Love in Country

From the start I was drawn in by the cinematography. I was very impressed with the production value and effects. The actors all did a fantastic job bringing their roles to life in such a way that we feel for them along their journey. The fight scenes all worked but never got in the way of the story. I have never seen a Vietnam or war film with this take before and I commend the filmmakers for taking a risk and doing something that I don't believe has ever been done before. In the age of constant remakes, sequels, and spin offs it was refreshing to see something new. I highly recommend this film to anyone looking for a good watch.

Whilst this may be based on a true scenario, and there may well be an underlying critique on the intolerance of the US military towards anyone who wasn't a white, heterosexual, man during the Vietnam War (and in many other conflicts) that's no excuse for taking the story of these brave men and turning it into this. David Garber ("Sgt. Alexander") and Michael Southworth ("Sgt. Reese") are charged with leading a secret CIA mission whilst facing opposition from their tenacious enemy and, as the two men come to terms with their own sexuality, with their colleague's attitude to that - all whilst under fire and in hostile terrain. The narrative here is all over the place. The lacklustre direction and soporific score; the really mediocre writing and the stilted acting all contribute to what is essentially a throughly unremarkable piece of cinema that seems to have no idea who it is for, or what it is trying to say - beyond the bleeding (quite literally) obvious. Most films from this theatre of war depict tragedy and brutality - but most do it far more cogently than this insipid melodrama that uses a gay angle to the story to thinly disguise a poor piece of wartime story-telling. It can't have had much of a budget and much of it looks like it was filmed in someone's back yard. It probably was, and maybe they could just stick to showing it there, too. Very poor.

Not sure the audience this was intended for? Not for your typical heterosexual masculine war buff moviegoers unless you don't mind watching men kissing in the battlefield mixed with an obvious low budget cgi action sequences, bullets that are blurs of smoke-like cgi. The story line leaves you wondering 'why did that just happen, did I miss something?'

The actors lines seem unscripted and awkward, the disjointed scenes seem entirely built an attempt to emulate major blockbuster Vietnam war movies

The director said "okay your going to be shot try to make it look like platoon"

Not worth it Watch a van Damme or segal movie instead.

The story keeps you barely entertained wondering what will happen next then you realize you could of watched a much better war movie.

Love in Country is much more than a war movie or a film about forbidden gay love. It successfully presents complex characters in an intriguing plot, good action, and beautiful original music.

Amidst the horrors of the Vietnam war, two men become involved in a relationship and physical attraction not allowed in the U. S. army. Tender scenes reveal the soldiers' moments of passion without overemphasis on their physical acts of love.

With exemplary performances by the leading actors, the film makes viewers feel that they are watching real events in 1968 Vietnam. A variety of personalities and qualities in the lead characters creates a definite check-off list for "like" or "dislike." Memorable performance by Elijah Olachea as "Burd." All the supporting actors brought a realism to their characters.

Love in Country is definitely worth seeing more than once.

Look, this is not necessarily well made. Or well acted. It is very low budget and it shows. It was very ambitious, but its reach exceeded its grasp. Very different kind of gay story, and pretty moving despite its obvious limitations. I give it a 6 or 6.5 out of 10 for the effort. With a budget, and in the right hands, this could really be something big and classic, an award winner. I give the director and everyone else involved kudos for trying.

The 600 minimum character restriction on review is so ridiculous. Sometimes there aren't six hundred characters to share about a movie or a show. I understand the reasoning and the need for it, but 600 is way too high.