I'm afraid I can't agree with all the gushing praise being heaped onto this film. It really didn't cut it for me. The way the story was presented made it unbelievable and for a war film there were way too many technical errors to believe the director even consulted the military before or during filming. On top of this, the suddenness of the atrocity which I assume was the core of the film, beggars belief.
I won't list all of the technical errors I spotted because after a career in the military which spans more than 40 years and three major conflicts I spotted quite a lot. But the following were the most obvious and, for all serving and former military personnel, quite laughable: The casual way the soldiers patrolled both in vehicles and on foot, the .50 Cal machine guns that are never loaded, the extras who appear at the IED site with weapons but no webbing, the Humvees parked in nice little rows along the side of the road with no protection, armour or weapons. And as for anyone standing directly in front of a metal gate and firing a burst into the lock in order to gain entrance, well if he hadn't shot himself or his team with ricochets the first time he did it he certainly would have on subsequent occasions.
I assume these were errors because if they reflect the current tactics and drills of the US Marines then the quality has really deteriorated seriously since I served alongside them in Vietnam.
I can't fault the acting and I think this is the only thing which saves this film. However, the continuity and story left a lot to be desired. For example, in the film Ramirez didn't order the executions - he ordered his teams to clear the houses which is a normal action when in contact with insurgents. The marines took it upon themselves to throw grenades and fire indiscriminately into the rooms. That is what the film showed. But if he did order the massacre then the things he'd been through must have been progressively leading him to this time and place, but we don't see any of that in the film beyond a short dialogue about him having frightening dreams. So the big question that we are left with is why did he allegedly give the orders which, as I said, it isn't really all that clear in the film that he did so? Why were all of the NCOs charged with murder? Where was the investigation?
I thought it was a good idea to include their perspective but the dialogue amongst the civilians was almost too much to bear. I know the film was unscripted but they must have been instructed to say whatever they want but make sure it makes American audiences feel that their presence in Iraq is welcomed, albeit an unnecessary evil that the civilians must put up with. But did they have to be so effusive about it?
And as for the men who planted the IED and fired the first shots on the troops - why should they have an excuse for doing so that would gel with western audiences? Why couldn't they do it, for example, just because they wanted to hurt the occupying forces? But they, like the Americans, were 'just following orders' weren't they? They, like the solders, were pawns in a game being played out by loonies with power but no intention of doing the dirty work themselves. But we need these kind of explanations don't we so that we don't leave the cinema wondering why things happen. But not everything has a tangible and logical reason. We had a wonderful saying in Vietnam - s**t happens so just get over it and move on. Why couldn't the insurgents have, as their reason for planting the IED and firing on the troops, that they are who they are and we are who we are and that is there is to it? It seems to work so well for other mujahadeen.
I know that this film is based on actual events but I'm afraid that the whole thing was trivialised by poor script (well, there was none and this shows), poor casting (am I the only one who noticed a likeness between the marine captain and the imam?), poor technical direction, and poor directing.
Sorry - a big thumbs down from me.
I won't list all of the technical errors I spotted because after a career in the military which spans more than 40 years and three major conflicts I spotted quite a lot. But the following were the most obvious and, for all serving and former military personnel, quite laughable: The casual way the soldiers patrolled both in vehicles and on foot, the .50 Cal machine guns that are never loaded, the extras who appear at the IED site with weapons but no webbing, the Humvees parked in nice little rows along the side of the road with no protection, armour or weapons. And as for anyone standing directly in front of a metal gate and firing a burst into the lock in order to gain entrance, well if he hadn't shot himself or his team with ricochets the first time he did it he certainly would have on subsequent occasions.
I assume these were errors because if they reflect the current tactics and drills of the US Marines then the quality has really deteriorated seriously since I served alongside them in Vietnam.
I can't fault the acting and I think this is the only thing which saves this film. However, the continuity and story left a lot to be desired. For example, in the film Ramirez didn't order the executions - he ordered his teams to clear the houses which is a normal action when in contact with insurgents. The marines took it upon themselves to throw grenades and fire indiscriminately into the rooms. That is what the film showed. But if he did order the massacre then the things he'd been through must have been progressively leading him to this time and place, but we don't see any of that in the film beyond a short dialogue about him having frightening dreams. So the big question that we are left with is why did he allegedly give the orders which, as I said, it isn't really all that clear in the film that he did so? Why were all of the NCOs charged with murder? Where was the investigation?
I thought it was a good idea to include their perspective but the dialogue amongst the civilians was almost too much to bear. I know the film was unscripted but they must have been instructed to say whatever they want but make sure it makes American audiences feel that their presence in Iraq is welcomed, albeit an unnecessary evil that the civilians must put up with. But did they have to be so effusive about it?
And as for the men who planted the IED and fired the first shots on the troops - why should they have an excuse for doing so that would gel with western audiences? Why couldn't they do it, for example, just because they wanted to hurt the occupying forces? But they, like the Americans, were 'just following orders' weren't they? They, like the solders, were pawns in a game being played out by loonies with power but no intention of doing the dirty work themselves. But we need these kind of explanations don't we so that we don't leave the cinema wondering why things happen. But not everything has a tangible and logical reason. We had a wonderful saying in Vietnam - s**t happens so just get over it and move on. Why couldn't the insurgents have, as their reason for planting the IED and firing on the troops, that they are who they are and we are who we are and that is there is to it? It seems to work so well for other mujahadeen.
I know that this film is based on actual events but I'm afraid that the whole thing was trivialised by poor script (well, there was none and this shows), poor casting (am I the only one who noticed a likeness between the marine captain and the imam?), poor technical direction, and poor directing.
Sorry - a big thumbs down from me.