Watch The Peacemaker

The Peacemaker
Other Titles
Running Time
1 hours 30 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
James Demo
James Demo
Audio Languages
English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

Comments about documentary «The Peacemaker» (33)

Betty photo

I believe many people here seem to be split into two camps: those who like this film and those who don't. I was one of the first to watch it and I'm a strong advocate of making films. The only problem I have with this film is that it is two hours long and I feel it could have been shorter. I think what makes it so compelling is that the story is very familiar and even if the film were 40 minutes shorter, it would still be a compelling film. One of the things I enjoyed the most about this film is that the filmmakers are telling the story from the perspective of a soldier who was shot and left for dead in combat. For the people who don't understand the idea of "wounded warrior" and don't know a lot about combat, I recommend going to a library, studying the history of military service, and watching documentaries about such things as the Vietnam War. I think that most people do understand the concept of combat. It's why I'm not so shocked by the "funny" effects the Marines showed during the "funeral" for Sgt. Evers (who was killed in action by an IED in Afghanistan). As for the video quality, I think the filmmakers did an excellent job in showing the way in which the shooting is done. On the other hand, I thought the film did a poor job in showing the footage of the scene after the shooting. As it turned out, I think the video quality was too dark and that it really didn't show enough of the scene. But again, I think the film is so compelling because it is from a soldier who experienced combat. In other words, I found it compelling to watch because it was from someone who had experienced combat. I thought the film did an excellent job in showing the kind of mental anguish that the soldiers went through. I also thought the filmmakers did a great job in showing the images of the IED attack. The effect of that scene was almost too much to take in. On the other hand, the filmmakers did a poor job in showing how the troops reacted to the attack. I don't know what the film makers were thinking when they showed how many soldiers were walking away from the scene. The effect was just too much to take in. I also thought the filmmakers did a poor job showing how the military members reacted after the attack. I was thinking that the filmmakers should have shown some sort of a grand reunion of the troops to let them know how they survived the attack. It seems as if the filmmakers were trying to show that the troops didn't get it and didn't come together afterward. I think that would have been more appropriate. Overall, I thought the film was well done. I thought the images of the IED attack were very compelling. However, I didn't think the film was great. I think it could have been a lot shorter. I recommend it but I do believe the film could have been a lot shorter. I also recommend reading about the history of military service as it will help you understand the themes of this film.

Brandon Alvarez photo
Brandon Alvarez

I was surprised to see such a low rating for this documentary. I thought it was well-done and very informative. I felt that the filmmakers did an excellent job in capturing the frustration and anger felt by many veterans. They also did a great job in showing how this anger is still felt today. I felt the movie was very well-made, and very well-edited. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in this subject. I am glad that I did not see this movie at a theater. I would have been very upset if I had been forced to sit through this movie.

Roy Collins photo
Roy Collins

I can understand the understandable criticism of this film. You get the feeling that even if we didn't see this or that, we could be able to guess who would win in a group if we had a chance to see it. But I did enjoy the film a lot. First of all, it was extremely well done. It had great editing. And it was very well made. It was very suspenseful. I think this film is worth watching. I found it very entertaining. I think it is well worth watching.

Sara photo

A soldier's obsession with masculinity, war, and the possible criminalization of masculinity can give rise to the following: a desire to protect, a desire to kill, and a desire to be right. While watching, all of these things, and more, are expressed, illustrated, and explained, with as much eloquence, complexity, and passion as the film. But what I really liked about this film is that it does not simply talk about the political and social ramifications of this obsession, it also talks about the individual, his or her own masculinity. This film is not only about the person of the soldier, but the man himself, and his ability to love, have sex, and engage in violence, whether it be the desires of men or women, or when men are unable to love, the desire to be right, to protect, to kill, or when men are unable to protect, their lack of desire to be right. The viewer is left to choose. One can either get angry at the soldier for being a bad person, or he can understand the horror of his problem and try to make himself a better person. The film is one that gives voice to the emotions of the viewer and helps them to either understand, or see the man himself. A very well done documentary.

Jeremy R. photo
Jeremy R.

This movie is almost as good as "Assault on Precinct 13" (especially the latter) or even "The Terminal", if you want to compare it with films. If you compare it with "The Rocketeer" or even "The Bill of Rights" - you might find it hard to find the real meaning of the movie. The whole of the movie is about the fight between two very different cultures, in a very difficult environment. Here is a simple introduction. The production company did a great job. You can clearly see they worked hard on this project. The movie tells the story of another kind of conflicts: between the military, of the civilians, the cops and the army. The story revolves around the real events of the life of an old man, one of the five condemned to death row, in the prison of a war-torn country, who just can't bring himself to accept that he is going to die. As a result of all the violence that erupts from the inside, he finds that he has to carry out his will, even if it means that he has to kill. The cinematography is excellent. This movie really shows how a war-torn country feels like. There is never a single moment of peace. The movie is very realistic. The use of color is not only in the cinematography, but also in the editing. The color scheme is very "ordinary" for the picture. I have seen a lot of black-and-white movies, but I never saw a movie in which the colors are mixed in such a way, so you can clearly see how things are. The movie has a very good, very realistic style. The actors are very believable. The music is very good. I have not seen a movie in which the music is so important. The music is very, very good. The movie is not only a good movie, but it is also a very important movie. I recommend this movie to all those who want to see an important movie, which has a good message, about the situation of the people in Iraq. I would like to say more, but this is too much.

Janet D. photo
Janet D.

I took my boys to see the Peacemaker at a preview event last night. The reactions were mixed. I think most were looking forward to seeing it because of the interesting fact that it was a Sundance-sponsored feature. The fact that the film didn't live up to our expectations does not mean that the movie is bad. The director and cinematographer deserve some credit for keeping the film nice and short. There were only about five (5) major story lines that were never fully developed. It was more like a mix of shorts, documentaries and featurettes. However, the film kept me interested and engaged. The story line left me wanting more and wanting more. I had seen the director's comments that the film's length was dictated by the issue of how much material was needed to make a good feature. I guess it's a reflection of our society that a good story is hard to put together. But there were several stories that I was impressed with, but didn't give a great deal of attention to. The final 5 minutes were the most important and emotional I've ever experienced in a film. There were no dull moments. The editing and cinematography were excellent. The sound was great. But, I think that it was the overall look of the film that left me and my audience looking for more. We were impressed with the lighting and composition of the film. It was a different film in terms of its use of color and lighting. But, it had the feel of a feature that had been carefully edited and taken advantage of for its use of color. I would recommend this film to anyone who likes to think and feels a little more then an average viewer would like to be. This film has interesting topics and important stories that people can relate to. The film will leave you with a smile on your face and wanting to share the film with your friends. This film is probably the most inspiring film I've seen in years. I'm looking forward to the future of the film.

Jennifer N. photo
Jennifer N.

There is nothing so powerful about the Persian Peacemaker. The story of five convicts, who have been jailed for a crime they didn't commit, at a camp for political prisoners in Iran, is one of the most moving documentaries I have ever seen. It's difficult to understand the thought process of those people. It's just as difficult to figure out what they want, how they plan to get it. This documentary was quite incredible. One of the reasons I love documentaries is that I see that I have not seen a good one, because of the choices of the people involved. Every one of the people in this documentary was good in his or her own way, whether they are guilty or not. Every one of them told their story to make us believe in what they say. If you love documentaries, and you are thinking of making one, you need to see this one. It's one of the most powerful films ever made.

Judy B. photo
Judy B.

This is an excellent film. The story of a wounded veteran. He talks about the things he went through, how he coped and how his life is now. The way he deals with his disability. The issues he faced in his life. He talks about the white man and how he felt that he is treated by them. He talks about how he felt that he is treated differently when he is wounded. I would recommend this film to anyone that is going through any kind of injury or PTSD. My favorite part of the film is when he is walking. His physical pain when walking and his pain of being wounded. His conversation with his son, who is the only person who can understand his pain. This is an excellent film that could be a part of your memories.

Andrew photo

This is the first documentary that I have watched about the war in my country. It has touched me so deeply that I want to go back and help and to be like the soldiers who fought and died in this war. To have the good thing to be forgotten. Because this is the best thing that has happened to all of us. The war is over. It never happened. But people are living the consequences of this war. And to be a survivor is very special. This is a very good documentary and very good story. But I have to tell you that it's not a documentary. It's not like a movie. I don't know if there is another way to describe it. It's just a powerful documentary. And I think that everybody should watch it. This is a very important message to be told to people and to our leaders and to be remembered. This is not just a war, it's not a story. This is a pain and a pain and a pain. And I think that everybody should watch this movie. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Mary photo

The movie seems to be a blend of news film footage, pictures of old Roman Empire villas in Italy, and home movies of the residents of a modern Roman Empire village in the Caucasus mountains. This gives the film a strong sense of realism, which is actually the first impression I got upon leaving the theater. The imagery of the ancient and medieval cities juxtaposed with the present is very striking, especially when the viewer sees the traditional homes of the old Roman Empire villas. The interviews with the villagers and a few of the residents were also very interesting. Overall, the movie is a fascinating view of a place and time that is very difficult to understand, especially because so little is known about it.

Brenda photo

A truly inspirational film, and one of the most poignant that I've ever seen. I've only known Harrison Ford for a few years, but from this film I can safely say that he is an actor I look up to. I highly recommend that everyone watches this film. It is an experience that will stay with you for days. If you love movies and want to see a masterpiece that will be lasting, see this film.

Karen Bradley photo
Karen Bradley

The Peacemaker is a film that is both moving and provocative. It brings to light the abuse of power, and how the abuse itself does not necessarily lead to the change of the abuser. It's powerful that the director Michael Moore had to make this film in the middle of the 1980s, when the world was still shocked by the tragedy of the Cold War. He shows us that at that time, the abuse of power was a huge problem, and even made the viewer contemplate the morality of this type of behavior. Of course the abusers are also the victims of the abuse, and the abuse was never completely solved by the American military or the government, but the abuser will never be truly free of blame and responsibility.

Rachel photo

I just saw this film at the Seattle Film Festival. It was one of the best films I have seen all year. It was so moving and touching and the acting was amazing. I can't wait for the DVD release. I am so glad that this film was made. I am glad that I got to see it and I can't wait to see it again.

Aaron Willis photo
Aaron Willis

As a biographer of Admiral Byrd, and a fellow marine himself, I have seen countless documentaries about Byrd. This one is as truthful, fair and objective as it can get, and it should be required viewing for anyone interested in the man. The whole thing is a fascinating story. It's a story about human nature, and the utter futility of war. While it is obvious that Byrd did not enjoy his life in the military, or at least he did not enjoy his war. He was in the military only because his father was a senator, and it was his desire to protect his father from prosecution, as well as a desire to play the role of grandfather of America's newest senator. He had every opportunity to turn the ship back to homeport, but refused. The result was a tragedy for the Navy, and a war for American servicemen. This is one of those documentaries that has a direct impact on us as individuals. It is a powerful, heart-wrenching film, that should be required viewing for anyone interested in the world of the sea.

Johnny R. photo
Johnny R.

I had never been to a Marine Corps celebration of the birth of a child until seeing this film. It made me want to see it. The entire ceremony was just so realistic. The uniforms, the speeches, the encouragement of the boys and their parents, all of it was as real as it gets. It was great to see them put their beliefs aside and join together and celebrate a child. I feel like everyone can relate to this film. Maybe it's just me but I don't think this is like something you'd hear about in any other movies. It was absolutely awesome!

Sara photo

I agree with the other reviewers who note that this is a history of the Vietnam War, but not the truth. The film does a good job of presenting the truth, but the filmmakers have the right to choose their sources and to tell the story they want to tell. The film does, however, leave out many important details that are important to the story. The most significant being the truth that it was the Vietnamese who led the attacks. Another, far more important, detail is the fact that President Johnson did not want to send many American soldiers to the war. He knew that it would almost certainly mean war. While he understood that the war could be won, Johnson made it clear that he wanted to avoid a war that would be unwinnable. I'm not sure if Johnson knew that many Vietnamese forces would join in the invasion. Either way, the film tells a story that Johnson, through his advisers, believed would ultimately lead to a war with the US, not with the VC or the Hmong.

Gloria Davis photo
Gloria Davis

This is a great movie to watch if you are a fan of David. David gave us the "Peacemaker" with his death. It is one of his best films. He is no coward and don't let his death stop you from watching it. It is good to see his life before he died. The acting is so good, but David's death had to be a surprise to us. We got a great experience with David's life. David never came in a bad mood or mad at anyone. He gave us a great lesson in life and how to cope with it. We get to see a side of David we never see. And we get a great experience of David. This is a great movie to watch.

Jane M. photo
Jane M.

I think it's great. The movie is a must see. I've seen it in 3 different places and I'm looking forward to the 4th!

Nathan photo

The truth is that your average American in a modern American police state is only as violent as the police who are called on to protect him. In the video clips that the filmmakers showed in this documentary, their goal was to remind us that the police are there to protect us. The filmmaker is known for his documentaries on such subjects as, "License to Kill" and "War on Everyone". The most striking element about the documentary, however, was the amazing cinematography. The filmmakers told us that they were inspired by the experience of another filmmaker, who made a documentary about the worst raid on citizens in American history: the raid on the 1969 Oakland BART train car during a mass demonstration. Since that case was a matter of national news for years to come, the filmmakers showed us footage from several different angles to show us the police reaction to the demonstration. As a result, the footage showed us that it is not the police that needs to be protected. On the contrary, it is the people who are supposed to protect them. On the issue of police violence, it is still difficult to get information about the police in countries such as the United States or Great Britain. In France, the police are routinely criticized by the press and by public opinion. Most of the articles written about the police are simply attempts to justify the police's actions by quoting the French authorities. Anecdotal evidence is the best thing you can do when you see what happens to an innocent person who has his arm or leg cut off by a police officer. The filmmakers showed us all the wrongs that happen to people during arrest. The French police force is known for its brutality, and these kinds of practices would be quite uncommon in America or the United Kingdom, where the police are generally perceived as having a moral and ethical code, and for this reason, most of the people who get arrested in the United States never see the inside of a police station. (A few American celebrities get arrested and are found guilty, but that is a minor issue.) The filmmakers also showed us a video clip that shows a young man who was raped by a police officer while she was on duty. If a woman were to be accused of this kind of crimes, her life would not be the least bit likely to continue. It is therefore ironic that the filmmakers chose to show us an image of a girl in the US who was assaulted by her mother in front of her classmates. If this incident occurred in France, she would be expected to be charged and convicted, and the perpetrator would be in prison for many years. For a viewer like me, this should have been the most disturbing scene of the film, and I was indeed shocked. It was a perfect example of the damage that would be caused if a woman had the power to rape a young girl. The documentary, however, did not show us any woman who had been raped. The problem is that, in France, rape is a very serious crime. The rapists are sentenced to many years in prison. This does not happen in America or the United Kingdom. For this reason, I am convinced that the vast majority of the women who were raped in the United States are actually aware of their rights and their responsibility to protect themselves. In France

Nicholas Martinez photo
Nicholas Martinez

The title and the profile of the film, Peacemaker, are misleading. "Peacemaker" is the name of a section of Vietnam War veterans in this film. It is an actual veteran organization that was founded by retired U.S. Army Captain Thomas Wilson. Wilson is also the only survivor of an Army helicopter crash that killed four men and a civilian. The actual crash occurred on February 19, 1964. It is also important to note that the crash of the helicopter occurred in an area where the Army, a Federal Emergency Management Agency and National Guard operated together in cooperation with the French Army and the Vietnamese. The "Peacemaker" name was an effort by the American President to generate media attention and public support for the military operations in Vietnam. I found the film informative and fascinating. The Vietnam War was a major political issue in the United States at the time. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy supported President Lyndon B. Johnson's "War in Vietnam" in which Johnson and his Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, decided to send U.S. forces to Vietnam to help quell the war. On April 6, 1964, President Johnson declared the war a success after a successful victory. The following week, on April 9, 1964, President Johnson signed Executive Order 11110, which made it illegal for the U.S. military to interfere in Vietnamese domestic affairs, and it was the end of the war. During the U.S. involvement in Vietnam, both President Johnson and the American people were taken in by the message of non-violence that was being promoted by the United States. For some, the message of non-violence was an idealized image of the United States. However, non-violence has a history of being corrupted by violence. In the Philippines, the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, who ruled the country as dictator from 1986 to 1986, used violence to suppress his opponents, citizens, and popular assemblies. At the time, the U.S. military's intention was to destroy the Marcos regime by invading the country and overthrowing him. American policy was to help the government of the Philippines, which was in a position of weakness, fight the Marcos dictatorship. Under President John F. Kennedy, the U.S. had relations with the Philippines, which had been fighting the Philippines for nearly a decade. As President Kennedy watched the U.S. military's efforts to fight the war in Vietnam, he called in the U.S. Congress for a mandate that would allow the U.S. military to support the Philippine military and assist them with air, sea and land support. President Kennedy had been critical of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. He declared in a 1963 address to the nation, "We have acted as an independent nation, out of a desire to protect our own freedom and to protect the peace of the world. And now we are faced with the difficult task of defending our own freedom." As President Kennedy observed, the U.S. government and people had a right to defend themselves from their own government. But the U.S. government had the responsibility to "use its military and security forces only to deter and repel aggression and not to take a position in a

Sean E. photo
Sean E.

I was recently invited to a screening of the book in Salt Lake City, which was held by the same guy who did the actual movie adaptation. I found the entire experience worth it, but had to go out and find the book. But I have now read the book and it was both more accurate and less sensational than the movie. I also had the chance to listen to the original audio version, which I thought was pretty good, but the book is much more engaging and sometimes very depressing. I especially liked the underlying sense of "nobody's more important than anybody else". Although some of the main characters are quite interesting, I felt that Kiro was too much of a "guy". He may have been the kind of man the girl desired, but he is not that interesting a character, at least compared to the other men she has to choose from. The third guy is a bit less interesting, even though he does give a certain sense of normality to the film. The women are also much more interesting than I expected them to be. Despite the fact that they are usually portrayed as blonds in movies, the women in this film are rather convincing and appealing. The film, and the novel, are, in my opinion, one of the most important films to ever have been made.

Jennifer Brewer photo
Jennifer Brewer

I've watched the film on a plane and the crew are great, particularly the pilots who talk about the films history. I just wish they would have taken more time to talk about the actual events that happened to the crew on the flight, rather than just talking about the lives of the crew. That was the point of the film, the lives of the crew, but it would have been nice if they had taken some time to explore the events that happened on the flight. A few days after the movie came out, I found out about a new documentary that chronicles the whole disaster. This new documentary is a great time capsule, both because it tells the story of the tragedy, but also because it has the time and attention of the American people.

Russell Howard photo
Russell Howard

Based on a true story, from a period when the Taliban was in control of Afghanistan, this documentary tells the story of a platoon of American soldiers that was sent to Afghanistan in the year 2001. The war, then, was not started on the orders of President Bush. It was, instead, the work of the very handpicked leadership of the Taliban. And, the soldiers were supposed to be the people's vanguards, for the Afghans were the people's vanguards, too. The war was the Taliban's, not that of the United States. It was the Taliban's war to win the war. So, as much as the war is the Taliban's, the Taliban is the war itself, and the soldiers are just the human meat on the plate. "The Peacemaker" tells the story of how the soldiers' lives were changed. For them, the end of the war was a little more difficult than what they had expected. But, it is important to remember that the war wasn't about the Afghans. It was about the Taliban. So, yes, you should be aware that "The Peacemaker" is not your usual "R" rated movie. If you have seen "Collateral Damage" or "Saving Private Ryan" then you will recognize this docudrama, because it is very much like those war movies. But, this film is different. It tells the story from a different angle. It doesn't tell you that you are supposed to like the soldiers, who are portrayed as good people and men who are not selfish, it tells you the story of the war itself. The war is not just about the Afghans. The war is about the Taliban, and the soldiers, and the brutality of the Taliban. This is where the war is. "The Peacemaker" is a real movie, not a movie about a war that was not even about the Afghans. "The Peacemaker" is about a war that was about the Taliban and about the Taliban's war. In a way, that's what "The Peacemaker" is about. Overall, it is a good film. It is very difficult to determine how true this is, but it is a good film. You should definitely watch it.

Walter Coleman photo
Walter Coleman

Saw this movie the other day and it has already had a deep impact on me. The movie is brilliant, it makes you think and you will be talking about it for a long time. You may not like it but you will still want to see it. I can't wait for the sequel! It's been more than 10 years since this movie was made but the problems still remain. Children have been killed and women have been kidnapped by drug lords. The movie gets worse as it goes on. All the problems, drug lords, corruption, the loss of human rights, what's left? A wounded family, a boy who is a little different from his family and there is a cop who tries to help them. I don't think there is anything new in this movie but it's worth watching. It's one of the best documentaries ever made.

Lisa Larson photo
Lisa Larson

This film is a must see. It's a very good look at the things that make us human. The viewer will be surprised to see the amount of people in the world who are willing to put their lives on the line to defend their country and its values. The way the film ends is extremely appropriate and I hope to see more movies that can end on a positive note. If you haven't seen this film yet, I highly recommend it.

George Dunn photo
George Dunn

When I saw this movie, I thought I might be too excited. To be fair, I was mostly disappointed. I think this movie is about what happened after 9/11 when we saw the terrible effects of that day in our history. People were afraid, people were worried, people were confused, people were angry. People were looking for answers and a good way to cope. This movie shows us the search for answers, the doubts and the answers, the lack of answers, the lack of answers. I think the story is very believable, it is believable that there is a war on terror and you can't stop that war. It is believable that we could face such things, and we can't stop that war. This movie is very important. When you watch this movie, you realize that many of the decisions that people make are wrong, even when we are faced with a horrible situation. People were going to do things that are really wrong. I think the movie has to be really relevant to the American public because there were many Americans that were inspired by this movie. I think it is worth seeing. There are many politicians that make wrong decisions, but the people aren't concerned. You might have forgotten that people were dealing with an issue like this in the 50's and 60's, but you should watch the movie.

Jack J. photo
Jack J.

I don't care what anyone else says, what is so great about the movie is that the director, producer, and writer all put themselves into the spotlight, instead of continuing to bask in the glory of a wonderful movie that others had decided should not be given a much deserved Oscar. Why did the Academy do it? I'm just not clear. I think it's something to do with fear of embarrassment. Hollywood has a reputation for being condescending and cliquish. As the documentary details, the people at the Academy wanted a more classier version of James Ellroy's masterpiece. Instead, they handed out Oscar nominations in the wrong year. For a movie that was already nominated for best picture, it could have easily won the award. All the people at the Academy can be thankful that people like Jerry Goldsmith and Michael Mann didn't attend the Academy Awards, and have the same nerve to show up on the big screen to give it a deserved Oscar nomination. The movie itself is a true work of art, the best I have seen since Citizen Kane. It took everything I had to keep my eyes from the screen, the action from the viewer, and the music from the sound. I'm amazed that I'm not even a bigger movie fan than the average film fan. I've never seen a movie better than this one, and I know it was so great because I saw it on the big screen in front of several thousand people. The best compliment I can give the film is that it is a rare and precious cinematic experience. I would not have expected that of a film. I love a lot of movies, and this one has put me on a journey of sorts. I hope it is not a footnote in my film-going record. I want the Academy to stop thinking that their actions have nothing to do with how great a film is. I'd be happy to see this movie win Best Picture.

Patrick Adams photo
Patrick Adams

I don't usually like the political arguments in documentaries, and most documentaries generally tend to avoid politics altogether. And I've watched more than my share of documentaries that demean the U.S. government and bring up other countries. But I was shocked at the way this documentary had so many pictures of American flags on the background. It was bizarre. This seemed to be some sort of bias documentary, or at least it was. While there were plenty of details of U.S. history that were accurate, there were several points that were completely wrong. One was that the Japanese Occupation of China actually happened in 1942. They didn't know it yet. In fact, the Japanese never had control of China until they had control over Manchuria. Second, Americans supported the invasion of China. The military was not that desperate. They knew that they had to move their operations to a new location in the Pacific because they were worried that the Chinese would follow the example of Japan and attack Pearl Harbor. This is exactly what happened. Japan invaded Manchuria, then moved to Hong Kong and then went on to the Philippines. When the U.S. invaded China, the U.S. government was probably more concerned with defending against the Japanese attack and defending its allies in the Pacific. American forces in the Pacific were sent to the Philippines at the invitation of the U.S. military leaders, not because they were in a hurry to get to China. The Filipinos in China also never attacked Pearl Harbor. And the Americans never supported the invasion of China. The Americans were always worried about getting involved in the Chinese Civil War, which was a raging war that was going to start in China in 1946. The war actually started in 1949, when the Chinese Communist Party gained control of China. China did not attack Pearl Harbor until the 1960's. And the Chinese Communist Party did not even attack Pearl Harbor until 1976, so it was a long time in between. The Chinese invasion of the Philippines is documented in the documentary. The Japanese occupation of Manchuria happened in 1942, but in the documentary the Chinese people who lived in that area were not shown. The documentary showed that there was a Japanese occupation in the Manchurian capital. But there was never a Japanese occupation of the Manchurian capital. I think this documentary is very useful because it shows how much the Americans supported the occupation of China. It also shows the difference between the Chinese and Japanese from the point of view of the Chinese people. The Americans were more concerned about protecting their allies in the Pacific. The Japanese and Chinese were fighting the war because they were the Japanese and Chinese allies, and the Americans were fighting for their own allies in the Pacific. It is very interesting to watch this documentary because it shows how much the American and Japanese leaders were in love with the United States. When the Americans gave the war in Vietnam to the Japanese, the Japanese made the decision to move the Japanese embassy in Saigon to Saigon. In the U.S., the Americans didn't want the Japanese to move the embassy because they felt that they were too close to Japan. And, the Japanese government was very proud that the Americans helped them in their war against the Chinese.

Pamela H. photo
Pamela H.

This is a truly amazing film. I have never seen a documentary that has so much information, and the information is accurate. I was very impressed with the documentary. I am also impressed with the way the filmmakers were able to show the truth without any censorship. I would highly recommend this documentary to anyone who is interested in the Vietnam War. It is very enlightening and will give you a much better understanding of the events that took place during that war.

Benjamin Fields photo
Benjamin Fields

I agree with the previous review that this is an excellent documentary. The fact that the main focus of the film is to focus on the human toll of the war is also a major strength. The film is a gripping, but ultimately sobering portrayal of a war that was fought for a cause, but was ultimately a lost cause. The film is not a glorification of the war, but instead focuses on the human cost of war. The movie has a strong message of peace and reconciliation, and the film is an important tool to convey the message. The film is also an important tool to educate the public about the war, and to raise awareness about the atrocities of war.

Rebecca S. photo
Rebecca S.

It's great to see that the military is showing its true colors. It's just a shame that the world's leaders don't know this. When you think about it, the US military is not the most honorable of the military. It's like a bully that bullies everyone. It's just not right. I hope they make a documentary about the military and show how honorable it is.

David S. photo
David S.

When I first saw this film, I was just a kid. I had no idea what it was about. I'm glad I watched it and I now know that this film is a must see for anyone who loves history, and for anyone who just wants to be entertained. This is a film that will blow you away. The only problem is that it's too short. I would recommend this film to anyone who is interested in history, and especially to anyone who is interested in the Vietnam War. It is a must see!

Judith photo

I am so glad that I have the opportunity to watch this film. I am not a fan of the American government, but I do like to see what is happening in my country. This film is a wonderful look at what is happening in the world, and how our government is being used to control our lives. I thought it was a great documentary and I look forward to seeing more from this film maker. I also look forward to seeing more of her work. Thank you to the director for making this documentary. Thank you to the people who helped make this film. Thank you to all who have contributed to this film. Thank you to all who helped make this film. I hope that this film will be seen by as many people as possible. It is a must see for all who believe in freedom and the right to be left alone.