Lone Survivor (2013)

[baumer]

Reading the book and watching the movie. the movie is pure propaganda. The author believes his fellow soldiers due to the liberal media in the book. The gun fights are good but also unrealistic for a movie trying to portray itself as realistic in the sense that the soldiers get hit with so many bullets yet keep on walking and running for a long time.The dying scenes of the one of the colleagues in the end has been changed from the book to make it look more dramatic and hollywood. My opinion. They screwed up and engaged the enemy a lot of what is in the book must have happened but a lot seems to be massaged to make heroes out of a screwed up situation.

 

2.5/5

D

 

So you disliked it because it wasn't accurate?

[Dementeleus]

Care to elaborate?

 

Doesn't surprise me that it's Hollywoodized, but I haven't had enough time to read anything yet.

 

There were maybe a couple dozen fighters against them on the mountainside. Seems likely Ahmad Shah wasn't al Qaeda at all (and he didn't kill 20 Marines the week before). There was no firefight at the village at the end. And some other various stuff.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/01/10/lone_survivor_accuracy_fact_vs_fiction_in_the_mark_wahlberg_and_peter_berg.html

[hasanahmad]

So you disliked it because it wasn't accurate?

 

I disliked it because it seems to have changed from the book, presents unrealistic situations and acting as a propaganda movie.

[Dementeleus]

2.5/5 is a D?

[hasanahmad]

2.5/5 is a D?

 

For me. 3/5 is a C for me

[baumer]

There were maybe a couple dozen fighters against them on the mountainside. Seems likely Ahmad Shah wasn't al Qaeda at all (and he didn't kill 20 Marines the week before). There was no firefight at the village at the end. And some other various stuff.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/01/10/lone_survivor_accuracy_fact_vs_fiction_in_the_mark_wahlberg_and_peter_berg.html

 

That's not what Marcus' book says though.  So who is right, someone who was there and fought through it or someone who wasn't?

[Dementeleus]

That's not what Marcus' book says though.  So who is right, someone who was there and fought through it or someone who wasn't?

 

Which part?

[hasanahmad]

That's not what Marcus' book says though.  So who is right, someone who was there and fought through it or someone who wasn't?

 

I wouldnt trust a sole survivor who calls the Rules of Engagement, and rules of war created after the Geneva Convention post WWII after the allies defeated Hitler as 'Liberal' and blaming the 'Liberal Media' for the death of his colleagues. Reading it it clearly looked like he made heroes out of a screwed up situation but a few Americans love survivors and the underdog so they will eat it up.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Hasan Ahmad

[baumer]

Ok, so I read that piece.  So, if they would have filmed the last part of the movie the way it really happened, it would have been kind of anti-climatic.  The rescue team picks him up and they have tea together?  lol.

 

Hollywood has to sell a film and whether there were 20 guys they were up against or 50, doesn't matter.  The film was a very fine piece of film making.

[Dementeleus]

Ok, so I read that piece.  So, if they would have filmed the last part of the movie the way it really happened, it would have been kind of anti-climatic.  The rescue team picks him up and they have tea together?  lol.

 

Hollywood has to sell a film and whether there were 20 guys they were up against or 50, doesn't matter.  The film was a very fine piece of film making.

 

I'm not knocking the movie, I'm just pointing out they did depart from real events to suit their needs (as every movie does).

[baumer]

Ok, well if some of you want to question the story, that's up to you.  

 

All I know is that a SEAL recon team got compromised and fought for their lives against a numerically superior enemy force, where only 1 of them made it out alive with the help of afghan villagers. I also know that more special operations soldiers got killed trying to rescue them in a horrible helicopter shootdown. All of this is straight facts and there is no debate. The only person who knows the truth about everything is MARCUS LUTTRELL.

Mr. Luttrell has to be the one to carry the burden of seeing his fellow teammates killed and him nearly losing his life in a horrible way deep in enemy territory. He also has to be the one to stand behind his book and if his claims are false, it is another burden that he has to carry as well. I'm not going to question his integrity and I really don't care about the numbers of the enemy being over exaggerated and all of that. All I know is that he survived something that NONE of us would want to happen to us, simple as that.

 

That was written in some military forum.  I think that speaks to how I feel as well.

[RobinHood26]

Surprised the heck out of me, I dug it. I find the first half to be the strongest though. It kinda drags at the end and almost loses it self.

 

While being kinda bland and empty it was still very intense and I cried like 5 times.

 

B+ (87)

[lilmac]

A

 

 

I am hesitant to label Lone Survivor the best war movie since Saving Private Ryan but it does have all the ingredients, likable characters who you don't want to see die, attention grabbing action, tension, sad moments, redeeming moments.  It really surprised me how good it was.  

[Dementeleus]

These famous lines from "Charge of the Light Brigade" sum up the movie well, and it really shows that its approach or mindset is nothing new.

 

Theirs not to make reply,

Theirs not to reason why,

Theirs but to do & die

 

- Alfred, Lord Tennyson

[Killimano3]

I thought it was actually very well done. It was pretty depressing, but it did a good job of making me feel for the characters

[junkshop36]

I thought it was fantastic! I cared for the four main characters and even though I knew what was going to happen to three of them I still was upset by their deaths. I also had no idea that the helicopter got taken down. I didn't read the book so I only knew the basics of the story. When that happened I was like, man that sucks. The action was great. It felt very real and intense, regardless of how accurate it is. I loved the part near the end when he's fighting in the room and the kid shows up with the knife. That was awesome and it got a great reaction from the audience. I liked how they put the reason at the end as to why the village protected him. You learn something new everyday. The ending with all the pictures was quite touching and I loved the picture of him reunited with the man who found him and brought him back to the village. A

[Dementeleus]

One little addition to the end titles that explain why the tribe saved him. It's not as simple as "the Pashtuns are fighting the Taliban". The Pashtuns are a huge ethnic group in Afghanistan -- many of the Taliban are Pashtun as well. It would've been more accurate to say that one group of (non-Taliban) Pashtuns was fighting another group of (Taliban-affiliated) Pashtuns.

[rockNrollaDIM]

It felt kinda... simple. I don't know why, but it just didn't connect too much with me. Not the secondary characters, at least. Wahlberg's character did connect with me quite some. I nearly cried he turned around to thank that kid and man for helping him. But still, it felt kinda dry, empty, simple... I really have no idea how to put it. It's brutal as hell, too...

 

B

 

Basically this.

 

For some reason I was expecting more out of this, but it was just OK. For a movie with this subject matter, it didn't inspire any major passion out of me and I felt a somewhat apathetic towards the characters despite their situation. I heard alot about the realism in this movie but to be honest the "action" looked kinda "cool" to me which then made me feel uneasy and voyeuristic; for around 30 minutes it seemed like more than a bit of a war porn and live action Call of Duty.

 

With that said the highlight of the film was easily the realtionship between Wahlberg's character and his Afghan saviors. It's effective in that it makes you feel guilty for previously criticizing the soldiers for not taking out the threat that put them in that predicament in the first place (don't lie, you also considered it). His begging for them to be taken on the chopper and repeatedly thanking them also got to to me too, and was the emotional high point of the movie.

 

B/B-

[Jessie]

This was a well done movie but it just seemed like America trying to show how badass they were. Its funny how in the film they fight off about 200 afghan soldiers. When Marcus was first asked how many soldiers there were, he said 20-30, ever since that number has gone up and up lol. Also im sure they didn't have to just abort the mission just because some locals saw them hiding in a forest. Couldn't they tie them up, complete the mission then release them?? Maybe even keep one soldier behind to keep an eye on them??

 

Also at one stage, Marky Mark hides under a rock to evade being seen, this is after his entire team have been killed an he's just witnessed his rescue helicopter being taken down killing more on board. He then sees his target walk past (their main mission). Surely given everything that's happened, you'd sacrifice yourself to kill that guy, he probably thought he was going to die anyway.

 

If anything, and hopefully no offense is taken from this, but it just shows that the Navy Seals are far from the best in the world.

B

Edited January 16, 2014 by Jessie

[Dementeleus]

LOL you and your anti-SEALness.