This movie could have been good to watch on a big screen. The humor is good, the dialogues are fine and the actors never overact. General Partridge (Kelsey Grammer) forgets that the business of war begins with providing good material to the troops. Colonel James Burton (Cary Elwes) knows this and he delivers a speech to the test-company that must make a demonstration of the Bradley troop transporter. The senatorial commission cannot understand that the development costs of the vehicle lasted for 17 years and costed 14 billion dollars. The hearings and questions of that commission provides one of the most humoristic scenes of the movie and are unsurpassed by other political movies.
40 Reviews
Oh...to understand the military...
papamac63030 December 2006
Anyone who has ever been connected to the military understands the great oxymoron that it is...and probably always will be...but this movie is a classic example of how the military can run amok if it isn't closely monitored...although the humor in this movie does help to make it easier to take...there are a few notable performances that elevate this past the "TV Movie Of The Week" stereotype...Richard Schiff as the put-upon colonel who gets the Bradley project dumped on him 1st, Cary Elwes as the Air Force lieutenant colonel who ends up with the task, Kelsey Grammar as a smug and pompous Army general...all spice up the film and make it better than it should have been...at the end, there is a scene involving the enlisted men on the testing team and Elwes that could be considered semi-sappy...unless you served in the military and understand the relationship between the men and Elwes and how it evolved...then that scene is strikingly important...you will love the part about the sheep...and I can assure you, having been in the Army, yes, this is how Army people talk and act...get this movie, watch this movie, enjoy this movie...it's a nice vacation from today's headlines...and you will roll your eyes at the end...
Close to the Truth
Uriah4331 March 2013
The Pentagon is trying to field a new armored personnel carrier into production to replace the aging M113. The main objective was a vehicle that could get combat troops into the battle as quickly and safely as possible. So when the design was finally established certain generals decided they wanted the Bradley Armored Personnel Carrier to be able to do additional missions as well. So a larger cannon was added which caused it to be larger. Since it was larger it became more of a target so additional armor was added. But since it had more armor it caused it to be slower and so aluminum replaced steel. And so on. Eventually, rather than having a vehicle that could get soldiers into the field quickly and safely, it became a monstrosity that was actually unsafe for the soldiers. Yet rather than admit these design flaws the decision was made to hurry up production as if getting the project approved was the ultimate symbol of success. At any rate, this film is so funny because this scenario is so close to the truth when it comes to the military industrial complex. Billions of dollars (with a "b") are spent on weapons contracts while soldiers are constantly short-changed on a litany of issues important to them. Be that as it may I thought Kelsey Grammar ("General Partridge") and Cary Elwes ("LTC James Burton) performed in an excellent manner. I also enjoyed the performance of Viola Davis as the loyal sergeant, "SFC Fanning". In short, this is a really good film that I highly recommend for anyone who has ever served or cares to see what goes on behind closed doors. Again, it's closer to the truth than many people realize.
Comedy or horror?
NCYankee28 January 1999
I thoroughly enjoyed this film, especially Kelsey Grammar as the unflappable general - always ready with a quick answer and so sincere you want to believe him, despite the utter absurdity of what he is saying. I am not sure whether to treat this movie as comedy or horror - it would be quite amusing as fiction , but I find it rather terrifying to think that it is based on a true story. Is this really how our tax dollars are wasted? As a former member of the military I find it all too easy to believe.
funny, but worrisome
cherold27 December 2003
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, it's quite clever and amusing and keeps a good pace. The disturbing thing is there's usually not some crusader to put the brakes on something like this. The movie really fails to deal with the motivations of the people who so unethically push the project through; they must have some rational for their actions, which could result in untold deaths, but we never hear an explanation. So it's not an in depth analysis, and I'd love to see a documentary on the same subject, but it's quite enjoyable.
Amazingly lighthanded telling of infuriating Pentagon bureaucraticinfighting
kakilliany9 October 2000
The story itself--the crazy process whereby a simple request for an improved armored personnel carrier resulted in the ridiculous initial design for the Bradley transport--is one that should be well-known. It is the ultimate cautionary tale about a bureaucracy gone out of control. What is amazing is the light-handed skill with which the story is told--it is funny when it should be, yet sucks you in sufficiently to get you really mad at what is going on. And the casting is superb.
Fun, entertaining, completely fake
Callinicus14 November 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I loved this movie for years and I still find it entertaining and there are sparks of truth in it. However after a bit of research on the Bradley I learned that our protagonist IRL is not a naive young good willed officer but a radical anti-tech weirdo member of a strange US Army sect called Reformers.
Like most vehicles in early development the Bradley had issues but the design concept was innovative and completely misrepresented in the movie. The IFV was a revolutionaly concept, literally, it was taken from the Russian BMP. It was so new many commanders did not know what to do with it.
You may search for Reformers, Bradley, Infantry Fighting Vehicle and even wikipedia will explain in detail.
To be short the Bradley never meant to withstand an anti-tank shell, because it is not a tank. It cannot carry so much troops because it is not an APC.
The movie was made from a book which was written by its protagonist to glorify himself. That is already quite telling.
However the music is catchy, the scenes are funny, some of the beurocracy parts are plausiable, and overall it is well made, but it is well made propaganda mostly telling lies.
One saving factor is that is is satiric, so you can argue that you were not meant to take this seriously, so watch it as a parody of the development of the Bradley.
If you are curious about how well the Bradley performs you may also read about the Gulf War and Operation Desert Storm. It vastly outclassed its Russian counterparts and even went decently against tanks.
Like most vehicles in early development the Bradley had issues but the design concept was innovative and completely misrepresented in the movie. The IFV was a revolutionaly concept, literally, it was taken from the Russian BMP. It was so new many commanders did not know what to do with it.
You may search for Reformers, Bradley, Infantry Fighting Vehicle and even wikipedia will explain in detail.
To be short the Bradley never meant to withstand an anti-tank shell, because it is not a tank. It cannot carry so much troops because it is not an APC.
The movie was made from a book which was written by its protagonist to glorify himself. That is already quite telling.
However the music is catchy, the scenes are funny, some of the beurocracy parts are plausiable, and overall it is well made, but it is well made propaganda mostly telling lies.
One saving factor is that is is satiric, so you can argue that you were not meant to take this seriously, so watch it as a parody of the development of the Bradley.
If you are curious about how well the Bradley performs you may also read about the Gulf War and Operation Desert Storm. It vastly outclassed its Russian counterparts and even went decently against tanks.
Funny Yet Accurate
ukarlross18 February 2000
This movie gives the long history how a military troop carrier - the Brady - is turned into a monstrosity. I've worked for a government contractor; this is so close to how military contracts and the work it's scary! Not only does it portray the stress between the pentagon and congress as the troop carrier gets turns in to an amphibious, tank, antiaircraft, scoot (read slow moving target with troops in it). It some how makes it funny at he same time! Kelsey Grammer and Cary Elwes are both great comedic actors. Though Kelsey Grammer carries the movie. The only down side to the "Pentagon Wars" is it drags a little in the middle because just so much goes wrong with the Brady program.
Is that how the top brass in the US military operates?
ipswich-220 May 2000
I'm not American so any sense of disbelief and anger can be tempered by the fact that this is just a movie. But I still find it incredulous that the US military brass can be so short-sighted and inept. Since this is somewhat of a satire, I expect a lot of hyperbole put into this movie. Kelsey Grammer is brilliant as the unflappable and stubborn General forced to protect the interests of the Pentagon. Cary Elwes turns in a creditable performance as the reluctant colonel out to expose the truth. Makes you think if all the militaries around the world are spending taxpayers' money for the right reasons.
uh oh
Abby-911 September 1999
This is an educational film. Clearly i'm not up to date on civic problems. Clearly we've still got big ones. Meanwhile, Richard Benjamin's concise little drama mit schlag shows range of Kelsey Grammer, who is as terrifying a monster here in General's role as you will ever wish to see. Cary Elwes back on the side of truth and justice, for which i'm glad, as he has hero quality. And the women in this film keep it down to earth. There is great music behind titles and credits. Just go with this one. It is pretty amazing.
Typical Benjamin. Good but could have been better.
=G=17 June 2001
Richard Benjamin retells "The Pentagon Wars" story with an HBO budget and a mockumentary style in this examination of one of the Pentagon's more embarrassing faux pas; oversight of the R&D of what's come to be known as the Bradley Troop Carrier and Fighting Vehicle. An okay bit of entertainment, this film could have had more bite, a harder edge, and more drama. Nonetheless, it does name names and recounts a true story without too much compromise. Worth a look especially if the viewer knows this flick is not 100% fiction.
Sad but true
joed166720 February 2017
Some of the posters couldn't seem to grasp that the comedy was not in the way the movie was scripted but in the acts of many of those responsible for the design of the Bradley. It was a comedy of errors that only two people wanted to correct and were fought tooth and nail, all the way. General Smith put it the most accurately when Lt. Col. Burton asked him to whom the enemy was when he said "To majors who want to be colonels, to colonels who want to be generals, to generals who want that fourth star, you bet we are the enemy! Nobody moves up without getting things done! So what you don't want to be is the one who drops the ball, 'cause if you're the one who drops the ball: no promotion! no star! no cushy job with a contract when you retire!" No one wants to be that person to throw a monkey wrench into the process and all too often, we see our leaders putting their own interest ahead of those whose lives depend on their equipment. The story in the movie about the M-16 rifle was a perfect example.
Humorous, Informative, and Distubring.
meddlecore4 December 2013
"The Pentagon Wars" is a made-for-HBO movie, that was originally broadcast in 1998.
It is based on the account of Colonel James Burton (also the main character, played by Cary Elwes), a former military man who found himself up against a wall of ambition, when tasked with vetting the field effectiveness of the Bradley Military Vehicle.
A number of high ranking and highly influential military minds had already invested their careers, reputations and billions of taxpayer dollars into the Bradley project- with little-to-no results.
What was originally supposed to be a personnel transport device, found itself constantly being redesigned, until it was a hybrid scout/personnel transport/tank that was rather ineffective at carrying out any of the tasks it was meant for. The whole thing ended up too slow to operate as a scouting vehicle, too bulky to carry a significant amount of troops, and too weak to go up against any sort of anti-tank defences.
But too many people had invested too much in this project to admit defeat. So, despite the fact that such a vehicle was absolutely unfit for the field became irrelevant when weighed against the egos and ambitions of those behind the project.
Hence, when Colonel Burton shows up to test the field effectiveness of the machine, he finds it to be lacking, and questions whether it should be put into production.
His investigations reveal that a conspiracy has been undertaken to cover-up the vehicles shortcomings- including fraudulent tests used to determine it's safety and effectiveness in the field.
Instead of just acting as a whistleblower though, he decides he needs to do everything by the book...convincing the soldiers that have been helping carry out the tests to change their ways, as opposed to just leaking the story to an outside media outlet.
Burton does manage to convince congress to initiate an investigation into this $14 billion dollar con that was to see an overweight and overly explosive aluminum can be sent out into combat situations...with soldiers inside.
Despite this, the actions of this unsung hero would force him to resign from the military, while he watched those behind this bloated failure of a project move up the ranks.
This film is both entertaining and educational. While shot to be a comedy, this is a very revealing story, with very serious implications. It goes to show the kind of crap that the Military Industrial Complex is able to pull off, unbeknownst to the public, on a regular basis. And it has a great cast too: with the likes of Kelsey Grammar, John C. McGinley, among others, in supporting roles. This is a film that reveals the American Military's macho posturing for what it really is....posturing. Worth a watch if you are looking for an informative laugh. Would make a nice double-feature with "The Doomsday Gun", another made-for-HBO movie. 6 out 10.
It is based on the account of Colonel James Burton (also the main character, played by Cary Elwes), a former military man who found himself up against a wall of ambition, when tasked with vetting the field effectiveness of the Bradley Military Vehicle.
A number of high ranking and highly influential military minds had already invested their careers, reputations and billions of taxpayer dollars into the Bradley project- with little-to-no results.
What was originally supposed to be a personnel transport device, found itself constantly being redesigned, until it was a hybrid scout/personnel transport/tank that was rather ineffective at carrying out any of the tasks it was meant for. The whole thing ended up too slow to operate as a scouting vehicle, too bulky to carry a significant amount of troops, and too weak to go up against any sort of anti-tank defences.
But too many people had invested too much in this project to admit defeat. So, despite the fact that such a vehicle was absolutely unfit for the field became irrelevant when weighed against the egos and ambitions of those behind the project.
Hence, when Colonel Burton shows up to test the field effectiveness of the machine, he finds it to be lacking, and questions whether it should be put into production.
His investigations reveal that a conspiracy has been undertaken to cover-up the vehicles shortcomings- including fraudulent tests used to determine it's safety and effectiveness in the field.
Instead of just acting as a whistleblower though, he decides he needs to do everything by the book...convincing the soldiers that have been helping carry out the tests to change their ways, as opposed to just leaking the story to an outside media outlet.
Burton does manage to convince congress to initiate an investigation into this $14 billion dollar con that was to see an overweight and overly explosive aluminum can be sent out into combat situations...with soldiers inside.
Despite this, the actions of this unsung hero would force him to resign from the military, while he watched those behind this bloated failure of a project move up the ranks.
This film is both entertaining and educational. While shot to be a comedy, this is a very revealing story, with very serious implications. It goes to show the kind of crap that the Military Industrial Complex is able to pull off, unbeknownst to the public, on a regular basis. And it has a great cast too: with the likes of Kelsey Grammar, John C. McGinley, among others, in supporting roles. This is a film that reveals the American Military's macho posturing for what it really is....posturing. Worth a watch if you are looking for an informative laugh. Would make a nice double-feature with "The Doomsday Gun", another made-for-HBO movie. 6 out 10.
complete piece of make believe
jonttur16 March 2023
I mean the movie may seem very realistic for the majority of the people watching it, yet it could not stary much further from reality of the development of Bradley.
The Bradley was always designed as an IFV, not as an upgunned APC to name some inaccuracies.
I can't recommend this to be watched by anyone who might actually be interested in the Bradleys development. I can't tell what the producers were thinking, but it would almost seem as propaganda.
James Burton was the madman of the real story, but here they are the hero, since again, this is a piece of propaganda made by the reformers.
1/10.
The Bradley was always designed as an IFV, not as an upgunned APC to name some inaccuracies.
I can't recommend this to be watched by anyone who might actually be interested in the Bradleys development. I can't tell what the producers were thinking, but it would almost seem as propaganda.
James Burton was the madman of the real story, but here they are the hero, since again, this is a piece of propaganda made by the reformers.
1/10.
Scary but true
monos0026 July 2004
I find it interesting that this movie is classified as a comedy, granted some of the procedures that Col. Burton is forced to go through are comical. What i find disturbing is this is based on the real true to life development of the bradley fighting vehicle. Not only was it produced at great cost (over 13 billion taxpayer dollars) but after spending that much money it was an unsafe deathtrap for anyone riding in it, unfortunately it was a troop carrier. thankfully we did not have any conflicts requiring the use of the vehicle until most of the defects were fixed. also disturbing is the fact that every officer involved in the development of the bradley was promoted and went on to lucrative defense contracting positions while Col. Burton was forced to leave the Air Force.
Clever script, painfully unfunny comedy
JurijFedorov19 May 2022
Warning: Spoilers
It's a movie about a Pentagon project, the Bradley soldier carrier. A man from the airforce is sent in to test it before it can go into production. The Pentagon generals and other military men on the project all refuse any proper testing and stop all tests one at a time. That's the comedy in the movie. This guy picked by Congress to do the tests and Pentagon ruining them all. There are no jokes, no funny scenes, I didn't laugh a single time.
The movie feels like it's set in a few locations in small sets. The acting is fine. But it's just painfully unfunny 100% of the way. Not a single funny scene whatsoever. The plot does save it. It's a clever game of cat and mouse and this one guy trying to fight the Pentagon. Congress and White House leaders or whatever keep making Pentagon test the transportation vehicle they themselves are designing. So of course all those tests are fake. That's what always happens in such government army projects. It's extremely hard to develop a new weapon. 9 out of 10 fail. And you want that one weapon that works. The government on the other hand picks a weapon system and just forces it into use by throwing money at it and prematurally throwing it into combat. Many don't know this stuff and this movie cleverly presents it all. The AR-15 project is mentioned in the movie. A rifle Pentagon sent into battle in a very cheap defect state and refusing it to be cleaned by the soldiers as they wanted to replace it in a few years and it working would hinder that. So many American soldiers died because of defect weapons during the Vietnam war until Congress finally held hearings and forced Pentagon to fix the weapon. And they did create the best rifle ever once they understood that Congress was angry. Pentagon always does this stuff. So the movie is very important and will always stay relevant. In 20 years there will be some new huge failed project and people will point to movies like this one. It's just irritating that it's unfunny and maybe a bit simple overall. No action scenes, no love story, no personal lives presented. No wives, no children, no journalists shown, no crying, no laughing, no clever camera work. The movie is very bareboned and the script saves it. It feels like a theater play.
I would say it was an interesting watch for sure. And it's curious how basically all big projects where the police department, military institution, teacher union is set to investigate their own faults always fail at finding any faults whatsoever and it leads to giant overpriced disasters. The movie is informative. But it's a shame it is comedic. It's a way to avoid telling the full truth, by making all the drama overly silly and unrealistic.
The movie feels like it's set in a few locations in small sets. The acting is fine. But it's just painfully unfunny 100% of the way. Not a single funny scene whatsoever. The plot does save it. It's a clever game of cat and mouse and this one guy trying to fight the Pentagon. Congress and White House leaders or whatever keep making Pentagon test the transportation vehicle they themselves are designing. So of course all those tests are fake. That's what always happens in such government army projects. It's extremely hard to develop a new weapon. 9 out of 10 fail. And you want that one weapon that works. The government on the other hand picks a weapon system and just forces it into use by throwing money at it and prematurally throwing it into combat. Many don't know this stuff and this movie cleverly presents it all. The AR-15 project is mentioned in the movie. A rifle Pentagon sent into battle in a very cheap defect state and refusing it to be cleaned by the soldiers as they wanted to replace it in a few years and it working would hinder that. So many American soldiers died because of defect weapons during the Vietnam war until Congress finally held hearings and forced Pentagon to fix the weapon. And they did create the best rifle ever once they understood that Congress was angry. Pentagon always does this stuff. So the movie is very important and will always stay relevant. In 20 years there will be some new huge failed project and people will point to movies like this one. It's just irritating that it's unfunny and maybe a bit simple overall. No action scenes, no love story, no personal lives presented. No wives, no children, no journalists shown, no crying, no laughing, no clever camera work. The movie is very bareboned and the script saves it. It feels like a theater play.
I would say it was an interesting watch for sure. And it's curious how basically all big projects where the police department, military institution, teacher union is set to investigate their own faults always fail at finding any faults whatsoever and it leads to giant overpriced disasters. The movie is informative. But it's a shame it is comedic. It's a way to avoid telling the full truth, by making all the drama overly silly and unrealistic.
One of my favorite comedies
david-bacon5 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, I've read some comments saying it's not funny and even one comparing it with a Steve Martin movie. It's a sarcastic and ironical humor, and if you only like Three Stooges only( people may like it and also like other type of comedy) type of jokes, don''t watch it, you'll miss the funny parts. Now reviewing it : I'm Brazilian and knowing how politics works down here it's very believable whats happening on screen. Which makes it funnier. The tests and the hearing are hysterical, I coudn't stop laughing, the general explaining himself to the senator it's worth the movie. And to think that this movie was so low profile when it was delivered, it makes me sad. It's a must see, if not for the funny parts(not everyone has a sense of humor), at least for the message: watch your government very, very close, they usually screw up.
Entertaining
grantss11 September 2021
In the mid-1980s USAF Lt. Colonel John Burton is tasked with objectively evaluating the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, a project that has been in development for 17 years. The vehicle started off from a simple design but, due to Army meddling and Committee-Think, it has morphed into something different, something potentially sub-optimal. In the interests of saving the lives of US servicemen, he is determined to do his job as effectively as possible but the powers-that-be want him to simply rubber-stamp the vehicle so that production can begin.
An entertaining satirical look at an actual historic event, the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The film is based on Colonel Burton's book "The Pentagon Wars" though large liberties have been taken with many of the details. Well, it is a comedy, remember.
The film does capture well the sort of bureaucracy, meddling and Committee-Think that bedevil all organisations, but government ones the most. How the design of the Bradley changes over time due to these factors is hilarious to watch, but quite true to life.
While these barbs are well-aimed some of the lower-level comedy can be quite silly and cheesy at times. While the idea was to poke fun at the military bureaucracy, many of the characters do seem like cartoon villains.
Overall, funny and interesting enough. Just don't take it too seriously.
An entertaining satirical look at an actual historic event, the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The film is based on Colonel Burton's book "The Pentagon Wars" though large liberties have been taken with many of the details. Well, it is a comedy, remember.
The film does capture well the sort of bureaucracy, meddling and Committee-Think that bedevil all organisations, but government ones the most. How the design of the Bradley changes over time due to these factors is hilarious to watch, but quite true to life.
While these barbs are well-aimed some of the lower-level comedy can be quite silly and cheesy at times. While the idea was to poke fun at the military bureaucracy, many of the characters do seem like cartoon villains.
Overall, funny and interesting enough. Just don't take it too seriously.
" The worse kinds of wounds I can inflict are Paper Cuts "
thinker169124 March 2010
The American military is perhaps the most bloated organization in the United States. When it is used to fight wars, there is no finer in the world. Unfortunately, when not fighting, the Officers and senior staff are anything but. In this film Director Richard Benjamin takes a realistic look at the brainless system by which the Military waste's taxpayer's money. The weapons they choose are hardly ever chosen for their effectiveness or safety. Indeed, they are neither given a hard, fixed budget which they cannot cross. Instead they are allowed to splurge to their heart's content. This film is a case in point. The military decides to create a new troop carrier. They call it the Bradley Fighting unit. Kelsey Grammar plays Maj. Gen. Partridge a man who couldn't care less what a vehicle costs, so long as it promotes jobs and his career. However, Congress puts Lt. Col. James Burton (Cary Elwes) in charge of making the vehicle safe. Viola Davis, plays Sgt. Fanning Burton's secretary and together they seek to carry out their orders. John C. McGinley and Tom Wright are there to insure that they fail. Richard Schiff plays Gen. Smith who bends over backwards to please Partridge and the brass hats. Richard Benjamin is Secretary of Defense who is ambivalent about the entire project. The movie is a running commentary about how things really go on behind doors. Failure to play the game results in no promotion, recognition or cushy job after military discharge. Fighting a losing battle Col. Burton nevertheless tries to built a safe vehicle and one sympathies with him, but while no one on the hill cares, it is the fighting man in combat who will ultimately pay the price. A must see film for anyone who does give a dam. ****
Arresting, but strangely carried out....
lancekoz55-120 January 2007
This film starts with clues that it is to be a comedy....a light piano score that seems to indicate irony, closeups of Grammar's dryly funny testimony done with rosy light and all the settings a bit overly prettified. But yet, nothing particularly funny is happening. When Burton first reports to Partridge, his new high-level boss, there is a quick-moving monologue about the state of the recent projects from Grammar, and the whole thing seems to teeter on a joke about to happen, i.e. a contrasting quip from Burton, or a blow up by Grammar's character, but it never does.
A little farther in, the film slows based on rather pedantic details, and everything discussed is deadly serious, including the plight of whistle-blowers in the military industrial complex. It was all interesting and viable enough to keep me watching, but I found myself wishing I was watching a documentary if this is a true story, OR a more serious docu-drama like the recent telling of the tobacco industry (The Insider), OR a quicker moving, slightly more absurd comedy with satiric bite (which is how the film looks, art-direction wise). That's a wide range of tone that would make it more enjoyable, but somehow the writing and look of this tip-toes between all of that and never commits to any of it.
This is not to say it isn't interesting, but it does mean that a potential for a more important or entertaining movie was missed. The material is smart enough and thorough enough, it hurts to see this pootential wasted by a near-miss.
A little farther in, the film slows based on rather pedantic details, and everything discussed is deadly serious, including the plight of whistle-blowers in the military industrial complex. It was all interesting and viable enough to keep me watching, but I found myself wishing I was watching a documentary if this is a true story, OR a more serious docu-drama like the recent telling of the tobacco industry (The Insider), OR a quicker moving, slightly more absurd comedy with satiric bite (which is how the film looks, art-direction wise). That's a wide range of tone that would make it more enjoyable, but somehow the writing and look of this tip-toes between all of that and never commits to any of it.
This is not to say it isn't interesting, but it does mean that a potential for a more important or entertaining movie was missed. The material is smart enough and thorough enough, it hurts to see this pootential wasted by a near-miss.
Life in any large organisation -- taken to the extremes that only the military can manage
motor8923 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
As an adaptation from Lt. Col. James G. Burton's 1993 book of the same name, 'The Pentaton Wars' dramatises the ludicrous time/money wasting going on in the many Pentagon weapons programmes during the cold war.
The film focuses on the development of the M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Burton (an U.S. Air Force Lt. Col played by Cary Elwes) is appointed, by Congress, to test and evaluate the vehicle that has been under development by the U.S. Army for 17 years at a cost of $14 billion. The press has caught onto the astonishing waste and incompetence, and pressure is applied to prove that the whole thing isn't just throwing away vast quantities of money. Politicians, sensitive to the press coverage, begin to insist that some of these weapons programmes actually go into production, rather than just sitting around on the drawing board and testing grounds.
The General in charge of the programme (played by Kelsey Grammar) is superficially friendly and cooperative to Burton, but his main aim is to stall and divert him into doing nothing to interfere with the gravy train -- just as so many previous appointees have avoided doing in the past, to the benefit of their careers. No-one wants to sabotage a hugely lucrative programme and find themselves ostracised.
Burton, though, has other ideas. After observing a deeply flawed test of the vehicle he begins to dig deeper. He looks into the history of the programme and finds designers being constantly asked to redesign it to fit in with ever shifting fads. The vehicle started out as a troop carrier, until one General realised he could chop a big chunk out of his budget by merging his "scout" project with it -- meaning it now had to have guns, a turret, detection equipment and be twice as fast (meaning it carries half as many people with less armour to protect them)... and so on. At one point, another General even suggests making it amphibious. After the 17 years of this, the end result is a hideous mongrel that can't perform any role particularly well.
Burton's investigations into the testing methods of the programme are no more encouraging. The "successful" tests performed on the armour are supposed to have been done with Soviet weaponry, but were actually done with Romanian RPGs that can't even blast through a metal door ("Romania is part of the Soviet-block" is the excuse). Other tests of its resistance to fire after being hit are done when the gunpowder in the carried ammo is replaced by sand, and the fuel tank is either empty or full of water. A British Army report into the type of aluminium used for the vehicle (when hit by a shell it burns and releases a toxic gas) is buried. Burton's attempts to run his own tests are constantly undermined and sabotaged. In one of the film's finest moments, Burton's idea to use sheep to test what would happen to a crew when hit by an RPG is blocked by the General setting up an ENTIRE NEW DEPARTMENT called "Ruminant procurement", thereby ensuring it will take 8 months for Burton's spec to be examined (type of sheep, length of coat, gender etc etc) and a further 8 months to actually procure them. Meanwhile, the under-pressure General is forcing the vehicle into production despite its manifest failings.
The whole thing is played for laughs... there was no other way to treat it really. I haven't read the original book (but I will now), so I can't say how faithful it is, but it's a very smart and funny film. Anyone who has worked in a large organisation will be familiar with the goings-on... but only colossally budgeted ones like the military can take it to such comedic extremes.
The film focuses on the development of the M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Burton (an U.S. Air Force Lt. Col played by Cary Elwes) is appointed, by Congress, to test and evaluate the vehicle that has been under development by the U.S. Army for 17 years at a cost of $14 billion. The press has caught onto the astonishing waste and incompetence, and pressure is applied to prove that the whole thing isn't just throwing away vast quantities of money. Politicians, sensitive to the press coverage, begin to insist that some of these weapons programmes actually go into production, rather than just sitting around on the drawing board and testing grounds.
The General in charge of the programme (played by Kelsey Grammar) is superficially friendly and cooperative to Burton, but his main aim is to stall and divert him into doing nothing to interfere with the gravy train -- just as so many previous appointees have avoided doing in the past, to the benefit of their careers. No-one wants to sabotage a hugely lucrative programme and find themselves ostracised.
Burton, though, has other ideas. After observing a deeply flawed test of the vehicle he begins to dig deeper. He looks into the history of the programme and finds designers being constantly asked to redesign it to fit in with ever shifting fads. The vehicle started out as a troop carrier, until one General realised he could chop a big chunk out of his budget by merging his "scout" project with it -- meaning it now had to have guns, a turret, detection equipment and be twice as fast (meaning it carries half as many people with less armour to protect them)... and so on. At one point, another General even suggests making it amphibious. After the 17 years of this, the end result is a hideous mongrel that can't perform any role particularly well.
Burton's investigations into the testing methods of the programme are no more encouraging. The "successful" tests performed on the armour are supposed to have been done with Soviet weaponry, but were actually done with Romanian RPGs that can't even blast through a metal door ("Romania is part of the Soviet-block" is the excuse). Other tests of its resistance to fire after being hit are done when the gunpowder in the carried ammo is replaced by sand, and the fuel tank is either empty or full of water. A British Army report into the type of aluminium used for the vehicle (when hit by a shell it burns and releases a toxic gas) is buried. Burton's attempts to run his own tests are constantly undermined and sabotaged. In one of the film's finest moments, Burton's idea to use sheep to test what would happen to a crew when hit by an RPG is blocked by the General setting up an ENTIRE NEW DEPARTMENT called "Ruminant procurement", thereby ensuring it will take 8 months for Burton's spec to be examined (type of sheep, length of coat, gender etc etc) and a further 8 months to actually procure them. Meanwhile, the under-pressure General is forcing the vehicle into production despite its manifest failings.
The whole thing is played for laughs... there was no other way to treat it really. I haven't read the original book (but I will now), so I can't say how faithful it is, but it's a very smart and funny film. Anyone who has worked in a large organisation will be familiar with the goings-on... but only colossally budgeted ones like the military can take it to such comedic extremes.
this black comedy especially relevant under the Bush II administration
eric-young31 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
First I want to stress how wonderful Kelsy Grammar is as a pompous, self important, dilettante pentagon bureaucrat general, and how a lesser actor would probably been unable to portray a character sharing so many character traits with a character he is best known for (Frazier Crane), while creating a totally distinct individual character without a scene that the other character creeps in a little. Gen. Partridge is a classic privileged twit of the first order, and I never confused him with Frasier for a second. Richard Schiff is equally good as a career officer trying to hold his wits together without jeopardizing his career. He watches his simple, common sense defense department project spiral out of control into one of the most publicized and outrageous examples of the military industrial complex run amok in recent history. What makes this so relevant today is the attitude of "we'll fix the problems in the field" and the casual disregard for life and limb of the troops who face death of injury due to the decisions of those at the highest levels of power. Our current leadership had an agenda to go to war in Iraq from it's outset, but neglected to ramp up military production of armored Hummvees, body armor, etc. in the 2 years from when it took power until the Iraq war started. Whether you support the war or not, this is troubling, especially when you take into account that large portions of our defense budget went to develop a missile defense shield system that shows little progress, does not address the most likely threat we face, but puts billions of dollars into the hands of a company with close association with a secretary of defense who told troops "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want." Both sides of this issue can find source for outrage.
Where's the fun?
Enchorde19 December 2003
Warning: Spoilers
**Here be spoilers**
Comedy? Where? Lt.Colonel Burton (Cary Elwes) get an assignment to investigate a project to develop the new troop-carrier Bradley, a project we soon learn that has been going on for almost two decades resulting in a freak vehicle. Of course, the officers in charge of the project Maj. General Partridge (Kelsey Grammer), Col. J.D. Block (John C McGinley) and Maj. William Sayers (Tom Wright), is determined to finalize the project and start producing the vehicle, no matter the vehicle is a major disaster. These officers are so determined so they refuse to do full testing of the vehicle, knowing it would give disastrous results. Burton on the other hand soon discover the true nature of the vehicle and demands that full live tests should be done. The tests is then sabotaged by Block and Sayers, giving no good results even if it is evident that the vehicle is a danger to anybody except possibly the enemy. From his end Partridge works behind the scenes frequently relocate Burton to stop his investigation. Finally all result in a hearing with a senate committee.
The plot contains no suspense at all, and is totally predictable, especially since the story jumps back and forth in time giving good clues how it all ends. Before I watched the movie I read a brief review of the plot, and saw it was listed as a comedy, I had some expectations. I was hoping for hoaxes and fun twists, something alike "Sgt. Bilko" with Steve Martin and "Down Periscope" with Kelsey Grammer himself. In addition I saw that the cast featured at least three persons that have proven themselves within the comedy genre, I am of course thinking of Grammer, Elwes and McGinley.
I was very disappointed, since I can't really find anything funny with this movie. There are no outright jokes, the way the tests are sabotaged are not funny or even somewhat clever. Actually I can not imagine how this was called a comedy. The war-genre might apply, even if we see absolutely no war action (except some historical images in the introduction), otherwise, drama is much better in my opinion.
The cast is neither good or bad, seem to have been another day at work for most of them. Nothing spectacular, nobody rises above the thin material, no one a disappointment either.
Just let this one go quietly into some archive, lost to history.
3/10
Comedy? Where? Lt.Colonel Burton (Cary Elwes) get an assignment to investigate a project to develop the new troop-carrier Bradley, a project we soon learn that has been going on for almost two decades resulting in a freak vehicle. Of course, the officers in charge of the project Maj. General Partridge (Kelsey Grammer), Col. J.D. Block (John C McGinley) and Maj. William Sayers (Tom Wright), is determined to finalize the project and start producing the vehicle, no matter the vehicle is a major disaster. These officers are so determined so they refuse to do full testing of the vehicle, knowing it would give disastrous results. Burton on the other hand soon discover the true nature of the vehicle and demands that full live tests should be done. The tests is then sabotaged by Block and Sayers, giving no good results even if it is evident that the vehicle is a danger to anybody except possibly the enemy. From his end Partridge works behind the scenes frequently relocate Burton to stop his investigation. Finally all result in a hearing with a senate committee.
The plot contains no suspense at all, and is totally predictable, especially since the story jumps back and forth in time giving good clues how it all ends. Before I watched the movie I read a brief review of the plot, and saw it was listed as a comedy, I had some expectations. I was hoping for hoaxes and fun twists, something alike "Sgt. Bilko" with Steve Martin and "Down Periscope" with Kelsey Grammer himself. In addition I saw that the cast featured at least three persons that have proven themselves within the comedy genre, I am of course thinking of Grammer, Elwes and McGinley.
I was very disappointed, since I can't really find anything funny with this movie. There are no outright jokes, the way the tests are sabotaged are not funny or even somewhat clever. Actually I can not imagine how this was called a comedy. The war-genre might apply, even if we see absolutely no war action (except some historical images in the introduction), otherwise, drama is much better in my opinion.
The cast is neither good or bad, seem to have been another day at work for most of them. Nothing spectacular, nobody rises above the thin material, no one a disappointment either.
Just let this one go quietly into some archive, lost to history.
3/10
kinda scary how dead-on accurate this movie is...
koolduck232 March 2003
i first saw this movie well before coming into the military, and while i found it very entertaining, didn't fully appreciate it. having now been 3 years in, i can very much appreciate the humor of this fantastic satire. granted, there is a fair amount of hyperbole, and no, not everyone in the military is so very inept... but simply put, a few years working with military intellegence elevates my view of this film quite a bit.
Blast from the past
flsk629 June 2013
I remembered this movie from way back and decided to look it up. So glad I did. I found it to be hilarious. I realize that it deals with serious subject matter but there was definitely comedy there. I laughed so hard I had tears in my eyes. It is called a "black comedy", I am really not sure why, the movie was comedic and upbeat to me with only a few serious moments. The lengths that military brass go to in order to get approval for production is unreal. It does however make for a funny story line. Cary Elwes, Kelsey Grammar, John McGinley, Richard Benjamin all seemed to have played off one another and it worked well. I would recommend this movie.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
