wesprichard Nice people who rated this movie 10 stars don't have a clue about the Mexican War and if they were in my history class,I would flunk the lot. One critic heresaid, "This movie is worth fighting for." If it is, its because its a movie I would really fight against,because it gives a totally wrong recounting of the basic history of the conflict. The movie fas a storyline is well crafted and well cast and Tom Berenger does a great job as Sgt/Captaine Riley. Yet,like the movie JFK by Oliver Stone, the script writers really don't know their subject and make up things while making up things. This movie is told to achieve audience appeal and emotional involvement,something like a Star Wars movie. Both movies tell a story, and the problem of this movie like so many other "historical movies" is that uninformed movie goers buy into the basic premise. Hear of the "Stockhome Syndrome" where the kidnapped start to feel sympathy for the Kidnappers. This movie is a mix of accurate fact and fiction. The potato famine did not really get going till 1846 onward but the Irish deserters are described in 1846 America as Potato Famine rejects? The potato blight was not named, the Potato famine till many years later.The English government who was sovereign over Ireland would not even admit its existence till much later. Yet, "No Irish Need Apply" was a real fact and a million Irish died of starvation. On the other side the 1846 Army was not half Irish. Does it matter if history can be used in a creative manner? Judging from the reviews here, yes it does matter because the basic facts of "The Mexican War" are terrible muddled here. I thought that Riley's question, "Do you know the difference between deserters and traitors was a great line and a good question. I know but did the audience? Have your heard of the Goliad Massacre, you would if you were Texan, how about the execution of the men of the Alamo. At the end of the movie some of the Irish of the San Patrico Btn are hung. It's accurate. I have no sympathy for men who deserted to the enemy to fight for the Mexicans. My people help found Maryland, my 6th? Great Grandfather, Govenor William Strong, led the force for toleration, in the Battle of the Severn against Cromwell in the last Battle of the English Civil War. Lots of the family were or are Catholic. So as with many famous films, you get a distorted view of history while watching a nice story. What a crock. I watched Gettysburg and I was only able to catch one wrongheaded fact because they had some of the best historians in the business worked on it. Its no wonder that we as Americans have a really weird view of the world when we watch films that distort the truth. So in summary, this is bad history and not a bad film. I personally agree with the courts marital, and I will waive the flag who I served as did most of my family as we shoot traitors to the United States. George Washington is my 2nd Cousin.. It's too bad, Hollywood movies are like Real Estate agents, some can be sold anything and think they have a great deal, its all in how you market your product or write the story line. When history and legend conflict, "Print the Legend" So for the Long Gray Line of the United States Army, on our honor, "My Country Right Or Wrong, May She Ever Be Right."

jdocop We have always been interested in U.S./Mexico history and relations, but somehow never knew about the St. Patrick's Batallion. I saw a comment somewhere that this movie 'glossed over' some of the American nasties, but we watched with growing horror as it became clear to us that not only was treatment of the Irish immigrants terrible within the U. S. Army, but the American attitude towards Mexico, Mexicans, and the Irish soldiers who went over to the Mexican side (with obvious good reason) was really terrible. Aside from the valuable history lesson, this is simply a good movie, with good acting, and a gripping storyline. If you haven't seen it, go rent it!

James Dorman The San Patricio Battalion were not heroes as this movie would have you believe, they were treasonous scum. This movie makes idols out of men who deserted their army to fight for their enemy and slaughter their former comrades.One fact this movie overlooks (and believe me, there are many) is that the traitor Riley lured many of his San Patricios with promises of Mexican prostitutes. Riley also often speaks in the movie of "freedom" to be found in Mexico, yet at the time Mexico was under the rule of the dictatorial Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. One fact also ignored is that of all the abused (and yes there was abuse, I won't deny that) Irishmen, the San Patricios were only a small minority. Most Irish remained loyal to their adopted country.On a larger sense, this movie is one piece of liberal, revisionist, America-hating trash. The Mexican War was not unjust, most of those who did not support the war were Whig party members (Polk was a Democrat) and Northerners who had an absurd paranoia that the war was a massive conspiracy by the "slavocracy". The Mexican war is entirely Mexico's fault for not being able to accept their loss of Texas and then pressing the boundary issue when they shouldn't have, they can argue over land with Texas when they can govern the land they already have in a semi-decent manner. The movie also goes out of it's way to show American's as evil, merciless conquerors, Winfield Scott especially. Now, I'm going to stop now, before I began bashing the keyboard because I can't type as fast as I can think of reasons why the Mexican War was a wonderful thing.Other than it's treasonous nature, the movie is also just plain bad. The plot is horribly melodramatic and in between the lousy combat scenes all there is is a second-rate romantic subplot.The only good part was at the end when you see all the traitors get hung like they deserved and then flail around a little bit before they die.Don't see this movie whatever you do!

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".