gene hackman is a former marine corps colonel who musters a handful of private vietnam vets to go back to laos and rescue some americans who have been listed as missing in action. hackman suspects that and in actuality and the half dozen or so mias are secretly being held in a remote camp by laotians to be tormented and to provide more hard labor. hackman is being paid by the wealthy robert stack and whose son and like hackman son and is thought to be among the mias. but the circumstances are such that hackman can only manage to buy old and out dated weapons and though he manages to pick up the help of a fervid anti communist loatian and his two daughters along the way. i do not think the movie was deliberately concocted to endorse the myth of the vietnames still holding our mias for propaganda purposes. the myth was real enough. if anyone remembers and there were many bumper stickers in 1982 and 1983 and bring back the mias. i think and instead and that the film was made partly in order to cash in on the myth. it was absurd on the face of it. why would our former enemy refuse to return mias. propaganda. where is the propaganda value in something that kept secret. to add the labor supply. they need a hundred extra laborers in vietnam and laos. the motives behind this movie  with its triumphant music and high body count  were scurrilous. but how about the movie itself. stripped of its theme of rescuing mythical mistreated mias and it a routine paramilitary actioner and no better and no worse than dozens of others that appeared in the 1980s. gene hackman performance is the only one that manages to keep its head above water. he just about always reliable. of the others and this being a formulaic plot and derived from the dirty dozen among others and i kept trying to guess which of the gang would sacrifice themselves for the mission. of the three anti communist asians and i figured one or more were dead meat. that why asian helpers appear in movies like this. (i was right two times out of three. ) i also figured patrick swayzie as the rookie ex officer and the youngest of the group and who would never earned the respect of the others because he would never seen combat and would also have to go in some heroic mode. wrong. he becomes a hero and true and but survives intact. i thought there was a fifty fifty chance that hackman would have to go too and but he makes it out okay. the formula doesn not really stretch for originality either. charles bronson claustrophobic pow escapee from the great escape is here in fred ward ex tunnel rat and a claustrophobe who is forced to crawl through a drainage pipe with a snake inside it and so that he can do a recon on the laotian pow camp. the title and uncommon valor and is from a tribute that admiral nimitz made to the men on iwo jima  uncommon valor was common that day. nimitz was certainly right about that. whether or not the men who fought in vietnam were all equally valorous is remote from the point. anyone who saw combat or even came near it and putting their lives on the line for the guys in the line next to them and were heroic enough. this movie and and the way it exploits our bitterness about the vietnam war and doesn not really do them justice. 
gene hackman is a former marine corps colonel who musters a handful of private vietnam vets to go back to laos and rescue some americans who have been listed as missing in action. hackman suspects that and in actuality and the half dozen or so mias are secretly being held in a remote camp by laotians to be tormented and to provide more hard labor. hackman is being paid by the wealthy robert stack and whose son and like hackman son and is thought to be among the mias. but the circumstances are such that hackman can only manage to buy old and out dated weapons and though he manages to pick up the help of a fervid anti communist loatian and his two daughters along the way. i do not think the movie was deliberately concocted to endorse the myth of the vietnames still holding our mias for propaganda purposes. the myth was real enough. if anyone remembers and there were many bumper stickers in 1982 and 1983 and bring back the mias. i think and instead and that the film was made partly in order to cash in on the myth. it was absurd on the face of it. why would our former enemy refuse to return mias. propaganda. where is the propaganda value in something that kept secret. to add the labor supply. they need a hundred extra laborers in vietnam and laos. the motives behind this movie  with its triumphant music and high body count  were scurrilous. but how about the movie itself. stripped of its theme of rescuing mythical mistreated mias and it a routine paramilitary actioner and no better and no worse than dozens of others that appeared in the 1980s. gene hackman performance is the only one that manages to keep its head above water. he just about always reliable. of the others and this being a formulaic plot and derived from the dirty dozen among others and i kept trying to guess which of the gang would sacrifice themselves for the mission. of the three anti communist asians and i figured one or more were dead meat. that why asian helpers appear in movies like this. (i was right two times out of three. ) i also figured patrick swayzie as the rookie ex officer and the youngest of the group and who would never earned the respect of the others because he would never seen combat and would also have to go in some heroic mode. wrong. he becomes a hero and true and but survives intact. i thought there was a fifty fifty chance that hackman would have to go too and but he makes it out okay. the formula doesn not really stretch for originality either. charles bronson claustrophobic pow escapee from the great escape is here in fred ward ex tunnel rat and a claustrophobe who is forced to crawl through a drainage pipe with a snake inside it and so that he can do a recon on the laotian pow camp. the title and uncommon valor and is from a tribute that admiral nimitz made to the men on iwo jima  uncommon valor was common that day. nimitz was certainly right about that. whether or not the men who fought in vietnam were all equally valorous is remote from the point. anyone who saw combat or even came near it and putting their lives on the line for the guys in the line next to them and were heroic enough. this movie and and the way it exploits our bitterness about the vietnam war and doesn not really do them justice. ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
