Regreso del infierno

In Bat*21, Colonel Gene Hackman is pulled off the golf links for a dry run on a planned bombing mission when his plane is shot down and he's on the loose in the Vietnamese jungle. Since he's a guy with a whole lot of knowledge the North Vietnamese regulars and the Viet Cong guerrillas would love to get their hands on him. Of course they'd only know how important he was once they did get their hands on him. Still he's someone that Army headquarters will go more than the extra mile for to see he does not fall into enemy hands. More than they would for some dogface private.

Trying to reach him after Hackman's been shot down is rescue evacuation pilot Danny Glover. For a combination of reasons a couple of attempts go bad and Hackman watches the deaths of people sent to rescue him. Will it go right in the end?

The film is based on a true story and Hackman plays the real life Lieutenant Colonel Iceal Hambleton who spent a couple of harrowing days in the jungle with the enemy all around. Bat*21 was Hambleton's real call sign and he and his rescuers work out a complicated route of travel based on a golf course he's played and the fact that Jerry Reed the man in charge knows the course as well. The Viet Cong listening in on their field radio conversations can't figure out what is essentially a private code.

Ironically enough I saw a film based on a similar premise called Jet Attack involving the Korean War just recently. That one however was fictional and Bat*21 is a whole lot better. The film graphically shows and without really taking a side the difficulties of fighting the war in Vietnam where the guerrillas have no compunction about using civilians as shields. At some point Hackman succeeds in begging off a possible massacre like My Lai when a copter and crew is shot down and executed by the Cong who take shelter with the civilian villagers.

Glover and Hackman work well together, there scenes as well as the well staged battle scenes are the best in the film. Bat*21 provides an objective look at the Vietnamese War as seen through the eyes of a successful rescue attempt and the men who sacrificed themselves to get Colonel Hambleton out of harm's way.

It would have been easy to turn a story like this into a cheap action flick -- heroic downed USAF Colonel fights his way through enemy territory with help of heroic self-sacrificing black pilot.

It doesn't happen, exactly. The story, as I understand it, is based on fact, but I don't know how much of it is factual. Maybe the evacuation pilot, Danny Glover, really DID take off alone in a helicopter (in which he was not qualified), rescue Colonel Hambledon (Gene Hackman) single-handedly, successfully crash the helicopter he was not qualified in, and maybe the two of them then escape a horde of North Vietnamese pursuers during a "carpet bombing" of the whole area, with Glover sustaining one of those nasty but not unphotogenic shoulder wounds in the process. Maybe it IS true but it sounds a lot like rather routine fiction to me because real life is seldom so tidy. I can believe the part that golf plays in the escape plan. It's so absurd that no writer in his right mind would dream it up.

Still -- that having been said -- this is a truly worthwhile movie. Action fans will find lots of exploding fireballs if that's what they're looking for. There will also be wounded smoking helicopters spinning drunkenly downward and a man being blown up in a minefield.

But that's not what makes the movie important. The action is usually nothing more than a means to an end. In this case, the end is the education and humanization of Colonel Iceal Hambledon, USAF.

He's your normal military men, an expert on electronic countermeasures. He is 53 years old and has spent most of his life in the military. He's never seen combat. And his being shot down constitutes his introduction to what the film shows us is a pretty ugly kind of business.

Behind enemy lines he spies a column of NV troops and vehicles and calls in an air strike. Boom. Afterward the NVA shoot one of their own wounded troops, which Hambledon finds nasty. Before he knows it, stumbling through the bush, he finds an empty hootch. While scavenging it for food and water, he is discovered by its owner. Neither man understands the other's language. A physical fight follows which Hambledon can only escape from my shooting and killing the Vietnamese farmer. The farmer's napalm-scarred family show up and rush sobbing to the dead body while Hambledon backs away, stunned, saying stupidly, "I'm sorry. I'm sorry." There follows a scene in which captured American fliers sacrifice themselves to save Hambledon and the Air Force then demolishes the nearby village full of soldiers and women and children. "Everywhere I go, people die," Hambledon comments sadly to himself. (I can't emphasize too strongly how much tragedy Hackman invests his lines with. They emerge as more than simply lines of dialogue. He's a fine, reliable, unflamboyant performer.) Hambledon vows that he's all done killing people -- and he is, even when he has to opportunity to shoot an armed enemy soldier who is chasing him. The Vietnames is disoriented, twirling about dizzily while a garden of slow motion flame sprouts around him. Hambledon has a bead on him but then shakes his head in disgust and looks away without firing.

Danny Glover is good too. As an actor he may have more range than he's usually given credit for. Here, as in the "Lethal Weapon" movies, he's more of a supportive sidekick than anything else. He's the guy on the other end of the line who is there when you must spill your emotions to SOMEONE. Not that he's given trite lines in the part. Hambledon hesitates at one point, then tell him over the radio, "I killed a man today." "Roger that," says Glover. He understands what Hambledon's getting at -- but what is there to say? It's combat, not Oprah Winfrey. Also, anyone who wants to see Glover demonstrate that range might want to check out "Switchback," in which he is a good-natured, avuncular, laid-back serial killer.

Sometimes I wonder if some of us have forgotten just how lousy an experience war is for everyone involved -- for us, for our opponents, and for the civilians drawn willy nilly into it. This film is a decent reminder.

I'm a fan of war movies and although I still prefer movies about WWI and WWII, I must say that I also like to watch a good Vietnam movie so now and then. "Bat*21" certainly deserves that qualification, because it feels real, never exaggerates in the action scenes and certainly offered me a lot of 'pleasure' while watching it. (I deliberately put the word pleasure between brackets, because I don't want you to think that I find it fun to see people die in a bombardment, being chased through a minefield, being shot in the head... - I'm not a psychopath).

Although I have some doubts, the movie claims to be based on a true story. It tells the story of Lieutenant Colonel Iceal Hambleton whose observation plane has been shot down by a V.C. missile. Hambleton is the only survivor and because of his expertise in missile weaponry, it is essential for the US Army to find him before the enemy does. The Vietcong is listening to his radio transmissions and comes very close, but one man, Captain Bartholomew Clark, will do anything to help and support him as good as he can.

As I already said, I don't know if everything shown in the movie also happened in reality. I'm not saying that the man has told lies in his book, but Hollywood isn't exactly known for not adding extra's to a story if it makes the movie look better. Still, even if they have done so, I must say that it still is a very nice movie. In my opinion the movie is underrated at this time (6.2/10 after 1,467 votes). Especially thanks to the nice performances of Gene Hackman and Danny Glover, this movie really works well.

Especially Danny Glover was a big surprise. When I first saw him in this movie, all I thought was: 'What is that man doing in this movie?' When I think of him, I still associate him with the "Lethal Weapon" movies. But I admit, what he has done in this movie certainly made me forget about that very quickly. I didn't see him as a cop anymore, I soon started to see him as Captain Bartholomew Clark.

All in all this is a Vietnam movie that certainly deserves a good rating, because it is one of the better in the genre that I've ever seen. It's perhaps no "Platoon" or "Full Metal Jacket", but it is a very good movie and that's why I give it a 7.5/10.

In 1969/70 I was a US Army Huey pilot in Northern I Corps of South Vietnam. I was on Hamburger Hill in the A Shau valley, flew in Laos and some in North Vietnam. BAT 21 is the first Vietnam War movie I have ever seen.

The truth of the war and how it was done and flown is terrible enough. This movie is way off the mark as to who flew aircraft and how they were flown.

When the UH-1N was in a left turn the the camera man made a shot out the left door showing the ground and the shadow of the aircraft, the shadow was a Bell Jet Ranger! Very poor quality. Of course the UH-1N was really a Bell 212, just look at the tail rotor. I have over 4,000 hours of helicopter time, 886 hours of which is in combat.

This movie cheapened everyone in the war, I would assume it is the norm rather than the exception.

From what I have read about the real Bat 21 I would say that truth is more interesting, shocking and horrible that this 10th rate film.

Jimmy L. Ratcliff former US Army Chief Warrant Officer

.... this was supposed to be a "true" story, so why not tell it as it really happened? Of course, there are always budget restraints and other considerations that come into play. But I can never quite work out why Hollywood changes crucial facts of a real story when making "true-life" movies of this type. Don't get me wrong - I saw this movie for the first time just last week, a full 13 years after it first appeared, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It didn't glorify war at all, and some of the scenes were quite shocking and moving. However, having read the TRUE story of BAT 21 some years ago, I couldn't help thinking "hang on a minute - it didn't happen like that!!!" In reality, the actual 1972 mission to rescue Lt. Col. Hambleton was a very complex affair that lasted for 12 days, the downed airman finally being rescued by a two-man team consisting of a US Navy SEAL lieutenant (who won the Medal Of Honour in the process) and a South Vietnamese Army Ranger. Why not include this in the movie if you're out to tell anything like the true story? Also, several US aircraft and choppers were shot down in the process, with 10 American airmen killed and two more captured. But apart from the superbly done abortive helicopter rescue attempt and the shooting of the captured crewmen, the movie led us to believe that the rescue mission merely consisted of Hambleton (Hackman) escaping & evading on the ground with Clark (Danny Glover) circling above and talking to him on the radio. In reality, Clark was himself shot down early in the mission and had to be rescued, and his role in the actual Hambleton rescue was therefore nothing like that depicted in the film.

But, that said, why let the truth get in the way of a good story? And despite its shortcomings on the historical accuracy front, this was a thoroughly enjoyable film that didn't gloss over or sanitize the horrors of war. Despite my nit-picking, I'd definitely recommend it.