He Who Dares

So many movies just thrive on mass killing and lack of discretionary use of language to click with the norm of the times. He Who Dares happens to be no different.

To me it did not appeal from the word go. And here are the reasons.

Even a 10 year who has played Call of Duty or Battlefied series of games can tell you that you do aim down the sight and not fire from the hip. Wish the actors were told that.

Secondly now a days there is this new blood thirst in many low budget movies where the villain or the bad guy is glorified by mass murdering in order to achieve his goal. And when all the revenge is built psychologically speaking the valiant hero or one of the survivor in this case, kills the supposedly bad guy with one bullet, leaving the unsatisfied lust in the mind of audience that was generated by the storyline where the bad guy was the angel of death. Seriously ??

The movie is pure waste of time and resources.

The film in itself isn't half bad ..silly silly mistakes the worst being the main character is a Major...Who on his uniform is ranked as a corporal . This sets the tone for the film as very poorly executed.

I've seen some bad films in my life and this ranks up there with the worst of them.

The lead villain over acted so much, he was almost good, he probably has potential if he had a better film to act in.

I was a bit confused at first that I was watching some sort of GCSE media studies project, if that was the case, I might have given it a C...... But it wasn't, I'm really angry with myself for watching this the whole way through, should have gone with with gut instinct and quit after 30 secs.

Nonsense story, plot holes all over the place, extremely am dram acting, massive thumbs down. Half a star!

The idea behind this film is good even if stolen from an old movie. Simon Phillips is about the only think that stopped me from walking out. The way the SAS is shown is a joke, didn't even get the uniforms correct let alone their standard operating methods. Sure some might say this doesn't matter but watch "Act of Valour" or "Special Forces" both much better movies. The acting in "Acts of Valour" was poor but much more watchable than this is because the special forces team are shown correctly. They apparently even used some ex-seal members. It doesn't look like they even did any research for this let alone consultant ex-members. Once again a lazy approach ruins a potentially great movie.

Oh what a crap, badly made with a terrible acting, editing and production design. I highly doubt that the actual SAS special forces proceed this way during action, and with such a poor equipment and warfare facilities, with no ballistic helmets(!!!) but who cares? I watched as a cheap one more DIE HARD rip-off. Everything here is lousy, tongue in cheek but I enjoyed it, every minute. There are twelve bad guys at the beginning of the assault and it appears that at least twenty of them are eventually killed all long the film. Search the error.. Many surprises here, many brutal killings and this is the perfect example showing that a piece of crap may be exciting to see; and that doesn't mean that the movie is good. I mostly loved the gorgeous female terrorist. Please if you watch it, don't do it with great expectations, just as an effective grade Z piece of work. Monitor your spirit and eye on what it actually is. Don't try to compare with a major Hollywood feature. And then and only then you'll enjoy it.