Reviews (3)

Cut too long
The story is good. There was a lot of thought regarding history, location and costuming The "Behind The Scenes" section was very interesting. This version was a production for TV & they forgot to remove the introductions & final rollups. The viewer has to fast forward thru these at each "chapter". For me, his breaks the tempo of the movie. I would have given Scarlet Letter 4-1/2 stars if the cut had been better.

definitive film version of the first american classic novel.
I am elated that this PBS production of the Scarlet Letter (1979) has received a DVD treatment. John Heard deals superbly with the dichotomies and private tortures of Dimmesdale. John Heard is not only physically gorgeous (helping us understand Hester's "fall"), but he seems more than able to effortlessly manipulate this classic and complex character. Meg Foster is the quintessential Hester Prynne. Equipt to portray the lead as both a feminist and a desperate mother to Pearl.

The DVD also has behind the scenes footage.

This is the most accurate deftly-acted version of the first american classic novel. I highly recommed purchasing this DVd you will not be let down. Instead you will be provoked to question spirituality, America's puritanical early history, etc.
Well worth the money and your time!!!!!!!!!!

Please don't bother with the 1995 Demi Moore version. It got lost somewhere between One Life to Live and softcore Cinemax sexuality; it is dumb and a waste of your time.

Good, but needs work
I like this version of the Scarlet Letter, which is strictly true to the book, it could have been cast better, for the part of Roger Chillingworth, but all in all is a god film. ... Read more

Reviews (28)

The Good ole days!!!
This movie sure brings back memories. If you get easily upset over racial slurs this might not be the movie for you. However action packed from start to finish.
I only wish John Lone were in more movies now!!!He always plays such a great villian and Mickey Rourke plays his role of the do things my way cop so well. I'm glad to see this is coming out on DVD so I won't have to purchase an overseas copy.
One of my top favorites of all time.Also if you liked this one check out The Hunted (1995) version starring Christopher Lambert and John Lone. Another Classic!!!

Highly Unappealing
I feel compelled to write this review in light of the glowing commentary provided by some other customers. I found this movie unpleasant to say the least. Though it had some interesting ideas, there was not a single appealing character in the film. While some might call this "realism," to me this was just poor scripting. I've seen films that made unpleasant people who are still appealing characters (such as the Usual Suspects or Resevoir Dogs) but this movie couldn't even make a "tough policeman" type appealing. I cannot deny that the up-in-arms attitude of many Asian American groups towards this film are uncalled for, but at the same time I found it self indulgent, dull, and, as my title says, highly unappealing. Though I'm apparently in the minority in this view (judging by the other customer reviews) I feel obliged to make it known, and to mention that everyone who I watched this with agreed with me. I guess I'm trying to say that this movie isn't for every one. :)

One of Mickey Rourke's best performances
This is one of my favorite movies. John Lone is so good, I think he steals the show.Rourke and Lone carry this movie, and the actress who plays Rourkes wife is terrific too.I might be bias here, because I relate to Rourke's character so much;A cop caught between his private ideals and the political groups and beauracracy. The movie shows how compromise and expediancy work to extend the life of the evil they are trying to destroy.

One of my favourites
I'm lazy so I won't write much and to hell with the lot of you who give me a "no". I simply want to counter the reviews of the soul-starved who gave it a poor rating. This movie so profoundly displays a good man beaten by the mediocrity of the world but, damn it won't quit his fight. It descends to the usual shoot-'em-up cop drama from time to time but has many very great moments. The scene where he loses his wife, a woman he was having troubles with, but still loved is moving and always affects me. Why in hell is this not on DVD? Would of given it 4 1/2 but couldn't - so 5 it is!

A Great Film
This film got a bad reputation when left-leaning Chinese-American groups tried to brand it as racist, causing many film critics to play it safe and pan it rather than brave the ire of those groups.In truth, the only notable flaw in the film is the acting talents of Arianne; despite this, I found her tolerable as her interaction with Rourke was truly electric.As to the demagogues, I must say that they arrived a little late to the party: Cimino's Deer Hunter portrayed Asians in a much more demeaning light than anything here.Besides that, have any of those protesters seen the kinds of movies put out en masse from Hong Kong?They are much more glitzy violent than anything portrayed here (for example check out John Wu's "The Killer" or Hard-Boiled").

Mickey Rourke is awesome as usual, he defined cool in the 1980s just as Errol Flynn did for the 1930s.And just like Errol Flynn, he later descended into mediocrity, making poor personal decisions and then taking poor roles and minor roles which made a mockery of his previously fine work.But neither Flynn nor Rourke were as bad as OJ Simpson or Enron executives.You don't have to love what they became to enjoy what they previously achieved.

In many ways Cimino fulfilled a potential avenue which Roman Polanski never explored in his 1974 neo-noir masterpiece, Chinatown.That film spent all of one scene in its namesake locale.Year of the Dragon takes us right into the heart of New York City's Chinatown, for better and for worse.Its a fairly conventional narrative, but you can almost smell the pastries cooking and wet garbage seething on those Manhattan streets.One of my three favorite Rourke films, along with Angel Heart and Francesco. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Great Film, Excellent Surprise.
My girlfriend found this movie in a used film/CD store in Denver. She knew this film had been nominated for an academy award a few years ago. It was snowy and cold so we decided to stay home and watch it. It is great, really good. It gives us a shocking view of what was going on in Latin America, a story that was never told here in the US. I never heard of this episode, and the movie made me research more about it. It made me proud of our ambassador, a corageous, brave, yet vulnerable man while in captivity, and on the other hand made me ashamed to know that my country was supporting all that repression in Brazil. Besides, that Claudia Abreu chick is HOT!!! Impressive acting by Arkin and the Brazilian actors.

An intelligent and moving historical drama
Brazil, 1969. The country is under the control of an oppressive military regime. A group of idealistic students join an underground revolutionary group in protest. Out of this climate of paranoia and violence, a bold plan is conceived: a plot to kidnap the U.S. ambassador to Brazil. This true story forms the basis for the excellent film "Four Days in September," directed by Bruno Barreto.

I have seen many historical films, and this is one of the best. There are no cardboard heroes or villains in this film; there are lots of moral shades of gray. Are these students terrorists or freedom fighters? Is the ambassador an innocent victim, or an ally of oppressive forces?

Leopoldo Serran's intelligent script is based on Fernando Gabeira's book "O Que E Isso, Companhiero?" The dialogue offers thought-provoking insights into the minds of the individuals involved in these events. The cast gives universally superb performances; particularly impressive is veteran U.S. actor Alan Arkin as Ambassador Charles Elbrick. The film as a whole is well complemented by a memorable musical soundtrack. Barreto's direction is both suspenseful and sensitive. Whether you are interested in Latin American history or just enjoy a well-made drama, I highly recommend this film.

Echoes of today
Seeing this film at this moment in history is instructive. Issues of repression, coups d'etat, torture of prisoners, radical extremists - it all rings very "current." The story of Brazil's military coup was sadly ignored in this country, and in these times, we should all be watching carefully.

It is a fine and complex film, highly recommended.

A great movie in spite of some minor inaccuracies
This movie faced a lot of criticism in Brazil for the liberties it took with history. Some criticism dates back to the publication of Fernando Gabeira's book, mainly the fact that Gabeira's importance in the kidnapping is overplayed. Other survivors from the operation claim he did not write the note to the press, as the movie shows. Also, a girl did try to get information from the Ambassador's security man, but she did not spend the night with him (and those who like to spot errors may notice the fact that he calls her by her code name, René, even though she introduced herself by a different name). And one just has to read other books about those days in Brazil to realize most torturers were sick animals, not guilt-ridden human beings like the guy in the movie.

In spite of all these flaws, the movie still works admirably as a snapshot of an era. I understand it was rather easy to sell this movie to the international market because Alan Arkin is in it and the event it is based on involved the kidnapping of an American ambassador. But it would be great if people all over the world could also see another movie titled "Pra Frente Brasil". The story is fictitious but inspired by actual facts: while the 1970 World Cup is taking place and the whole Brazilian population is glued to television sets, a guy is captured by mistake and tortured to death by the police. Brazil won that World Cup, so the whole country was in a celebratory mood while the horrors of repression were happening in the underground.

Sticks with you
I saw "Four Days in September" when in came out in U.S. theaters in 1999. It has stuck with me since then, mostly because of Alan Arkin's fabulous performance as Ambassador Charles Embrick. But, also, because of the way the film brings to light for its audience what life was like in Brazil during the miltary dictatorship of 1969 - 1979. And, because of its very understated manner of showing you how this small, underground group of anti-regimists coalesced, got its training, and put its thoughts into actions. It all feels very real. No Hollywood-ization here.

If you want an entertaining *and* eductional evening, rent or buy "Four Days in September." You won't be disappointed. ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Debunking a lot of dangerous myths
In PLATOON, director Oliver Stone showed us the horrors of the Vietnam war from ground zero. Three years after that, with BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY, he takes us to what the war did to America and has us see it through the eyes of another Vietnam vet, Ron Kovic, who co-wrote the screenplay with Stone from his own 1976 memoir. Tom Cruise portrays Kovic, and gives one of the best onscreen performances of modern times.

Kovic was a kid from Massapequa, New York who grew up believing in the post-World War II beliefs of American superiority, anticommunism, and John Wayne, and who wanted to serve his country. But in Vietnam, he had the tragic misfortune of being shot by a VC bullet and paralysed from the waist down. He would now never be able to have children, and he would never walk again. Like a lot of Vietnam vets, he was met either with indifference or hostility to his suffering. He became embittered and hostile in his own way.

But he soon learned that his experience could be used for a greater purpose than war: to educate Americans about the realities behind the myths that helped tear America apart during the 1960s and 1970s.

Although a long film at 140 minutes plus, BORN is a stunning look not only at Kovic's personal experiences, but the experiences of our nation when we moved from braggadocio and John Wayne patriotism to cynicism and political violence. Never in this movie do Stone or Kovic ever say that Vietnam vets didn't serve their country proud. They do, however, indict the culture of paranoia and anticommunism that worshipped a supposed "patriot" like John Wayne, who NEVER saw any combat action in his life. And on that count, they must be commended fully.

It is an honor to serve one's country, but when you don't know the truth about what you're supposedly fighting for, the results can be devastating. That is what Stone and Kovic say was wrong with America's Vietnam experience, and I can't help but believe they were 200% right.

Powerful, earnest, and wrenching.
Oliver Stone explored the effects of the Vietnam war with three movies: Platoon, Heaven and Earth, and Born on the Fourth of July. Most regard Platoon as the best of this "trilogy," although I always preferred this one. Platoon was gritty and realistic, but this was powerful and more emotionally driven. Until I saw this film, I didn't have much respect for Tom Cruise as an actor, but everything changed afterwards. Cruise goes through a number of critical changes throughout this film, from a patriotic young man to a bitter, crippled veteran, and he does it better than you could imagine.

Cruise is the young athlete Ron Kovic, an idealistic and patriotic American who joins the Marines to fight in the Vietnam War. When he gets there, his brash eagerness is diluted by horror when he accidentally kills one of his own men. The pains in his heart are compounded by a bullet wound that leaves him paralyzed from the chest down. Returning home, he steadfastly clings to his national spirit, which puts him in conflict with the populace's growing aversion to the mess in Vietnam. He winds up in Mexico as a tormented drunkard, then reforms and becomes an anti-Vietnam activist, writing the autobiographical book on which this movie is based.

This movie is tremendously powerful because of its acute historical significance, strong anti-war message, and Tom Cruise's stunning acting. The movie is sad and wrenching, but it ends with an uplifting note of someone who rises above the pain and hate to a stronger condition. This is Oliver Stone's best film, I think. I also love the score by John Williams; the movie's theme does an incredible job evoking the feelings behind some of America's most painful years.

THEY ALWAYS BLAME AMERICA FIRST
In 1989 Oliver Stone came out with "Born on the Fourth of July", the true story of Ron Kovic, a gung-ho Marine who is paralyzed in combat in Vietnam. The film is realistic and compelling. Stone is a master and Tom Cruise as Kovic gives one of his best-ever performances, proving him to be a bona fide acting talent. The film depicts the heartbreaking American experience in Vietnam, and the character arc of Kovic is as complete as any ever captured. He returns home, desperate to believe that his sacrifice was in a noble cause, but this is chipped away by the well-known elements of '60s radicalism. The "generation gap" between longhaired youths and crew cut, religious parents is profound. Kovic sinks into the depravity of drugs and alcohol, but battles back to become a "hero" of the anti-war Left. He wheels into the 1972 Republican National Convention, where he tries to tell the clean-cut, well-heeled patriots that they are wrong and he is right. The idea is that they are all warmongers who have not fought, while he is a pacifist because he has. While there is truth to the premise, in choosing to tell this story, Stone establishes Hollywood as the home of solidly liberal ideas. In 1972, Nixon won 49 states over the ant-war McGovern. The idea that all those Americans, subject daily to reports from Peter Arnett and Dan Rather, the bias of Walter Cronkite, and the hate of the New York Times and the Washington Post, chose Nixon because they were bloodthirsty imperialists is just malarkey. Furthermore, Nixon had made 18-year olds eligible to vote. The concept that all of American youth protested in the streets is a myth. The anti-war movement was propped by TV that made pockets of outrage look like a widespread movement. The Silent Majority spoke out in '72. Big time.
Stone's depiction is fair in and of itself, but he takes advantage of the power of his medium in creating a mindset that such horrors as Kovic experienced are just part of the "Vietnam experience." Kovic's life mirrors soldiers going back to the Roman Legion and beyond. The Left has taken Vietnam as one of those core issues and stuck to it, just as they found themselves wedded to Alger Hiss, Bill Clinton and now the losing side of the War on Terrorism. McCarthy was going after genuine Communists, and genuine Communists were trying to enslave South Vietnam. It took some fighting to stop them. Nixon and Kissinger had the best plan available to them at the time, and the public recognized it. Watergate killed them and the Democrats used it to abandon our allies. Millions died because of them. Democrats will have you believe that we "created" the "killing fields." They have to say things like that, to cling to this nebulous theory, somehow unable to blame the rabid haters and murderers of Communist history, apparently because they are wedded to McCarthyism. Their movies are their best tool in perpetuating their lies. Not on my watch.

STEVEN TRAVERS
AUTHOR OF "BARRY BONDS: BASEBALL'S SUPERMAN"
STWRITES@AOL.COM

An Intese Look at the After-Affects of Warfare
As other reviewers have said, this movie does have a liberal bias. However, that bias is pretty much irrelevant to the plot, which I think was very well done.
This move details the life of Ron Kovic, a patriotic young man who enlists in the marines, and goes to Vietnam. He is wounded, and ends up paralyzed from the waist down. As he struggles with his new handicap, he slowly comes to realize the folly of his patriotism.
As a libertarian, I see this as a story of learning to distrust the government. At the end of this story, I think Ron still loves his country, but he learns to understand the difference between country and government. I recommend this movie to anyone interested in the war, specifically from the veterans point of view.

Wow
To sum it all up....I cant believe Cruise didnt win the Academy Award for this one. Just an incredible performance. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

I love River person
I love this movie, because River is in it, and I love him *Crys* I wish he would come back, I will always love him....*crys* God Bless River. I alsmot beat my tv, because we didn't get the channel with stand by me

Eternal River Fan
This movie is great, in my opinion any River Phoenix movie is great. And if you are a tru fan of River Phoenix than any movie with him is worth seeing and as for wasting his talents... he wasted his talent just being in this world with us no one could ever completely understand how deep his talents were. River will alwayz be loved and missed. Now if you are truly a River fan then I defintly recommend this movie to you.

Russian Spy
If you like spy movies, this is great. It has action, River Phoenix and Sydney Poitier are fabulous together. This is definitely one for the list. I totally enjoyed this and recommend it.

2 LEGENDARY STARS IN A SO-SO FILM
December 28 1989 I first saw this film and became an instant fan of RIVER PHOENIX. Teamed with great Sidney Poitier it is a cold-war thriller and at times - a good one. But in the end it goes over the top and it quickly lost its importance when the cold war vanished... soon after the films completion...
However, it is a treat for the fans of these stars and the supporting cast are great especially Caroline Kava.

Pretty Good
Don't listen to that screwed-up review above. This movie has plenty of suspense, tense moments, and fine performances, especially by River Phoenix and Sidney Portier. You'll love it. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

The second film in Oliver Stone's Vietnam trilogy moves from the brutality of war in Platoon to its equally traumatic aftermath. Based on the memoir of combat veteran Ron Kovic, the film stars Tom Cruise as Kovic, whose gunshot wound in Vietnam left him paralyzed from the chest down. He is deeply embittered by neglect in a veteran's hospital and by the shattering of his patriotic idealism because of the horror and futility of the Vietnam conflict. While painfully and awkwardly adjusting to his disability and a changing definition of masculinity, Kovic joins the burgeoning movement of antiwar protest, culminating in a climactic appearance at the 1976 Democratic national convention. A powerfully intimate portrait that unfolds on an epic scale, Born on the Fourth of July is arguably Stone's best film (if you can forgive its often strident tone), and Cruise's Oscar-nominated role is uncompromising in its depiction of one man's personal anguish and political awakening. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Debunking a lot of dangerous myths
In PLATOON, director Oliver Stone showed us the horrors of the Vietnam war from ground zero. Three years after that, with BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY, he takes us to what the war did to America and has us see it through the eyes of another Vietnam vet, Ron Kovic, who co-wrote the screenplay with Stone from his own 1976 memoir. Tom Cruise portrays Kovic, and gives one of the best onscreen performances of modern times.

Kovic was a kid from Massapequa, New York who grew up believing in the post-World War II beliefs of American superiority, anticommunism, and John Wayne, and who wanted to serve his country. But in Vietnam, he had the tragic misfortune of being shot by a VC bullet and paralysed from the waist down. He would now never be able to have children, and he would never walk again. Like a lot of Vietnam vets, he was met either with indifference or hostility to his suffering. He became embittered and hostile in his own way.

But he soon learned that his experience could be used for a greater purpose than war: to educate Americans about the realities behind the myths that helped tear America apart during the 1960s and 1970s.

Although a long film at 140 minutes plus, BORN is a stunning look not only at Kovic's personal experiences, but the experiences of our nation when we moved from braggadocio and John Wayne patriotism to cynicism and political violence. Never in this movie do Stone or Kovic ever say that Vietnam vets didn't serve their country proud. They do, however, indict the culture of paranoia and anticommunism that worshipped a supposed "patriot" like John Wayne, who NEVER saw any combat action in his life. And on that count, they must be commended fully.

It is an honor to serve one's country, but when you don't know the truth about what you're supposedly fighting for, the results can be devastating. That is what Stone and Kovic say was wrong with America's Vietnam experience, and I can't help but believe they were 200% right.

Powerful, earnest, and wrenching.
Oliver Stone explored the effects of the Vietnam war with three movies: Platoon, Heaven and Earth, and Born on the Fourth of July. Most regard Platoon as the best of this "trilogy," although I always preferred this one. Platoon was gritty and realistic, but this was powerful and more emotionally driven. Until I saw this film, I didn't have much respect for Tom Cruise as an actor, but everything changed afterwards. Cruise goes through a number of critical changes throughout this film, from a patriotic young man to a bitter, crippled veteran, and he does it better than you could imagine.

Cruise is the young athlete Ron Kovic, an idealistic and patriotic American who joins the Marines to fight in the Vietnam War. When he gets there, his brash eagerness is diluted by horror when he accidentally kills one of his own men. The pains in his heart are compounded by a bullet wound that leaves him paralyzed from the chest down. Returning home, he steadfastly clings to his national spirit, which puts him in conflict with the populace's growing aversion to the mess in Vietnam. He winds up in Mexico as a tormented drunkard, then reforms and becomes an anti-Vietnam activist, writing the autobiographical book on which this movie is based.

This movie is tremendously powerful because of its acute historical significance, strong anti-war message, and Tom Cruise's stunning acting. The movie is sad and wrenching, but it ends with an uplifting note of someone who rises above the pain and hate to a stronger condition. This is Oliver Stone's best film, I think. I also love the score by John Williams; the movie's theme does an incredible job evoking the feelings behind some of America's most painful years.

THEY ALWAYS BLAME AMERICA FIRST
In 1989 Oliver Stone came out with "Born on the Fourth of July", the true story of Ron Kovic, a gung-ho Marine who is paralyzed in combat in Vietnam. The film is realistic and compelling. Stone is a master and Tom Cruise as Kovic gives one of his best-ever performances, proving him to be a bona fide acting talent. The film depicts the heartbreaking American experience in Vietnam, and the character arc of Kovic is as complete as any ever captured. He returns home, desperate to believe that his sacrifice was in a noble cause, but this is chipped away by the well-known elements of '60s radicalism. The "generation gap" between longhaired youths and crew cut, religious parents is profound. Kovic sinks into the depravity of drugs and alcohol, but battles back to become a "hero" of the anti-war Left. He wheels into the 1972 Republican National Convention, where he tries to tell the clean-cut, well-heeled patriots that they are wrong and he is right. The idea is that they are all warmongers who have not fought, while he is a pacifist because he has. While there is truth to the premise, in choosing to tell this story, Stone establishes Hollywood as the home of solidly liberal ideas. In 1972, Nixon won 49 states over the ant-war McGovern. The idea that all those Americans, subject daily to reports from Peter Arnett and Dan Rather, the bias of Walter Cronkite, and the hate of the New York Times and the Washington Post, chose Nixon because they were bloodthirsty imperialists is just malarkey. Furthermore, Nixon had made 18-year olds eligible to vote. The concept that all of American youth protested in the streets is a myth. The anti-war movement was propped by TV that made pockets of outrage look like a widespread movement. The Silent Majority spoke out in '72. Big time.
Stone's depiction is fair in and of itself, but he takes advantage of the power of his medium in creating a mindset that such horrors as Kovic experienced are just part of the "Vietnam experience." Kovic's life mirrors soldiers going back to the Roman Legion and beyond. The Left has taken Vietnam as one of those core issues and stuck to it, just as they found themselves wedded to Alger Hiss, Bill Clinton and now the losing side of the War on Terrorism. McCarthy was going after genuine Communists, and genuine Communists were trying to enslave South Vietnam. It took some fighting to stop them. Nixon and Kissinger had the best plan available to them at the time, and the public recognized it. Watergate killed them and the Democrats used it to abandon our allies. Millions died because of them. Democrats will have you believe that we "created" the "killing fields." They have to say things like that, to cling to this nebulous theory, somehow unable to blame the rabid haters and murderers of Communist history, apparently because they are wedded to McCarthyism. Their movies are their best tool in perpetuating their lies. Not on my watch.

STEVEN TRAVERS
AUTHOR OF "BARRY BONDS: BASEBALL'S SUPERMAN"
STWRITES@AOL.COM

An Intese Look at the After-Affects of Warfare
As other reviewers have said, this movie does have a liberal bias. However, that bias is pretty much irrelevant to the plot, which I think was very well done.
This move details the life of Ron Kovic, a patriotic young man who enlists in the marines, and goes to Vietnam. He is wounded, and ends up paralyzed from the waist down. As he struggles with his new handicap, he slowly comes to realize the folly of his patriotism.
As a libertarian, I see this as a story of learning to distrust the government. At the end of this story, I think Ron still loves his country, but he learns to understand the difference between country and government. I recommend this movie to anyone interested in the war, specifically from the veterans point of view.

Wow
To sum it all up....I cant believe Cruise didnt win the Academy Award for this one. Just an incredible performance. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The second film in Oliver Stone's Vietnam trilogy moves from the brutality of war in Platoon to its equally traumatic aftermath. Based on the memoir of combat veteran Ron Kovic, the film stars Tom Cruise as Kovic, whose gunshot wound in Vietnam left him paralyzed from the chest down. He is deeply embittered by neglect in a veteran's hospital and by the shattering of his patriotic idealism because of the horror and futility of the Vietnam conflict. While painfully and awkwardly adjusting to his disability and a changing definition of masculinity, Kovic joins the burgeoning movement of antiwar protest, culminating in a climactic appearance at the 1976 Democratic national convention. A powerfully intimate portrait that unfolds on an epic scale, Born on the Fourth of July is arguably Stone's best film (if you can forgive its often strident tone), and Cruise's Oscar-nominated role is uncompromising in its depiction of one man's personal anguish and political awakening. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Debunking a lot of dangerous myths
In PLATOON, director Oliver Stone showed us the horrors of the Vietnam war from ground zero. Three years after that, with BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY, he takes us to what the war did to America and has us see it through the eyes of another Vietnam vet, Ron Kovic, who co-wrote the screenplay with Stone from his own 1976 memoir. Tom Cruise portrays Kovic, and gives one of the best onscreen performances of modern times.

Kovic was a kid from Massapequa, New York who grew up believing in the post-World War II beliefs of American superiority, anticommunism, and John Wayne, and who wanted to serve his country. But in Vietnam, he had the tragic misfortune of being shot by a VC bullet and paralysed from the waist down. He would now never be able to have children, and he would never walk again. Like a lot of Vietnam vets, he was met either with indifference or hostility to his suffering. He became embittered and hostile in his own way.

But he soon learned that his experience could be used for a greater purpose than war: to educate Americans about the realities behind the myths that helped tear America apart during the 1960s and 1970s.

Although a long film at 140 minutes plus, BORN is a stunning look not only at Kovic's personal experiences, but the experiences of our nation when we moved from braggadocio and John Wayne patriotism to cynicism and political violence. Never in this movie do Stone or Kovic ever say that Vietnam vets didn't serve their country proud. They do, however, indict the culture of paranoia and anticommunism that worshipped a supposed "patriot" like John Wayne, who NEVER saw any combat action in his life. And on that count, they must be commended fully.

It is an honor to serve one's country, but when you don't know the truth about what you're supposedly fighting for, the results can be devastating. That is what Stone and Kovic say was wrong with America's Vietnam experience, and I can't help but believe they were 200% right.

Powerful, earnest, and wrenching.
Oliver Stone explored the effects of the Vietnam war with three movies: Platoon, Heaven and Earth, and Born on the Fourth of July. Most regard Platoon as the best of this "trilogy," although I always preferred this one. Platoon was gritty and realistic, but this was powerful and more emotionally driven. Until I saw this film, I didn't have much respect for Tom Cruise as an actor, but everything changed afterwards. Cruise goes through a number of critical changes throughout this film, from a patriotic young man to a bitter, crippled veteran, and he does it better than you could imagine.

Cruise is the young athlete Ron Kovic, an idealistic and patriotic American who joins the Marines to fight in the Vietnam War. When he gets there, his brash eagerness is diluted by horror when he accidentally kills one of his own men. The pains in his heart are compounded by a bullet wound that leaves him paralyzed from the chest down. Returning home, he steadfastly clings to his national spirit, which puts him in conflict with the populace's growing aversion to the mess in Vietnam. He winds up in Mexico as a tormented drunkard, then reforms and becomes an anti-Vietnam activist, writing the autobiographical book on which this movie is based.

This movie is tremendously powerful because of its acute historical significance, strong anti-war message, and Tom Cruise's stunning acting. The movie is sad and wrenching, but it ends with an uplifting note of someone who rises above the pain and hate to a stronger condition. This is Oliver Stone's best film, I think. I also love the score by John Williams; the movie's theme does an incredible job evoking the feelings behind some of America's most painful years.

THEY ALWAYS BLAME AMERICA FIRST
In 1989 Oliver Stone came out with "Born on the Fourth of July", the true story of Ron Kovic, a gung-ho Marine who is paralyzed in combat in Vietnam. The film is realistic and compelling. Stone is a master and Tom Cruise as Kovic gives one of his best-ever performances, proving him to be a bona fide acting talent. The film depicts the heartbreaking American experience in Vietnam, and the character arc of Kovic is as complete as any ever captured. He returns home, desperate to believe that his sacrifice was in a noble cause, but this is chipped away by the well-known elements of '60s radicalism. The "generation gap" between longhaired youths and crew cut, religious parents is profound. Kovic sinks into the depravity of drugs and alcohol, but battles back to become a "hero" of the anti-war Left. He wheels into the 1972 Republican National Convention, where he tries to tell the clean-cut, well-heeled patriots that they are wrong and he is right. The idea is that they are all warmongers who have not fought, while he is a pacifist because he has. While there is truth to the premise, in choosing to tell this story, Stone establishes Hollywood as the home of solidly liberal ideas. In 1972, Nixon won 49 states over the ant-war McGovern. The idea that all those Americans, subject daily to reports from Peter Arnett and Dan Rather, the bias of Walter Cronkite, and the hate of the New York Times and the Washington Post, chose Nixon because they were bloodthirsty imperialists is just malarkey. Furthermore, Nixon had made 18-year olds eligible to vote. The concept that all of American youth protested in the streets is a myth. The anti-war movement was propped by TV that made pockets of outrage look like a widespread movement. The Silent Majority spoke out in '72. Big time.
Stone's depiction is fair in and of itself, but he takes advantage of the power of his medium in creating a mindset that such horrors as Kovic experienced are just part of the "Vietnam experience." Kovic's life mirrors soldiers going back to the Roman Legion and beyond. The Left has taken Vietnam as one of those core issues and stuck to it, just as they found themselves wedded to Alger Hiss, Bill Clinton and now the losing side of the War on Terrorism. McCarthy was going after genuine Communists, and genuine Communists were trying to enslave South Vietnam. It took some fighting to stop them. Nixon and Kissinger had the best plan available to them at the time, and the public recognized it. Watergate killed them and the Democrats used it to abandon our allies. Millions died because of them. Democrats will have you believe that we "created" the "killing fields." They have to say things like that, to cling to this nebulous theory, somehow unable to blame the rabid haters and murderers of Communist history, apparently because they are wedded to McCarthyism. Their movies are their best tool in perpetuating their lies. Not on my watch.

STEVEN TRAVERS
AUTHOR OF "BARRY BONDS: BASEBALL'S SUPERMAN"
STWRITES@AOL.COM

An Intese Look at the After-Affects of Warfare
As other reviewers have said, this movie does have a liberal bias. However, that bias is pretty much irrelevant to the plot, which I think was very well done.
This move details the life of Ron Kovic, a patriotic young man who enlists in the marines, and goes to Vietnam. He is wounded, and ends up paralyzed from the waist down. As he struggles with his new handicap, he slowly comes to realize the folly of his patriotism.
As a libertarian, I see this as a story of learning to distrust the government. At the end of this story, I think Ron still loves his country, but he learns to understand the difference between country and government. I recommend this movie to anyone interested in the war, specifically from the veterans point of view.

Wow
To sum it all up....I cant believe Cruise didnt win the Academy Award for this one. Just an incredible performance. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

You morons
I'm not even bothering to read the reviews where you morons spelled his flipping name wrong!!! Its DENIS- not Dennis.

Not typical Dennis Leary, not typical SciFi.
Dennis Leary is known for his high-speed humorous rants. I was hoping for THAT Dennis Leary.

Science Fiction is known for special effects. Effects... SOME kinda effects.

Neither was in this film.

Oh, sure, Dennis Leary proved he could do a 90 minute soliloquoy (Did I spell that right ? *grin*) with fair impact. Kudos, Dennis.

Beyond that, though, I can't see what others are raving about. The plot-twist was unexpected, but I kept waiting for things that didn't come: more evidence of chemistry between the doctor and Dennis, and SOME evidence of special effects.

If you buy this DVD, be prepared for what it delivers: Good acting by one guy and his lesser-light costar, and a good plot twist at the end.
Other elements you'd expect-- action, high humor, high tension, SF effects, technology of the future-- are not evident. This is a no-action drama with a plot twist.

Dennis Leary was Great!!!
Actually this was well acted all around. But Dennis really proved himself here.
Better then his role in Lake Boat and I really liked that. I have both these films in my library now.
A word of caution to most of you. There is no action in this film. 80% of the film takes place in one room. But having said that, this is a really good film. That has a well written, interesting story, that is enhanced by the performances of the two leads.
The story revolves around Dennis's character who wakes up in very sterile hospital setting, not knowing why he is there, why he can't leave, where he is in time, and is his life really at risk.
Thanks Dennis another good film. For me I take your name in the cast as an indicator that I need to see the film.

Excellent movie
What a nice jewel in the dirt that i've found. Watching late night HBO television and "Final" comes on and simply put, blows me away. Excellent movie, I've always loved everything Denis Leary did but this i would say is some of his best work. Lots of thumbs up to Director/Writer/Producer. Strongly recommended.

I can't get it out of my head
It is low budget, and borderline "sci-fi". BUT, it's also got an incredible story, excellent acting and intangible qualities that may make you want to cry in the end. With that said, it's not a chick-flick either (it's just that, I think I'm in love with Hope Davis after seeing this). And Leary totally saved the movie from obscurity for me. He is cast perfectly for this role. I won't tell any details, the less you know the better. Not for everyone, but if you like drama, sci-fi, and don't mind a bit of a slow start, you'll be glad you saw this movie. I can't wait to watch it again. ... Read more