyond just those who fight it. Hambleton's change of ethical perspective is subtle but real, and well portrayed by Hackman.Bird Dog was less central to the story, but he also changes. Resentful of Hambleton and the risks and costs involved in rescuing him at first, he develops a compassion for Hambleton and becomes committed to getting him out at whatever cost - even defying orders and stealing a helicopter to get the job done. This transformation, as Bird Dog changes from seeing Hambleton as a mission to a person and then even as a friend, is also very real, and also well portrayed by Glover.So the movie has two fine acting performances from the leads, and an interesting depiction of two people struggling with pre-conceived notions and a lifetime of experiences and being changed. As a war movie it's not especially noteworthy, and it takes some dramatic license with the true story on which it's based, of course, but it's an excellent human story. (7/10)

ctomvelu-1 In BAT*21, Gene Hackman plays a soldier shot down behind enemy lines during the Vietnam War and in desperate need of rescue by his buddy, Danny Glover. The plot would be resurrected a few years later for BEHIND ENEMY LINES, with Owen Wilson in the Hackman role and Hackman in the Glover role. The endings are virtually identical. But this 1988 feature film looks badly dated, and the special effects are laughable. The Owen Wilson version is on the mark for its eye-popping special effects and sheer suspense. Also, BEHIND ENEMY LINES portrays the Serbian effort at genocide very close to what we were reading in the newspapers and seeing on TV at the time. Anyhow, BAT*21 is for Hackman completists only. Serious movie buffs will recognize the explosion sounds from a hundred previous war movies. Unfortunately.