Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 3 months later...
Posted

Reviews say it’s good at what it wants to be: an intense, accurate war movie that doesn’t lean on character development or politics.  I’m gonna try to see it Sunday.

Posted

Thread title should be Alex Garland makes another war movie.  I saw it last night and thought it was good.  Garland took the firefights and fog of war from Civil War and made it the whole movie basically.  Also, this was based on actual events in Iraq of course.

I know there were complaints about the lack of character development and any interest in the political situation in Civil War.  This one is all action and even less interested in all that.  Both movies drive home simple antiwar, war is hell kind of themes.

Spoilers for the rest since it just came out

Spoiler

The Bradley blowing up during the first attempted evac was a real holy shit moment.  The ensuing prolonged bleeding and moaning was the most I've seen in a movie since probably Reservoir Dogs.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

It reminds me of the short stories we had in 7th grade reading class.  Not to blood and gore of course, but just the type.  Short story, get in, get out.

Posted
On 4/11/2025 at 1:41 PM, Helobious said:

Will probably see once it hits streaming.

Unless you have an expensive home theater, you won't get the full experience.  The sound is rather intense.

Garland might be my favorite writer/director atm.  28 Years Later is gonna rock.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I saw this last night. It was direct and to the point. I appreciate a film that depicts what actually transpired without any character development. It showed the hell that being in a firefight is. War is not fun and this film definitely drives home the message of not glorifying war.
 

For someone such as myself who never donned the uniform it gives me insight into what it was like for those that did. Those men have all of my respect for what they do as well as women who are frontline combatants in the service of our country. I would recommend seeing it if you are okay without all the character and plot development we have come to expect from war movies. 

Posted
17 hours ago, Parliament said:

Unless you have an expensive home theater, you won't get the full experience.  The sound is rather intense.

Garland might be my favorite writer/director atm.  28 Years Later is gonna rock.

Yeah, you'd need a higher end home theater to get the movie theater experience on this one.  Was an intense movie.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
17 hours ago, Parliament said:

Unless you have an expensive home theater, you won't get the full experience.  The sound is rather intense.

Garland might be my favorite writer/director atm.  28 Years Later is gonna rock.

I’ll go into it with low expectations, Civil War had no commentary or point to make and was essentially a mindless film. Which is fine for action movies but don’t try to shoehorn human drama into a movie like that. If this is just explosions and fights and knows it I think it could be enjoyable.

Posted
4 hours ago, Helobious said:

I’ll go into it with low expectations, Civil War had no commentary or point to make and was essentially a mindless film. Which is fine for action movies but don’t try to shoehorn human drama into a movie like that. If this is just explosions and fights and knows it I think it could be enjoyable.

It’s a recounting of a firefight from a first-person perspective. There is no plot development other than showing the harsh realities of war and the effect it had/has on those that were fighting. Very good movie.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Helobious said:

I’ll go into it with low expectations, Civil War had no commentary or point to make and was essentially a mindless film. Which is fine for action movies but don’t try to shoehorn human drama into a movie like that. If this is just explosions and fights and knows it I think it could be enjoyable.

If you love great cinematography, sound design and war porn, this is your movie.  Want a good plot?  Nolan playlist is that way ->

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Helobious said:

I’ll go into it with low expectations, Civil War had no commentary or point to make and was essentially a mindless film. Which is fine for action movies but don’t try to shoehorn human drama into a movie like that. If this is just explosions and fights and knows it I think it could be enjoyable.

<sigh>

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
On 4/14/2025 at 4:29 PM, Helobious said:

I’ll go into it with low expectations, Civil War had no commentary or point to make and was essentially a mindless film. Which is fine for action movies but don’t try to shoehorn human drama into a movie like that. If this is just explosions and fights and knows it I think it could be enjoyable.

Bro wtf was this take. lol.

It was far from mindless, like what did you want a scroll at the beginning to hold your hand through what was happening?  And it was FAR from a mindless war film.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Saw this yesterday.  It sounds ridiculous to say I "liked" it, but it was very well done and was affective.  Good movie and worth the watch in theaters if you can make it out.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 4/16/2025 at 11:41 AM, High Plains Drifter said:

 

So the consensus is: Its good war pron. 

Combat Vets: Is it accurate or realistic war pron?

I was in Iraq from October 2005-October 2006. I was in five engagements with the enemy including IEDs, small arms fire and mortars. I have been to Forward Operating Base Ramadi which was across the river and outside of the city itself but one of the grittiest FOBs I went to in Iraq as it was constantly under enemy contact and the optempo was higher than the other bases due to the enemy activity in the vicinity. My opinion is the accuracy is as close as you can get. The heightened senses at the beginning of the film as the tension is building along with the fog and friction in the aftermath of the explosions and the different reactions from all the team members captures the essence of combat. In addition the rules of engagement, radio communications and ‘joint’ teamwork were on full display. The film showed Navy Seals providing overwatch for Marines, Army 101st Airborne Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Air Force jets all operating together imperfectly but towards a common goal. 🇺🇸

  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted
On 4/20/2025 at 4:27 PM, QuesoEspecial said:

I was in Iraq from October 2005-October 2006. I was in five engagements with the enemy including IEDs, small arms fire and mortars. I have been to Forward Operating Base Ramadi which was across the river and outside of the city itself but one of the grittiest FOBs I went to in Iraq as it was constantly under enemy contact and the optempo was higher than the other bases due to the enemy activity in the vicinity. My opinion is the accuracy is as close as you can get. The heightened senses at the beginning of the film as the tension is building along with the fog and friction in the aftermath of the explosions and the different reactions from all the team members captures the essence of combat. In addition the rules of engagement, radio communications and ‘joint’ teamwork were on full display. The film showed Navy Seals providing overwatch for Marines, Army 101st Airborne Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Air Force jets all operating together imperfectly but towards a common goal. 🇺🇸

Spent 6 months in both Iraq and Afghanistan providing air base security with the Air Force so no direct combat for me and will defer here for that first hand knowledge. While I was not in direct combat one thing that stuck with me after the deployments is just how much of it makes you say WTF was the point of all this (except of course the shared struggles of deployment with the brothers and sisters serving alongside you)? Sure there are major operations and missions such as killing Bin Laden and other HVTs but in between all that there is so much bullshit and unfortunately pain and suffering that only leaves you with more questions than answers. I think this movie did a good job illustrating that. At the end you just kind of ask WTF was all that for?

Posted
On 4/14/2025 at 8:00 PM, UpperWestside said:

It’s a recounting of a firefight from a first-person perspective. There is no plot development other than showing the harsh realities of war and the effect it had/has on those that were fighting. Very good movie.

it was also filmed real time, like the whole thing covered just 90 minutes

 

On 4/22/2025 at 8:36 PM, TexEx15 said:

Spent 6 months in both Iraq and Afghanistan providing air base security with the Air Force so no direct combat for me and will defer here for that first hand knowledge. While I was not in direct combat one thing that stuck with me after the deployments is just how much of it makes you say WTF was the point of all this (except of course the shared struggles of deployment with the brothers and sisters serving alongside you)? Sure there are major operations and missions such as killing Bin Laden and other HVTs but in between all that there is so much bullshit and unfortunately pain and suffering that only leaves you with more questions than answers. I think this movie did a good job illustrating that. At the end you just kind of ask WTF was all that for?

interesting you use those words...my first remark after was 'jesus, so all that for what? did they even get to do their mission, what even happened to the marines??'' the body language of the Iraqi combatants stepping into the street at the end conveyed the same feeling. 

this was really good. not for the queezy. not a single one was shot, the casualties were all from the ied. that is remarkable. every one of those guys brains was scrambled, that was almost as hard to watch as the physical injuries. yikes.

i couldn't believe that first Bradley just pulled off and left them lying in the street. huh. 

i don't know if this will make sense, but the style actually reminded me of Anora. no exposition, no narrative, we're just dropped right into a point in time and go! i guess Civil War was like that, too. i mean i realize objectively all movies are like that... but the feel is different, stuff just happens. i like it, whatever it's called. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

I saw this today and it's almost hard to describe it as a movie. There is no character development, no music, no exposition, and very little plot. They use about a dozen different acronyms without explaining one of them. There is virtually no explanation of what the soldiers are trying to accomplish. There are tons of tiny details that are clearly a specific recollection from one of the people that was there.  The co-director, Mendoza, was on this operation (he was the guy that dragged away one of the men injured in the IED attack), so I think this is about as authentic of a portrayal as we are ever likely to get. There is more screaming and more close up shots of wounded men in agony than I've ever seen before. 

 

I can't say it was a fun experience, but it's absolutely worth seeing in a theater if you have any interest in this sort of thing. The sound design is fantastic - when the SEAL machine gunner opens up for the first time I felt like he was in the theater with me.

 

I don't think this movie is going to make any money, so thanks to A24 for making it happen. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
On 4/20/2025 at 4:27 PM, QuesoEspecial said:

I was in Iraq from October 2005-October 2006. I was in five engagements with the enemy including IEDs, small arms fire and mortars. I have been to Forward Operating Base Ramadi

Task force tomahawk holla!  I was in Ramadi then, too, but I was in a USMC recon unit so we were everywhere in Al Anbar.  
 

Personally, I have zero interest in the film because I already lived it.  Also, SEALS are some self-aggrandizing motherfuckers.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
17 hours ago, LCHorn said:

Also, SEALS are some self-aggrandizing motherfuckers.

I totally agree, and I was pretty surprised how ineffective the SEALs seemed. This is definitely not a recruiting video.

 

Spoiler

Compared to something like Black Hawk Down, these guys basically don't do anything. They get hit by an IED and spend a lot of time being concussed and disoriented. They seem unable to actually hit any of the Iraqis shooting at them (I only remember 1 enemy shown getting hit). Basically, they get hit by a grenade they don't see coming and then spend the rest of the movie trying to get evacuated. 

 

Posted
15 hours ago, SeattleHorn said:

I totally agree, and I was pretty surprised how ineffective the SEALs seemed. This is definitely not a recruiting video.

 

  Hide contents

Compared to something like Black Hawk Down, these guys basically don't do anything. They get hit by an IED and spend a lot of time being concussed and disoriented. They seem unable to actually hit any of the Iraqis shooting at them (I only remember 1 enemy shown getting hit). Basically, they get hit by a grenade they don't see coming and then spend the rest of the movie trying to get evacuated. 

 

I feel that this adds a level of authenticity to the film. The Americans did not come out as heroes at the end. Their mission was not completed. The evacuation was a horror show. 
 

I feel like that was the point. We got probably as close a look as any civilian such as myself will get to seeing how war looks when things go sideways. To me it takes a lot to make a film about what may have been the weakest and most helpless moment these guys had as soldiers. I appreciated what was shown. War is not fun and it is not a game. Men and women die and do not come home when stuff goes wrong. 
 

For those of you in this thread who served all I can say to you is thank you. It’s not adequate to say the least. I am pretty defensive about defending the men and women that serve so thank you for doing what most of us will never do.

Posted
On 4/26/2025 at 6:25 PM, UpperWestside said:

I assumed that they must still be on active duty and possibly special forces. 

This is what I figured, too.

Saw it yesterday. One reviewer said "I say this as a compliment, not a criticism - I wanted it to end" and that's exactly it. The point - of both Warfare and Civil War, I think - is that war is hell. 

I agree with seeing it in a theater if you can. The sound was really intense and added a lot.

A couple of questions for those of you who know more about the military than me. Early on they kept saying something that sounded like "cass evac" - I'm pretty sure I heard "evac" correctly, but was I hearing "cass"? Is that an acronym? Also, is a "show of force" when they fly a fighter jet close to the ground and it causes everything to boom and rattle? I assume the point is to disorient the enemy?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...