En territoire ennemi

F-18 Fighter navigator Chris Burnett (Owen Wilson) is tired of boring meaningless flying over the Balkins. On a routine Christmas mission, he gets stuck on a recon mission. They go off course to scout a target, but get shot down. The Serbs find the pilot and executes him. Chris goes on the run alone against massive forces. Meanwhile Admiral Leslie McMahon Reigart (Gene Hackman) in command of the carrier sets out to rescue the down pilot despite orders not to.

There are many things going wrong with this movie. First there is no way any command would not go to Hell to rescue a down pilot. A bit of diplomacy is not going to stop any American command. The only possible excuse is logistics, and an aircraft carrier has all the logistic they need.

Then there is the standard bad guys can't shot straight. Owen Wilson is bullet proof. They are blowing up the entire country and yet they keep missing the guy. It gets ridiculous after awhile.

This is a blow em up action thriller disguised as a realistic military movie. If you forget any pretense of real danger, this is a good fun time having things explode.

Let's see. Take one standard action film involving Americans, add in a new baddie for them to triumph over, and have the baddies act atrociously and brutally, then let the good guys be victorious in the end.

That about sums up BEL. It has reasonable special effects, a plot that is simple and oh so seen before, and a square jawed handsome hero (although, looking at Wilson's nose, not that handsome).

People have already remarked on various inaccuracies and symbolism such as the angel in the midst of war etc. Instead of going over those I'd like to point out the overriding message this film taught me.

That it's OK to disobey orders. Disobey them in such a way as to get your best friend killed. But that's OK, because no matter what happens when you disobey orders, it all comes out good in the end. You feel better about yourself and you'll bring the bad guys to book. So don't worry about your best friend. He was only a plot device anyway.

One thing is certain, though. As long as there is conflict in the world, there will be a Hollywood movie to glorify it and vilify the enemy.

And just who were the enemy? The Bosnians? The Serbs? The Croats? The film didn't seem very certain itself and neither was I, even at the end.

Particularly laughable (and somewhat disturbing) in this no brainer action film was the dreadful end sequence, where we get to find out (via the wonder of the subtitled explanation) what happens to the main characters.

Now, call me old-fashioned, but such final scene "what they did next" stuff in my book is reserved for two types of film - comedy spoofs and documentaries. This film is certainly no comedy, so the appearance of these notes, to me, would seem to imply that the movie was in part based in reality. I find this disturbing simply because there are any number of extremely dumb people out there that would see such final comments and assume the film was, after all, based on true events. And it's this kind of "it happened like this" cinema (which most often involves Americans saving the world) that concerns me most. U571 is another, now notorious, example of this. Apparently its true that history is written by the victors......

As for the movie, the opening scenes are the most rewarding. Once the movie passes into its middle it becomes a bit dull and the ending, as others have observed, is more like a Rambo film and gets quite farcical.

The movie is best watched whilst a few drinks shy of inebriation. You'll enjoy it more and not notice the foolishness (hopefully).

I truly enjoyed this movie, because it took a lighthearted approach to 'running for your life' while serving in the forces. I was, however, disheartened by the fact that Scott O'Grady brought down a law suit on the study for "portraying him" in a bad light. This movie was about anything else but Scott O'Grady. Note: Sorry Scott, but it's not about you...

I enjoyed the way Wilson took control of his character and lived up to the expectation of what one would expect from a Navy pilot. Let's not forget Gene 'The Man' Hackman. It's difficult to imagine Hackman 'not' being in the service because he does it so 'friggin' well.

The movie is suspenseful and the supporting cast is simply awesome! It's just one of those films where not enough credit was given to everyone, all around!

Behind enemy lines is an intriguing movie. If it was based on a true story, I could see why people would be so "critical". Well folks, it's not based on true events and it's just a movie. We don't have to break down why an Admiral puts forth an order for no search and rescue or why sailors on the deck are playing football.

The movie to me is not considered a war movie but more of a survival movie.I thought Owen Wilson did a great job , Considering that he is more of a comedic actor.I served in the Navy and I'm not going to sit here and analyze a simple movie based on what's real and what's not. I liked the action , the sense of survival and the storyline. It's not a great movie but a type of movie to pass the time and keep you intrigued.

Although it's 2016, I still enjoy watching this movie.

Behind Enemy Lines ***

Bravo niner delta, what's your vector, Victor?

You'll hear lots of dialogue like that in Behind Enemy Lines. Military code talk is one of the coolest things ever. Vector, copy, come back, affirmative, negative, no-go, R(ally)P(oint)... That stuff is just plain COOL.

Back to the movie review. So – you're making a war movie with airplanes. Let's make sure you have everything you need. Stock footage? Check. Lieutenant with a ‘bad boy' attitude? Check. Stuff blowing up? Check. Politically ambiguous military situation? Che – what? That doesn't make sense. I mean, we're America... (Don't worry – We're the good guys. It's all the rest that's ambiguous.)

See, Behind Enemy Lines is set in Bosnia during the ‘last' days of the civil war in Serbia/Yugoslavia/Bosnia-Herzegovina. Chris Burnett (Wilson) is stationed on an aircraft carrier in the Adriatic Sea. The ship is commanded by Admiral Leslie Reigart (Hackman), who in turn is under the command of NATO, represented by Admiral Piquet (de Almeida). Now, Burnett is a bit of a maverick. Not like the Tom Cruise type – Burnett is tired of being in the Navy. He signed on to be a fighter pilot, not a sitting around on the ship pilot. In fact, he's handed in his resignation papers. Of course, you can't just leave in the middle of a mission. When the ship returns to port, Burnett is done. Reigart doesn't really care for Burnett – he used to have potential, but now he's just dead weight. So, in a bit of vindictiveness, Reigart assigns Burnett (a navigator) and his pilot, Stackhouse (Gabriel Macht), on a recon mission on Christmas. The recon? A lake. Lovely. But, radar picks up some activity. Activity OFF OF THE ASSIGNED COURSE. Now, we've established that Burnett is a maverick, so, naturally they do recon over there. They take pictures of mass graves. Then, they get shot down. BEHIND ENEMY LINES. This is not good. See, NATO planes were not supposed to be making fly-bys in that area. A peace treaty has just been signed, and things could fall apart at any moment. So, Reigart has a choice to make – does he risk the lives of thousands of people to get one man? Does he ensure peace and leave a man behind? We all know the answer to that.

Behind Enemy Lines is slick. It is very, very slick. Teflon. It looks like a video game. A really cool video game. Shifty frame-rates, cool filters, Matrix-style special effects, Saving Private Ryan-camera-effects, it looks way cool. It's not universally realistic, but, stylistically it works very well.

The acting is also good. No one is going to win any acting awards in this picture, but, no one stinks. If you don't know who Gene Hackman is, turn off your computer right now. You have some serious catching up to do. If you don't know who Owen Wilson is, start paying attention. This guy is good. Very, very good. You may have seen him in Zoolander (he was the blonde model). You may have seen him in Shanghai Noon with Jackie Chan. You may have seen an underrated comedy called Rushmore – he co-wrote that. He's just beginning to get recognition, and he deserves it. While I think he's better in comedies, he's no slouch as a leading-man-action-hero. Joaquim de Almeida doesn't stand out, but you've seen him before. (He played Bucho (the bad guy) in Desperado)

So, that leaves us with the story. It must be tough to make a war movie now. WWII was easy – the bad guys were easy to spot. But, to make a movie based on any war post-1970 must be tricky. Things like finding ‘bad guys' aren't easy anymore. Even in something like the Gulf War. To paraphrase Mark Wahlberg from Three Kings: `I forget... Are we shooting people anymore?' The Balkan conflict was really, really tricky. First of all, there were three sides. Secondly, there was a huge history of racial strife in the area. Thirdly, NATO stepped in to prevent the war from spreading into Macedonia, which would have brought Greece (a NATO member) and Turkey (another NATO member) into the war against each other. Fourthly, keeping all the factions straight was very, very hard unless you studied political science. Behind Enemy Lines doesn't get too bogged down in the details, which is good. Nor does it name real names. Slobodan Milosovic is not mentioned, but he is implied. The story is about an American airman in the middle of the conflict, but it's not based on the story of Lt. Scott O'Grady.

What we have here is a slick, mostly non-political (there are some references to landmines being bad for children and other living things) war movie. It's not perfectly paced, but it's close. The cinematography is really, really cool. And stuff blows up.