La bataille de Bassora

Once the mission was "accomplished" in Iraq and the end of major combat operations was announced, parts of the country were handed over to the armed forces for the purposes of enforcing the peace and winning over the hearts and minds of the newly free Iraqi people. A group of British soldiers are stationed in Basra to this end under a steady commander. However when a patrol is ambushed and their commander is lost, the decision is made to enforce justice fast and hard to send a clear message out.

This was originally down to be screened in the week that the British sailors were being held after being captured supposedly in Iranian waters. Channel 4 folded under pressure and pulled the screening because it was said it may "inflame" the situation and make it harder for the UK to find a democratic solution. I'm not sure if this was true (as it turned out they were actually released on the day this was postponed) because it was only ever going to be watched by a million or two if that, plus the story was already contrasting obviously with footage of how the US and UK treated prisoners (which I assume was why Iran made such a big show of how they hold our prisoners).

Anyway, although it is stated up front that this is a work of fiction, it is clear that it has been very well researched because it does strike home as very convincing. This is most evident in the first half as the squaddies patrol the Basra streets, innocence is lost, violence is sudden and the soldiers react in different ways. This much is very well done and the script rings true. The main scene of action is really well delivered and it is well used as it folds into the changes in the characters and what they end up doing. This is rather lost near the end where I wasn't sold on it. Suddenly the script becomes clunky with characters speaking in "moral arguments" and speeches rather than sounding like real people. This also coincides with the narrative becoming weaker as well.

To me this occurred where we went too much into the court case and had too much said that didn't need to be said. It would have been better to have had a much more subtle touch but it doesn't manage it. It is a shame and not even the performances of the lead two can totally convince in these later stages. This is saying something though because I thought the cast was mostly very good, with particular credit being owed to Kearns and McNulty. Gregory and Dooley are also strong and it is only some of the actors playing the brass who are a bit weaker.

Despite the flaws associated with the final third, the film is actually very strong and convincingly written and delivered.

Although Mark of Cain isn't a bad movie, and most of the acting is in fact pretty good, it seems to be lacking a clear purpose. For a movie that aims to make a political statement, it seems to pull its punches at the most crucial moments. As a movie that wants to tell a story about a modern war, although realistic and often gritty, it is not nearly as powerful as Platoon or as intricate as Jarhead. In fact, the power of the story seems to peter out after the first two-thirds of the movie. For example, the technique of starting with a crucial scene, and then flashing back to this scene as the story unfolds, becomes less powerful. Eventually, the viewer pretty well knows what to expect. Watch Mark of Cain, expect some poignant scenes, but don't expect any new insights in that fiasco known as Iraq and don't expect to see war's truly horrific face.

This movie had its World Premiere at the International Film Festival Rotterdam. Unfortunately it didn't have any subtitles, so the British-English dialog was sometimes very hard to understand.

The movie follows a group of British soldiers in Iraq showing their sometimes forced humiliation against Iraqi soldiers, their psychological problems, the cover ups in the British army and the outcome during a trial.

The movie is obviously low budget, but the outcome is very well. The first quarter of the film starts powerful, then it skips to TV drama style for a while, (i didn't really like that) but the ending is again very powerful.

7.5/10. I wonder if this movie is still going to be aired on television or if they decide to release this is in cinema. It is certainly a lot better than the standard blockbuster films we see....

Tony Marchant's film 'The Mark of Cain' tells three stories: that of the impossible task facing British soldiers in Iraq; that of the terrible cruelties they inflicted on Iraqi suspects; and that of a cover-up in the chain of command. The story is fictional but based on true events; however, there's less evidence in the real world for the cover-up than for the other two elements, and while it seems plausible, this aspect of the tale feels more "written" than the other two. And as always with Marchant, there's a careful and clever manipulation of the viewer's sympathies throughout: I never quite feel that Marchant gives me the space to form my own opinion. But it's strong stuff, well-performed and unflinching, even if it doesn't really say much in the end except that bad things happen in war.

this is an important war movie. the best war movie i've seen since 'three kings' not much shooting or setpiece explosive action mind you. movie critics are uneasy at its stark portrayal of dysfunctional army ways and its psychopathic sergeant whilst we are still in the midst of that same war.

it seems disloyal somehow. to our boys in the field to lay bare the prosaic anatomy of torture so powerfully. but i think this is a film all true soldiers will love.

they say the first casualty of war is truth and they're not far wrong. because war is horrendous.

it's just a damn shame that after all the classic Vietnam war movies that there will be another crop of classic iraq war movies. (eg gunner palace)