One Man's Hero

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".

Someday, perhaps, when this film achieves the reputation as a classic that it deserves it will be widely re-released. A labor of love for Berenger, it features the acclaimed actor in possibly his greatest performance as an Irish sergeant who fights with his men on the side of the Mexicans during the Mexican war. Tom is incredible here, especially in the closing scenes, but everything is superb here, the music, photography, direction by Lance Hool, supporting performances, everything you could ask for in a spectacle like this.See this film.

I was fortunate to attend the premiere. Now I am trying to find out when OMH will be released to the SF Bay Area so that I can tell my friends to be sure to see it.

I am very familiar with writer Michael Hogan's work in both his The Irish Soldiers of Mexico and Molly Malone and the San Patricios. Michael is a superb poet too. I happen to know too that he served as a consultant on the troop movements, the uniforms, the flags etc. when the Hools were filming in Durango.

The film depicts a little known episode in the U.S.'s quest to dominate the northern hemisphere. We know that this quest was successful, but we also know that the price in blood was much higher than any of the proponents of Manifest Destiny ever dreamed.

The acting is superb. I especially liked Joaquim Alameda for his portrayal of a renegade patriot. I think there is another great story there that perhaps the Hools should do. What did happen to him? Did he spawn Zapata?

Finally, the score, the scenery, and the battle scenes were really well done. Pity the poor lads who had to pay even more than the price named in the Military Code of Justice. That was a shame, but we must remember their memory will live on forever. Even more so now that Lance and Conrad Hool have immortalized them on film.

John Riley did indeed lead Irish deserters for Mexico in the war. The Irish were ill-used by Nativist officers who didn't like 'croppies.' Protestant America was feeling threatened by the huge influx of Catholic Irish flooding into the US from famine-struck Ireland. Few troops have been given more reason to desert. However, the movie tells it all wrong. Riley wasn't a sergeant and didn't plan to return after getting his men to safety. He was a private who swam the Rio Grande a month before the war was declared. He responded to 'desertion leaflets' that the Mexicans had sneaked into American Camps. No US army ever had higher desertion rates.

The treatment of Winfield Scott is rather harsh. Riley was actually sentenced to hang with virtually all of his men but it was Scott who commuted his sentence (the still harsh 50 lashes and branding), along with that of more than a score of his men. This infuriated Scott's Nativist officers.

Riley remained in the Mexican Army after the war for a year or so and almost certainly returned to Ireland thereafter. Also, he was a young fellow, about thirty, which made it hard to accept Tom in the role. Another thing that was irritating is that there is a list of the men who served under Riley and it is amazing that the screenwriter decided to create fictional replacements instead. Why? Also, one must not forget that most Irish, despite poor treatment by prejudiced officers, did not desert. Who was more heroic, those who deserted or those who didn't?

All in all, a disappointment. However, it is one of the very few films that deals with the Mexican American War, and for that I commend it.

One Man's Hero details a little known chapter of the very unpopular Mexican American War. The acting is superb, Tom Berenger aches with conflicted loyalty to his church, to his "boys" and to his adopted country. In many ways this is a diffucult film to view. Often, Americans feel my country right or wrong. This film fairly reveals both sides with warts and all. There is never a winner in any military confrontation. Everyone loses - their own lives, the life of a loved one, a cherised home land. The US army of the 1800's often employed less than honorable tactics to lure uneducated immigrants into its rank & file. What they found was a prejudice not just reserved for the those of a different color skin or on the "other" side of the confrontation. The prejudices of the army were cruelly devisive & a socially acceptable behavior among the rank and file of the US troops. Often an ethnic groups loyalties were not grounded in the flag and mission of their adopted homeland, but among their own, where they shared traditions, culture and church. This is the story of One Man's Hero. The cast is excellent. The story will make you think. Today we talk about human rights, human dignity .... In the 1800's our country was far from the equality, freedom and dignity we are still striving to achieve today. One Man's Hero will make you think. It will make you think twice before you utter an unkindness or that "funny" joke from the water cooler. When we hurt others, we are only hurting ourselves. This is the lesson of One Man's Hero. Can we ask any more of a film.