One Man's Hero (1999)

best movie i've ever seen.

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

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.

The San Patricio Battalion were not heroes as this movie would have you believe, they were treasonous scum. This movie makes idols out of men who deserted their army to fight for their enemy and slaughter their former comrades.One fact this movie overlooks (and believe me, there are many) is that the traitor Riley lured many of his San Patricios with promises of Mexican prostitutes. Riley also often speaks in the movie of "freedom" to be found in Mexico, yet at the time Mexico was under the rule of the dictatorial Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. One fact also ignored is that of all the abused (and yes there was abuse, I won't deny that) Irishmen, the San Patricios were only a small minority. Most Irish remained loyal to their adopted country.On a larger sense, this movie is one piece of liberal, revisionist, America-hating trash. The Mexican War was not unjust, most of those who did not support the war were Whig party members (Polk was a Democrat) and Northerners who had an absurd paranoia that the war was a massive conspiracy by the "slavocracy". The Mexican war is entirely Mexico's fault for not being able to accept their loss of Texas and then pressing the boundary issue when they shouldn't have, they can argue over land with Texas when they can govern the land they already have in a semi-decent manner. The movie also goes out of it's way to show American's as evil, merciless conquerors, Winfield Scott especially. Now, I'm going to stop now, before I began bashing the keyboard because I can't type as fast as I can think of reasons why the Mexican War was a wonderful thing.Other than it's treasonous nature, the movie is also just plain bad. The plot is horribly melodramatic and in between the lousy combat scenes all there is is a second-rate romantic subplot.The only good part was at the end when you see all the traitors get hung like they deserved and then flail around a little bit before they die.Don't see this movie whatever you do!

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.

This was a very emotional movie, which could not have been pulled off without the excellent acting by the main three characters, especially Tom Berenger. ALL history should be taught, and as Lynn said, let us make our personal judgements. It was a sad time that gave me more understanding not only to our own military, but to the frustrated Irishmen of the times. Thank you everyone, for making this wonderful vision for us all.