Such a frustrating disappointment

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Once again I sit here a watch a movie that is supposed to be history. Sadly the bias in Hollywood movie making is cringe worthy. Once again we the people of the United States are reduced to bigots. This time to Irish Catholics. There is some truth to the story. But it is slanted to teach you how awful we are.

I learned about the San Patricio Battalion in college and even did a senior paper on the unit. Consequentially, when I heard about their story coming to the big screen I looked forward to it. The story, though interesting, is not without its flaws.Set at the eve of the US-Mexican War (sometime in late April 1846 given that war hasn't broken out yet), the movie spans the duration of the war and initially attempts to give a nod to our country's unhappy heritage of ethnic bigotry against, in this case, the Irish and other then-recent European immigrants. This bigotry drives a few of these immigrants from the US Army into the service of Mexico, in time for the war between both countries. In the movie Tom Berringer's character of John Riley is the leader of a small group of these deserters although, historically, John Riley was already in the command structure of Mexico's San Patricios some good time prior to the battle of Monterrey which is shown in the film.The unfortunate fact of the war for Mexico, other than it lost half its territory at war's end, was that her generals were incapable of winning a battle against the Americans. The movie certainly illustrates that point but, surprisingly the major Battle of Buena Vista is given only the slightest nod. I say "surprisingly" because during the course of the battle one single Mexican artillery unit created so much havoc on the American lines: the San Patricios! So many experienced artillerymen had joined the unit that its skill was considerable; formidable enough to warrant Zachary Taylor to single out the San Patricio Battalion's position on the battlefield and explicitly order his cavalry to "Take those Damn Guns!!" (which they never did).The movie's weakest point, I believe, is sacrificing the story of the unit and its men for the sake of telling a love story between Berringer's Riley character and the Marta character. More sympathy for the Patricio characters could've been generated by concentrating on the relationships between the small unit's men ala "Saving Private Ryan", than diverting the story into Riley's quest to find Marta prior to the final battle of Churubusco.Modern Americans' response to the notion of the San Patricios is that they were unjustified traitors who deserved hanging. The movie also could've better spent more of its time justifying the Patricio's cause rather than alluding to it being merely the result of the prohibition of attending Catholic Mass. Lastly, the overdubbed voice at the end of the movie seemed so ham-handed that the epilogue it provides could've been better served by an on screen written epilogue.Overall, the film is an OK though historically inaccurate retelling of the San Patricios' story. Granted historical film viewing should not be looked at as the equal of reading a history book, but the unfortunate fact is that many film goers tend to see both as equals. To be sure the battle of Monterrey is my pick for "highlight of the film". But if one wishes to be better acquainted with the San Patricios, one is better off reading a good book.

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.

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.