Escape to the Movies: Lone Survivor

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Lone Survivor

Marky Mark and his funky bunch of Seals goes after terrorism in this week's review of Lone Survivor.

Watch Video

So an American version of Bravo Two Zero as directed by Mel Gibson?

Halo Reach did the heroic death thing better, I'm guessing. Am I right/close, Bob?

BTW...Dr. Strangelove? So...apparently you stopped worrying and learned to love this bomb, eh?

wasn't there a lost shib inu that froze to death the other day that was making the rounds as a tear jerker human interest story?

If so then very topical bob.

Yay! Cute Shiba Inu.

I was going to go see this movie, then I heard it was based on a true story. I looked it up, and decided I didn't want to go see it. Too sad. Now though, it sounds like the main reason I would have gone to see it isn't there either. I would have wanted to see a war movie, but if the shots focus so much on the wounds and blood and not the action, I don't think I would have enjoyed it at all.

When I saw this review I thought the same thing as when I saw the trailer.

Why was the option: release or kill? What happened to the third, and IMO obviously superior "keep em tied up till the operation was complete or extraction accomplished" option?

I mean, I get that the survivor told his story with the moral debate, so that's what happened, but... I dunno, it still came to my mind that they missed out on a much better option.

I totally get the reference at the end.

Also sounding a little bit off there bob. Post Christmas Exhaustion or New Years hangover?

Falseprophet:
So an American version of Bravo Two Zero as directed by Mel Gibson?

Which doesn't sound so bad. I liked Bravo Two Zero. It was a soild flick.

Sidney Buit:
When I saw this review I thought the same thing as when I saw the trailer.

Why was the option: release or kill? What happened to the third, and IMO obviously superior "keep em tied up till the operation was complete or extraction accomplished" option?

I mean, I get that the survivor told his story with the moral debate, so that's what happened, but... I dunno, it still came to my mind that they missed out on a much better option.

I was wondering that too.

The way you describe the movie it sounds a lot like torture porn, torture porn meant to make the military look more heroic but still torture porn.

Sidney Buit:
When I saw this review I thought the same thing as when I saw the trailer.

Why was the option: release or kill? What happened to the third, and IMO obviously superior "keep em tied up till the operation was complete or extraction accomplished" option?

I mean, I get that the survivor told his story with the moral debate, so that's what happened, but... I dunno, it still came to my mind that they missed out on a much better option.

If they were terrorist sympathisers then they can just slow them down completely and the Seals don't gain anything for it. If they were innocent then it would essentially be kidnapping.

My question is why they don't just leave them there in order to get a head start.

Sidney Buit:
When I saw this review I thought the same thing as when I saw the trailer.

Why was the option: release or kill? What happened to the third, and IMO obviously superior "keep em tied up till the operation was complete or extraction accomplished" option?

I mean, I get that the survivor told his story with the moral debate, so that's what happened, but... I dunno, it still came to my mind that they missed out on a much better option.

What would have happened if Zod had Kryptoformed Mars instead?

I hear that Shiba Inu movie is gonna be killer, though I'm not sure I like I how it portrays female and minority dogs.

That Shiba looks strangely like the DOgcoin Dog

OK, so I'll stick with the completely different game of the same name and as mentioned above, just go and re-watch Bravo Two Zero. Thanks for the heads-up.

So Bob didn't like it because the film didn't romanticize the reality of war; he prefers to watch a comforting lie at the movies? lol

Moth_Monk:
So Bob didn't like it because the film didn't romanticize the reality of war; he prefers to watch a comforting lie at the movies? lol

I think his point is that war-porn without an underlying pathos is just gratuitous.

Such topical
Much schedule
Many credit
Wow

... c'mon, I can't be the only one thinking it.

OT: Timing for this one is weird. Deep (or attempts at same) war drama tend to aim before the award season. I guess this really is just a directoral art piece.

Sidney Buit:
When I saw this review I thought the same thing as when I saw the trailer.

Why was the option: release or kill? What happened to the third, and IMO obviously superior "keep em tied up till the operation was complete or extraction accomplished" option?

I mean, I get that the survivor told his story with the moral debate, so that's what happened, but... I dunno, it still came to my mind that they missed out on a much better option.

it's addressed in the movie
- they are found and warn the taliban
- they are not found and:
-are killed by the wildlife (they mention wolves to be specific)
-die due to exposure, night time in Afghanistan in the mountains not being exactly the best time to be tied to a tree

moviebob not liking a war movie that isn't anti American? I'm shocked!
/sarcasm

Enosh_:

it's addressed in the movie
- they are found and warn the taliban
- they are not found and:
-are killed by the wildlife (they mention wolves to be specific)
-die due to exposure, night time in Afghanistan in the mountains not being exactly the best time to be tied to a tree

Important to note that once you capture someone you are responsible for their safety - leaving the people tied up to die is almost as bad as killing them yourself.

american soldiers NOT commiting war crimes?
why is the story marked as non-fiction then?

I actually managed to see this movie already (yay sneak preview) and totally agree with how Bob portrayed it.
Funny thing is I thought of the Homer sequence too, when I saw them bounce down the mountain.
This move isn't good. But it's not terrible either. It's watchable and I can see some people taking away some positive from it.
The fact that it's based on a real story does sort of help and makes you think about the whole thing. Especially about the brave Afghans who took in the lone survivor putting their entire village and relatives at risk in the process, just to help some random guy.

JarinArenos:
Such topical
Much schedule
Many credit
Wow

... c'mon, I can't be the only one thinking it.

OT: Timing for this one is weird. Deep (or attempts at same) war drama tend to aim before the award season. I guess this really is just a directoral art piece.

DAMMIT!

I was gonna do that.

Falseprophet:
So an American version of Bravo Two Zero as directed by Mel Gibson?

Damn it, i was thinking Bravo Two Zero as well. lol.

Man I'm so glad you brought up the shiba!
Its in all the news outlets, I was worried you'd miss it.

Mangue Surfer:

Sidney Buit:
When I saw this review I thought the same thing as when I saw the trailer.

Why was the option: release or kill? What happened to the third, and IMO obviously superior "keep em tied up till the operation was complete or extraction accomplished" option?

I mean, I get that the survivor told his story with the moral debate, so that's what happened, but... I dunno, it still came to my mind that they missed out on a much better option.

What would have happened if Zod had Kryptoformed Mars instead?

You're comparing a fictional character overlooking a decision that would have made a boring movie to real people overlooking a real possible solution to a conflict. Or did you miss the point where this is based on a true story?

Enosh_:

moviebob not liking a war movie that isn't anti American? I'm shocked!
/sarcasm

... have you taken a look at the downright staggering amounts of hero-worship Americans accord their army with? Not to mention that nice little habit that everything that doesn't treat the army as righteous angels sent from god is automatically called "anti-American", or -even funnier- "unpatriotic".

Making a war movie that treats its main characters not as actual characters, but as embodiment of the author's sweeping generalisation of a group (in this case the American army) is very likely to just be a shitty movie.

Feel free to watch and enjoy, but don't get offended when a movie critic puts movie quality first, and mindless hero-worship last.

person427:

You're comparing a fictional character overlooking a decision that would have made a boring movie to real people overlooking a real possible solution to a conflict. Or did you miss the point where this is based on a true story?

There's a saying in my family when it comes to books/movies/music/whatever which loosely translates to "true story is a false excuse". For a movie's quality it doesn't matter whether it happened or not.

Lesson learned, if you capture people that are glaring at you that much and are from an enemy occupied area, just off em! Much safer that way. :P

Kargathia:

Enosh_:

moviebob not liking a war movie that isn't anti American? I'm shocked!
/sarcasm

... have you taken a look at the downright staggering amounts of hero-worship Americans accord their army with? Not to mention that nice little habit that everything that doesn't treat the army as righteous angels sent from god is automatically called "anti-American", or -even funnier- "unpatriotic".

Making a war movie that treats its main characters not as actual characters, but as embodiment of the author's sweeping generalisation of a group (in this case the American army) is very likely to just be a shitty movie.

Feel free to watch and enjoy, but don't get offended when a movie critic puts movie quality first, and mindless hero-worship last.

person427:

You're comparing a fictional character overlooking a decision that would have made a boring movie to real people overlooking a real possible solution to a conflict. Or did you miss the point where this is based on a true story?

There's a saying in my family when it comes to books/movies/music/whatever which loosely translates to "true story is a false excuse". For a movie's quality it doesn't matter whether it happened or not.

And you're completely missing the point of this discussion. The movie did do what happened in the true story, the original question brought up was why didn't the real people consider this other option?

But, following from your argument: no. That's wrong. I don't know if you've seen any of the promotions for this movie, but the entire point of it is that the lone survivor the title refers to wants to keep the memory of the soldiers alive. Keeping his goal in mind, why would he ever change something so major as the decision that set the events in motion?

Hm to bad I kind of wanted to see it, but after I saw that Shiba Inu I now have a strong urge to watch that hachiko movie again. Before anyone says anything yes I know hachiko was an akita.

Oh geez, that speech at the beginning alone is enough to tell me it's awful.

Oh boy, more chest-beating, alpha-male, military-worshipping tripe, just what the western world's media needs...

leviadragon99:
Oh boy, more chest-beating, alpha-male, military-worshipping tripe, just what the western world's media needs...

It seems like that you have not don your research on the subject. The film is based on Operation Red Wings, which was a big fuck up when it happend. Look it up.

Bob, my man, you are either losing your edge or 2013 left you way more optimistic. Now without watching your full review, just by the description you gave to the movie, I can tell you it is going to suck ass, lets break it down:
1) The director of The Kingdom, that movie sucked hard on all levels, it was too soon and handled horribly.
2) Mark Wahlberg can't act. He has vone und precisely vone expression of utter DURR and he can't muster anything other than that. His best role was in the Departed, where he played a one note character.
3) It's about ter sm in the 'Murican way, features talibans so you know it won't be handled properly. It's too soon, think about how much time had to pass from the Vietnam War and Full Metal Jacket. The war went on for almost 19 years and the movie was released 32 years later. And Ter sm is a much more hot topic then sum fornrs dyin sum place foreign.

So based on all those three, bad direction, bad acting, bad subject with bad timing I can tell you this movie is going to suck as hard as it possibly could and will be targeted only towards people who speak like I wrote in the description. It's not going to be for normal people, let alone for foreigners. Disclaimer: this is all coming from a person, who didn't like the Hurt locker either, but liked Jarhead and is a foreigner, so this is all very biased.

jaded zombie:
american soldiers NOT commiting war crimes?
why is the story marked as non-fiction then?

They're not soldiers, they're sailors. Only a small fraction of US servicemen have ever committed a war crime.

Kargathia:

... have you taken a look at the downright staggering amounts of hero-worship Americans accord their army with? Not to mention that nice little habit that everything that doesn't treat the army as righteous angels sent from god is automatically called "anti-American", or -even funnier- "unpatriotic".

Making a war movie that treats its main characters not as actual characters, but as embodiment of the author's sweeping generalisation of a group (in this case the American army) is very likely to just be a shitty movie.

Once again: they're in the Navy, not the Army. They have absolutely nothing to do with the Army.

Nurb:
Oh geez, that speech at the beginning alone is enough to tell me it's awful.

Why?

vviki:
Bob, my man, you are either losing your edge or 2013 left you way more optimistic. Now without watching your full review, just by the description you gave to the movie, I can tell you it is going to suck ass, lets break it down:
1) The director of The Kingdom, that movie sucked hard on all levels, it was too soon and handled horribly.
2) Mark Wahlberg can't act. He has vone und precisely vone expression of utter DURR and he can't muster anything other than that. His best role was in the Departed, where he played a one note character.
3) It's about ter sm in the 'Murican way, features talibans so you know it won't be handled properly. It's too soon, think about how much time had to pass from the Vietnam War and Full Metal Jacket. The war went on for almost 19 years and the movie was released 32 years later. And Ter sm is a much more hot topic then sum fornrs dyin sum place foreign.

So based on all those three, bad direction, bad acting, bad subject with bad timing I can tell you this movie is going to suck as hard as it possibly could and will be targeted only towards people who speak like I wrote in the description. It's not going to be for normal people, let alone for foreigners. Disclaimer: this is all coming from a person, who didn't like the Hurt locker either, but liked Jarhead and is a foreigner, so this is all very biased.

1) The Kingdom came out in 2007 - six years after 9/11! How the fuck is that "too soon"?!
2) Yes, Mark Wahlberg can most definitely act. I won't go as far as to call him a great actor, but he can act.
3) It's not "too soon" to make a film about a war while the war is still ongoing. Sorry, it's just not. Just look at Casablanca: a World War II film made in the middle of World War II.

honestly, this comparison of Man of Steel with Tropical Thunder 2.0 was purely sarcastic. Think, stupid decisions in real life has to be more respected than stupid decisions in fiction?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here