Surprisingly incoherent and boring

How sad is this?

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

There were three issues that made this movie worth the time and money to watch:1) A cowardly deserter who was afforded a chance to rehab himself was tried, sentenced and executed 2) The leftists that developed the story line did get the name of the 28th ID Provost Marshal correct for the period 3) One of the vehicles depicted was a 28th Division, 28th Military Police Platoon vehicle and it was properly marked.I believe that this is the first of Martin Sheen's anti-military movies but certainly wasn't his last.At the time when this country was locked in a war that very well could have been lost, a service member chose to REPEATEDLY desert and promised to do so again. He was tried, convicted and the sentence was death. All of that superfluous bull hockey about being 4F and a "troubled youth" does not come into play. WE WERE AT WAR./s/ A lifelong soldier, combat veteran and former Provost Marshal, 28th Infantry Division

I read the book in 1970 or so when I was in the Army, I thought the movie was pretty well balanced. The book starts with Huie visiting the "Dishonored Dead" section of the US Oise-Aisne Cemetery in France where Slovik was initially buried-his remains were repatriated in 1987. The author keeps asking why only one death sentence carried out and why Slovik, why if the purpose was to make an example of him was the execution carried out in secrecy. From there he goes into Slovik's troubled youth, his criminal record which initially protected him from the draft. But as the Drill Sergeant tells him and his fellow recruits in Basic, "You guys are the bottom of the barrel. But now the heat's one, Uncle Same needs bodies, and the bottom of that barrel is starting to look mighty good." Armies-and the governments they serve-have a funny way of lowering their standards as wars drag on. The official name of the Draft in the USA was (and is) Selective Service, by 1943 they were a lot less selective. Slovik was a good example of what WWII GIs called "The Sad Sack" (in my day, 1967-1971, a "dud", in civilianese we might say a loser. One poster said Slovik gambled and lost, a very apt description. He repeatedly declared he would desert if given the chance, he was given a chance to redeem himself, he refused-I can clearly recall the scene where he tells the JAG officer "I want my court martial." Eisenhower hoped he could equal Pershing's record of no executions for desertion, but as the author notes he had a lot of other things on his plate. The author notes the court martial was made up of rear echelon officers, he notes the presence of some combat arms officers would have been better but they were otherwise engaged. I recall the scene where the president of the court reads the written secret ballots, realizes the vote is unanimous for death, tells the others "Let's have another cigarette and think about this."Worth watching, very true to the source, this is one you watch and you draw your own conclusions.

I actually saw this film in New Delhi, India of all places in 1987. I was visiting India, the Taj Mahal when I got back to my hotel room. I was looking for an English program because I couldn't understand Hindi and I saw this movie. It was very gripping especially Martin Sheen acting. Also, the title itself was compelling because I caught the movie in mid-flight. I kept wondering what is this guy going to be executed for stealing, or murder which I thought was impossible because he was a nice guy. I remember the final scene and was very confused by There was no internet at the time and I did find an article said he was killed because of desertion which I didn't understand. Why didn't they put the guy in jail or exile for a long time was my thought?Every said he was a coward but I thought he did the right thing which was his heart. He is not a soldier. There are so many folks who try to be a soldier and kill somebody by mistake or miss their assignment. This whole "America" thing please everybody loves America but nobody likes other Americans as strangers. Period. You may like your group, infantry, team, bible study, family, sqaud, platoon, and friends, but not Americans as a whole. You see more killings, beatings, and hatred of Americans by other Americans. Ask your policeman, domestic violence counselor, doctors, and teachers.The bottom line is every man for themselves is the mentality because everything is treated as a sport whether its being in the army, the office, schools (elementary, high school, college or grad), music stage, choir, or Hollywood. It is a jock thing everywhere. Yes, that is a correct assessment of why Hollywood produced this film. However, I dare you former soldiers to go against Hollywood. You can bring your bayonets and whatever but you can't beat the word anti-semitic. So, you come with this word "liberal". What is that? Of course, now they are the army side and you guys have to kiss "butt". What is that term "a pen is mightier than a sword".I do appreciate people who fought for the United States but I also know that most treat it like a business of being the best "jock" soldier mentality. If you don't have that mentality, you will be eaten alive like the American soldier in Japan who got brutally killed by another American soldier in Japan for being gay or the "Tailhook" scandal.In short, very few Americans fight for other Americans. If you are one of those, you are blessed. You see old-timers who criticize how Americans are today, Bob Feller. Big time, Jock but he can't beat media or Hollywood.

It was 1974 and it starred Martin Sheen.That alone says what to expect of this movie.And it was a movie. According to the movie, Slovik had reformed, got a good woman, and didn't want to fight.In real life, Slovik may have been a naive innocent, or he may have just wanted to manipulate the system.Whoever Slovik was or wasn't is for history to decide, but this was a movie that dealt with dessertion at a time when a country was questioning why it was fighting, and the movie took sides.With no regard to servicemen who were in Viet Nam either in 1974 (as Willie Nelson would say, let's tell the truth, it was about the Viet Nam war, not WWII), EoES was as propagandistic as Gung Ho was in the forties.According to this movie, Slovik stated his position, plain and simple. He had a nervous problem. Heck, I have a clinical nervous condition, and trust me, if I had done military duty, it would have been no problem for me to either just let my nerves go and fail at my tasks and get a demotion or put on KP duty or latrine duty with no problem.If we believe the teleflick, Slovik didn't have that option, no doubt because of his criminal history.Whatever the viewer wants to believe is up to the viewer. I've learned that movies from this decade or that decade, in dealing with service or military duty, will pretty much take the same stance over and over.1940s and 1950s, serve your country.1960s and 1970s, mock your country.This is the history.The whole movie seemed predictably Hollywood to me. He refused to serve and only when he was being strapped up to be executed does he show emotion.Such an emotional outburst could have easily worked to his advantage in his declaration of his nervous condition, but obviously the movie wanted to show him as a human being and only when he is about to die does he become sorrowful.I'm not a Catholic, but I thought the recital of the hail Mary by Ned Beatty and Sheen at the end, with the Lord's prayer, was funny as it sounded like they were trying to see who could say it faster.I don't see how this movie could be watched without realizing it was aimed at Tricky Dick Nixon and the Viet Nam war.I hope it was all worth it for Slovik and anyone who chose to follow his example.