5 Días de Guerra

This film reminds me of Renny Harlin's breakthrough film from 1985, Born American. The scripts are lacking in both movies, but action sequences are well made and the propaganda aspects are similar. It's no secret that these films have a heavy anti-Soviet/Russian agenda, and actually as a Finn myself, I greatly enjoy that Harlin has the b*lls to p*ss of the Russians. His 1985 movie was especially gutsy considering that it was BANNED in Finland for a short while! (The government didn't want to endanger Soviet relations.)

So it's not a neutral movie, but it doesn't need to be. Somebody had to do it, and Harlin was the perfect man for the job. Russians have their own biased movies of this war, so a counterbalance was needed, and I'm sure "5 Days of War" beats the Russian movies by far in entertainment value, and will be seen by millions more.

but a primitive story is too much of one-sided pro-Georgian propaganda.

Good Georgians, bad Russians and nothing in the middle.

Well, AFAIK Georgian government sponsored production so it wasn't for free.

Don't try to learn the history of the conflict after that.

Cold War is back. Seems like Rembo from the 80s but lacks Silvester to save the day.

On the other hand it doesn't look like a typical B-movie it could be considering it's screenplay.

Director's work is good, acting is not too bad. Special effects is nice too excluding cheap gasoline explosions.

Worth watching anyway.

My hopes were high for this movie. The War between Georgia and South Ossetia/Russia in August of 2008 would seem to be a great background to a well-plotted, carefully crafted film that captures all the intrigue of the Caucasus. Since the Caucasus have always been a nest of ethnic divisions, political double-dealing and vicious banditry I would think any decent screenwriter and director could piece together a fairly intense thriller, I was so wrong. 5 Days of War is a twisted train wreck of special effects laden action and blatant propaganda with a parade of terrible acting. This film was disappointing on many levels. About 40 minutes into the film I realized I was watching a $20,000,000 piece of pro-Georgian anti-Russian propaganda. If anyone does a little research on this war they will clearly see that both sides committed illegal acts under international law. Georgia is actually blamed for triggering the war by using heavy artillery on a city unprovoked which killed civilians, Russian Peacekeepers and damaged large tracts of the city. Once the war began some Ossetia militias fighting with the Russians committed acts of ethnic cleansing and were not stopped by the Russian Military or Government. Shame on them and shame on Georgia for bombarding a city. I do not have a dog in this fight, I think that the problems of that part of the world should be answered by the countries and governments of that region. It is obvious that the filmmakers feel that we should clearly be supporting Georgia with their charismatic leader Mikheil Saakashvili played by Andy Garcia who is portrayed as a Georgian Thomas Jefferson or JFK. Why the hell did they use Andy Garcia anyway? This movie does nothing to help the outsider with the complexities of the actual situation. I want to know what the target audience was for the filmmakers. I was insulted by this film. Why would they take such a complex and historical subject and simplify it down to this? Westerners are natural allies of the peace-loving, compassionate Georgians therefore the obvious "Bad Guys" are the Russians and South Ossetians who bring murder, terror and misery upon the progressive Georgians. The world isn't so black and white and even us dimwitted moviegoers can appreciate the intricacies of politics in the Caucasus. The protagonist of this wreck is an unlikeable American journalist (Rupert Friend in a career ending role) who jumps head first into danger because of his troubled past. He is surrounded by a cadre of American/British journalists (Val Kilmer, Kenneth Cranham who are both wasted as ridiculous caricatures) who drink hard, take big risks and are always crying about how nobody cares about what is going on in the world. At all times they are protected and working directly on behalf of a group of saintly Georgian soldiers. They do not even pretend to be impartial and objective. The contrived role of Tatia (Emmanuelle Chriqui) is another low point in a film filled with an excruciating level of inaccuracies, clichés and thoughtless dialogue. Special effects are strong, location looks beautiful but the storyline and fact every major character is played by an American or British actor and not native Georgians/Russians is thoughtless and insulting (insulted again). ONLY WASTE YOUR TIME ON THIS FILM IF YOU HAVE TIME TO WASTE AND REALLY WANT TO HAVE YOUR INTELLIGENCE QUESTIONED. A TRAVESTY.

Its not propaganda, its sad that russians hate themselfs that much that they give 1 star to the truth, like chernobyl. 1 Stars becouse they bealive that russian propaganda.

The open sequence is gut wrenchingly brilliant and raw, leaving you genuinely shocked. But as this scene fades into the next it appears the film changed director to one who watched to much A team and any 1960's World war II film.

For a film that purports to be a vision of real life events the director could not have got it more wrong. We are left with ridiculous battle scenes that are in fact an insult to the real horror of war on civilians. Hind gun ships firing bending missiles, the director loves this and we see these Hinds firing their bendy missiles all through out the film. Andy Garcia does his best Borat impression while the most shocking element of all is how much Val Kilmer has let himself go.

If you want to watch a brutal, raw and realistic film on the horrors of war, watch the first scene and then turn your TV off. If you want to watch some comic book propaganda film then keep on watching. A bad film that at the start hinted on how good it could have been!!