Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Twilightfa Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

Mischa Redfern I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Stephan Hammond It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com When it comes films based on true events, it is in the filmmakers' best interest to keep all the facts as legitimate as possible without skewing the story all that much. The genre of films that probably receives the most critical of film buffs' attentions are the ones that have been historically recorded and not some fable spread by rumors and myths. Taking a deeper look, the type of historical film that gets this kind of focus is usually bio-pictures or war dramas. Further closing the gap, the war dramas that have received the motion picture treatment range; but several have depicted these tragedies during the Great War, World War II, the Vietnam War, the Revolutionary War and the American Civil War. Of course in world history, these are not the only confrontations that occurred, but for North American history, this is the usual batch. It is rare when another event is looked at that possibly was forgotten in the regular high school history books. The most recent that comes to mind is Heaven's Gate (1980), which was about a county war in 1890.Turns out this movie takes place during the 19th century as well. Lance Hool, a producer to other various films like Missing in Action (1984), The Air Up There (1994), Flipper (1996) and Man on Fire (2004), takes a turn in the director's chair to cover the Mexican-American War in 1846. Written by Milton S. Gelman (who passed practically a decade before this film's release), the story is about real-life soldier Sergeant John Riley (Tom Berenger) and his men who abandoned the U.S. army after being persecuted because of their Catholic faith. While leaving, they find refuge with fellow Mexicans led by Cortina (Joaquim de Almeida) and Marta (Daniela Romo). There, they both decide to join Mexico and fight for their freedom. Meanwhile, Colonel Benton Lacy (Mark Moses) attempts to get Riley back to the north before General Winfield Scott (Patrick Bergin) blows them all away. Running parallel to that, Marta and Riley start to become more attracted to each other every minute they spend together.For problems, there isn't all too much to gripe about. The only script issues that are obvious deal with character motivations. From what is known, John Riley is somewhat a mystery but only after the Mexican- American war ended. There are documents of his existence but there isn't a clear answer as to what he did post-war. Did he marry for real? In this feature, Marta is Riley's love interest as is she to Cortina. The passion that Riley has for Marta is a constant subplot that is brought up every half-hour or so. Yet Cortina repetitively reminds Riley to stay away, but Riley doesn't listen. Soon, Riley and Cortina fight and immediately right after; it's water under the bridge for some odd reason. What was all the antagonizing for if it was going to be settled so quickly? Was it even worth writing in? The only other dilemma in this movie is more technical and that's the depiction of war. This film was Orion Pictures last release and many of the studio's films were rated R (as was this one). Still there seems to be almost no blood or gore.That particular aspect was probably the most inaccurate component. War is not light and fluffy stuff. There are a couple scenes where blood does flow but it's rated R. Gettysburg (1993) also should have been R but it was PG so the depiction of violence was much less gruesome and that's only appropriate because of its rating. Why give a movie the label of rated R if won't even play out as an R rated film? It's misleading. The cast to the film was also entertaining. Hearing Tom Berenger with an Irish accent is definitely a change in his usual speech pattern and it does sound authentic, as well as the soldiers played by Stuart Graham, Gregg Fitzgerald, Don Wycherley, Wolf Muser and Luke Hayden. Each actor equally matches Berenger in amiability. Daniela Romo as Marta is very pretty and it is obvious as to why Riley falls for her so quickly. Joaquim de Almeida is always fun to watch but in his role as Cortina, it's hard to know how trustworthy he is. Mark Moses performance as Colonel Lacy is another great show. Moses knows how to have a presence.Visually, the film had an appealing look to it. All effects looked like they were executed practically, of which regularly gives a movie a more realistic viewing. Credit to João Fernandes as the director of photography for capturing wide shots of the western North American terrain. The actual depiction may not feel it has the right temperature to walk in casual clothing but it rightfully matches the environment of what the west was like. Fernandes was also the cinematographer for Friday the 13th Part IV: The Final Chapter (1984), Missing in Action (1984) and Red Scorpion (1988). The film score produced by Ernest Troost was another great element. Troost also composed the music to both horror comedies Tremors (1990) and Dead Heat (1988). Unlike Dead Heat (1988) though where the orchestra sounded like it came from an oldies monster film, Troost's orchestra to this film is much more full and contemporary. The main title is very applicable to the setting, with bagpipes representing Riley and his men. There's also a choir to boot.It has some weird character motivations and underwhelming violence for an R rated war film, however it is an immersive film. The story provides a new history lesson to those unfamiliar of the Mexican-American war, the actors perform great, and the cinematography is befitting to the setting as well as the film score.

woebagge I am very fond of historical films, but I don't think that this film was never shown in Miami. I came across a promo tape at a video store. It was obviously made on a rather small budget, and it deals with a historically ambiguous topic, namely that of a group of recently arrived Irishmen that identified more with the Mexicans (whose country, like their native Ireland, was being colonized by English-speaking imperialists), and joined the other side. Mexico, after all, had promised them land, respect and citizenship. The Irish were white and therefore regarded as of higher status than Mexican indios and mestizos.I find the previous comments that the members of the St. Patrick's Brigade were traitors and deserved to be hung rather weird and devoid of historic knowledge as well as empathy. I suggest that such characters just see "Green Berets" again instead of any future film dealing with the US military.There was no mention of the war following and being a direct result result of the annexation of the bankrupt Republic of Texas in 1845 or of the Republic of the Rio Grande, which was also nominally independent (though recognized by no one) and divided Texas from Coahuila and Nuevo Leon. No one ever mentions the Republic of the Rio Grande other than in local border history, but it DID exist.The costumes were convincing, the sets were less so: neither Churubusco, where the main battle for Mexico City was fought, nor Mixcoac, where the brigadistas were hung, is in any sort of flat desert as depicted.In the Mexican War, both sides used black powder, and the major amounts of flash and light used in the battle scenes seems accurate in showing this.I was surprised that this film got so very little publicity. I suppose it went straight to cable TV and video because of a poor acceptance at its debut. Americans are still not ready to accept a film in which their history is shown as anything other than glorious and filled with heroes. We DID make fun of the Russians for doing the exact same thing back when they claimed to have invented everything (including ethnic diversity).I could say "You gotta see this film", but I won't because (a) it's not really spectacular, though a head and shoulders above the older John Wayne Westerns of the 1950's and (b) you will find it very hard see it. Of course the main characters all either die in battle,or are hung in disgrace. The major figure, John Reilly, was branded on both cheeks with a D for "deserter". The sentence was only one branding, but the first soldier branded him upside down.I wonder if it made any money in either Mexico or Ireland. In reality, it would have been a natural for an Irish or Mexican effort.

Edmar Mota (edmar_mota) First of all it was good to see a movie about this obscure portion of the history. Even in Mexico is little known the San Patricio's aid in the Mexican-American war. I've read some of the other user's reviews and I'm tired of listening that in the Mexican-American War the U.S. had better weapon and that Santa Anna was president. That's false. First read history books (both sides). Santa Anna was exiled at that time. He returns because the liberal party had won the control of the capital after a series of disastrous political and military conservative officer's governments just after the same Santa Anna want to start a monarchy-style government in late 1843, that was overthrown by the liberals that was overthrown by the conservatives in a series of uprisings from 1845 to 1846. He promises to the U.S. that he put and end to the war. He lies (partially because he was so BAD that actually helped the U.S. to win the war) and led the defense of the country. The Mexican military was exhausted by the series of uprisings from 1840-1846 and the government was in a "technical" bankruptcy, and the generals who led them were poor prepared and had an EGO from here to the center of the galaxy. That's why the artillery was bad served, and bad positioned. For example in one of the last battles of the war at the outskirts of Mexico city (Churubusco Battle) the defenders had to surrender because they had no ammunition. That's partially true. The defenders really had tons of ammunition but for another type of gun, that supposedly was destined for another army (the man in charge of the supplies never explain that fault, some historians argue that he thought that the army at Churubusco was a regular army, in reality was an army of volunteers with more older weapons). So the soldiers start to throw the bullets to the attackers with their hands!.

yojimbo999 OMH is a poorly made film. The acting is mediocre, even from the normally good Berenger, and what passes for "action" is, well, not very passable. The war scenes are badly done and looks fake as well as cheap in production values.The story is interesting. Irish deserters join the Mexicans in the Mexican American war. of course, you'll have to be completely biased toward one side in order to LOVE or HATE this movie. I, on the other hand, would rather take the film at its own merits, and, well, it isn't very good.On an aside, isn't it wonderful how evil all the American characters are? The Mexicans look like saints! LOL. What a laugh. Of course, I am a student of history, and I know that the burgeoning Americans were WAY OUTNUMBERED by the Mexicans, who had a stable and massive army as opposed to the ragged and sometimes undisciplined American army. And YET the Americans still won! So what exactly is the "truth" being told here?All in all, a mediocre film. Not all that great as a war movie, and sometimes too cheesy and obvious as a drama. I do wish they'd treat everyone as people, not just cut-out stereotypes. Unfortunately, in order to make our deserters and traitors the "good guys" the filmmakers went out of their way to paint every single American soldier as less than human. Too bad, because this is a very interesting piece of history. Unfortunately it looks like a bad High School production, and that's insulting High School productions everywhere.