Guy Plot: An SAS squadron are deployed to Vietnam for a tour of duty.The problem with most war films is that they tend to cover the same sort of things. The horror of war, the absurdity, the Dear John letters, the process of learning, the mastering of fear. The Odd Angry Shot is no different. Shot for a pittance it manages to look realistic thanks to being shot in the Australian Army's Jungle Training Centre. The lack of budget means no elaborate battles, which means only a handful of short bitter skirmishes, which actually adds to the realism of the thing. Most of the time in this film, as in real life, the patrol finds nothing, fights nothing. So why does it work? In short, the script. This film is damned funny, full of insight and very human. If you've ever laughed with an Australian barman in London then you'll enjoy this because it's full ANZAC.

jamesrlballard One of many tight budgeted, well acted films with a good cast and script produced by Australia back in the 70's and 80's and so absent today.This film shows the difference between Australian and US forces in Vietnam is mirrored in film production differences between the two countries. There are no huge explosions, flotillas of helicopters or A grade actors rather; characters that are believable and whose pain is felt when their comrades are killed.This is no fairytale either as only two of the main characters survive unscathed. All the others are either killed or (Bryan Brown) maimed beyond recognition.

bob-1135 When I first saw this movie I was convinced that the actors were in fact real SAS troopers who had been seconded to do a bit of acting. So realistic were their actions, behaviour and kit. Later of course I discovered they were all well-known Australian actors. If anyone wants to know what fighting in Vietnam was like, watch this film. It shows you how it should be done. One foot out of camp and all communication is by hand signals and whispers. Comparing this to some American units in Vietnam who actually went on patrol with transistor radios on their shoulders and you will quickly understand why the Australians did so well and overall the Americans did so badly.I vote this the best war movie ever made.

Gum_Bercules After reading some comments on this movie, I can't help but notice there seems to be some confusion between what is a movie and what is a documentary.There are a number of technical flaws in this, but they are all fine with me. I like it just the way it is. There is no glorification, there is no immortal hero soldier on the 'goodies' side, there is no censorious look down the nose at war and the people in it. Instead there is a portrayal of volunteer career soldiers dealing with things in a real way. It doesn't deal with the 'nasho' (national service) civilian soldier, put into combat because his conscription number came up. It deals with real soldiers and attempts to portray them as such. This aspect impresses me most as the movie gives some working insight into minds of soldiers. And besides some small character building, there are no obvious transparent attempts to tug at the heartstrings. I'm being taken along for the ride with them instead of having the ride forced down my throat.Being so numerically and financially overshadowed by the U.S. involvement, its often overlooked that Australia played a size-able role in Vietnam's struggle. Its good to see a movie highlighting other's involvement in that particular theater, be it Australian, South Korean, French, or even the South Vietnamese themselves.You could nitpick technicalities about this movie for ever, but considering things like the budget limitation and location constraints, the only real thing that this movie lacks is Sam Neil and Mel Gibson. They would of been the right age at the time, and considering the other characters went on to great things, or at the very least stable careers, it seems sad that they don't appear somewhere given the timing and kick off points of their careers.I highly recommend this as it entertains whilst staying as true to the truth as need be.