Hamburger Hill (1987) - Action, Drama, Thriller

Hohum Score



A very realistic interpretation of one of the bloodiest battles of the Vietnam War.

IMDB: 6.7
Director: John Irvin
Stars: Anthony Barrile, Michael Boatman
Length: 110 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 19 out of 107 found boring (17.75%)

One-line Reviews (42)

If the film is largely without point that is only because the taking of Hill 937, the 'Hamburger Hill' of the title -- was ultimately pointless (as was, in the larger sense, the entire Vietnam adventure and as is, ultimately, most war itself).


The action all seemed very real, most of the time the enemy was unseen and the battle was confusing, as I imagine such combat would be.

Rather boring war drama.

Something special happened in this movie that is worth watching!

The movie manages to be very entertaining but is boring at times.

Irwin, an interesting director, who believe it or not, made the Arnie pic, Raw Deal, prefore, and also, that fine British actioner, Shiner, has so well shot and captured the horror and action, with some truly gripping moments, some feel a bit too close for comfort.

Time honored plot shows the attempts to take a hill and then find the whole operation pointless.

This is a must see for fans of war films and historians alike and I highly recommend it.

And here we have another waste of some 100 minutes in the life of the viewer.

I give the movie credit for its very intense and realistic battle scenes,( the only special effect that didn't look real was the planes bombings, it looked like the plane was dropping cheap fireworks).

Instead there are one or two short bursts of unexpected fighting that are over as quickly as they begin.

The film ends on the same pointless note as it began.

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.

Characters (which are notably characterised) come and go, with established relationship building to the rigid army orders and rather intense racial digs.

There is a lot of tension, a couple of fights, where Vance's edgy and tense, character, is so enjoyable to watch, how he never got some acting award, for this, leaves me blinded.

There are plenty of details & I'm sure great pains were undertaken to make it realistic but I just thought it was quite dull.

Much of the dialogue that precedes it is the kind of meandering, pointless talk that real people -- as opposed to actors in a theatrical production -- fill time with.

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.

It has a pencil-thin storyline, too, and is ultimately pointless.

Vance who played Doc, the rather intense medic and Dylan McDermott who played Sgt.

A whitewashing piece of propaganda with no personality.

Was this the act of desperation, confusion and fear?

Unfortunately, it's sometimes diminished by contrived sequences (acting, dialogue, etc.). Regardless, such an approach won't be satisfactory for those who favor a more substantial story, stronger characters and a deeper subtext.

I did think it was a bit boring at times.

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.

Eat a hamburger, it's more enjoyable than this.

The assault is a muddy, bloody, and tedious exercise that saps the will and the life out of the American troops who are just doing what they've been ordered to do.

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.

The only thing worth watching about the movie is the battle sequences.

The brutally repetitive storming of Hamburger Hill that occupies the second half of the film, particularly from May 15 on (the assault began on May 10, 1969 and was finally completed ten days later), is mindnumbing.

A waste of time.

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.

I was on the edge of my seat for the whole film, which I happened upon by accident in my video store.

There are some good combat scenes, but the parts in-between often slow down the movie.

What I do believe is that this should be required viewing for those who don't even blink at sending young men into war, especially for an empty cause.

It circumvents war movie cliché; no metaphorical arrows pointing at heads saying "he's dead meat".

Are there a few cliche's?

Added to this is an extreme sense of confusion to the viewer that mirrors the confusion of the soldiers.

When you are making crap propaganda films all you need sap and a bunch of flags (which are absent in Platoon) etc. When I watch We Were Soldiers I am sad that all the "Welcome home" and "Never Again" that we experienced in the mid 80's has been totally forgotten.

Polemic Film about Pointless Battle .

It starts with a long, boring build-up to some lame battle scenes and then come the "emotional" scenes where the troops constantley repeat the trem" Don't mean nothin".