Du sang et des larmes

Its lamentable that whilst Lone Survivor might be viewed as a anti war film it could just as easily be perceived as a ringing endorsement for the US military.

The plot of the film is simple enough, a group of special forces soldiers are sent to Afghanistan to assassinate a militia leader with ties to the Taliban. Due to poor planning, dodgy equipment and a general lack of resources however the mission is doomed to failure.

What follows is visceral, disturbing and above all very sad. Even if like me you are not from the United States you can not help but feel considerable sympathy as you watch a group of young men horrifically slaughtered as they take on an overwhelmingly larger enemy force.

Whats really troubling about Lone Survivor is it stubbornly refuses to shed the jingoistic overtones that could have lifted this film above the raft of other US made war movies. Questions about the waste of human life and potential, the political validity of wars fought on foreign soil,that are inherent in this film are drowned out by the "rah rah and hoopla" about God and country.

I can not as a consequence recommend this film. Indeed I'd go so far as to say it's an irresponsible film that romanticizes war, perpetuating the myth that dying on the field of battle is something other than bloody, gruesome and ultimately pointless.

This film details the failed operation of US SEALS in Afghanistan to capture a Taliban leader in 2005.

The title already gave the plot away, and the first scene confirms all suspicion of the title. Hence, viewers are already given a grim outlook for the respectable soldiers portrayed in the film. For the first forty minutes, nothing much happens. I was about to lose interest in it, thinking it was boring and uneventful. When action strikes, it strikes big time. It is brutal and violent that most of the time I had my eyes closed. It's so sad to see the soldiers in such desperate situations, and yet they combat valiantly until the last minute. There is little emotional or dramatic element in the plot, but it will still evoke much emotions because the battles are so brutally realistic. "Lone Survivor" is certainly not a film for entertainment or an easy relaxing evening. Be prepared to see loads of nasty wounds.

Lone Survivor (2013)

A more-or-less accurate depiction of four highly capable SEAL soldiers dropped into enemy territory in Afghanistan. They were then discovered and attacked by dozens of area Taliban. The recreation is riveting, disturbing in its intensity, and eye-opening. Whatever you feel about the war there, or even about soldiers killing other soldiers, you end up admiring the sheer abilities of these fit, smart, determined men.

And only one survives (this is told in the title). So you go into it knowing it will end badly, and also that one of them (probably Mark Wahlberg, the biggest name here) will make it. If the fighting, which makes up most of the movie in the center core of it, is seemingly endless, that's part of the point. But when it shifts to a local village near the end the tale has another kind of intensity, and a welcome change.

This is straight up action material. It lacks even the layers that other movies with similar settings add (see "The Hurt Locker" for one example). But in a way that makes this distinctive. It moves in linear fashion through time, through the events, and so you barrel along without mental complication to the end. It forces everything on the action, and the realistic portrayal of the unbelievable hardship and pain, and death, that comes along the way.

Check out the overly-long Wikipedia page on this movie for lots of facts about production, and about the liberties they took with the facts. Or just watch the movie knowing that there are the usual permitted changes that dramatization requires. Even as pure fiction the movie has enough kinetic and heroic acts to succeed on its own terms.

If there is one thing that this film will accomplish is to make you feel something. I assure you you will not get bored watching it. Now, what you will feel will no doubt be up to you.

For myself, I felt mostly rage against a botched mission in an ineffective war. Raytheon should be annoyed that a movie about a mission failed primarily because of communication issues showed their red flashy brand on the comms equipment.

I wanted the characters to succeed, to survive, but I could not ignore the fact that they were soldiers being there only to kill an enemy commander. Having all Americans die in slow motion while scores of Taliban died instantly and kind of stupidly didn't help with the empathy. Also showing pictures of dead soldiers with their families with a pathetic American remake of Bowie's Heroes singing in the background at the end of the movie just fueled more rage. People in the field try to carry out their mission and survive, while their deaths become political and mediatic material. I didn't enjoy that.

On the other hand, the fights were realistic, the subject based on real events and, outside the pathetism described above, I did not detect a bias towards one side or the other. You will witness two hours of low tech war in all of its horror and stupidity. The actors also play well, although I like Mark Wahlberg in almost everything he does.

The story, while showing the preparation, courage and resilience of four soldiers in enemy territory, also showed other things, like the logistical blunders that lead to stupid deaths, over-reliance on technology that doesn't really work as you expect and how choices have consequences on the ground that are beyond the ability of normal courts to understand, whether looking from the legal or moral angle.

I liked a lot about the movie how it made you think long after it was over. What would have happened if they just killed the herders? What would have happened if they tied them up, went a bit down, risked a sniper shot at the enemy commander, then just ran? What would have happened if the Pashtuni would have ignored the wounded American or would have killed the Taliban scout force when they came to them? How would the mission have gone if the four guys would have known from the get go that they would be completely alone, with no support or hope for extraction?

Overall, a very emotional movie, two hours long, that shows more a general type of heroism than one with a specific purpose. Nicely directed and acted. A bit over dramatic, but then that's to be expected. Worth watching.

Greetings from Lithuania.

I read some reviews about "Lone Survivor" where it was mentioned alongside to a "Saving Private Ryan" - you can throw a rock at me if this comes close to "Saving Private Ryan" which is beyond many moons and seas compared to "Lone Survivor".

"Lone Survivor" is good action movie, with some heroic stuff (they definitely couldn't avoid that...), and i know that it's based on real events, thats why i'm giving it 8, because many of things displayed in picture were sadly true, many, but definitely not all. When someone is being killed in this movie (exept for bad guys from Taliban), it's shown in a similar way as Jim Caviezel aka.Jesus was suffering in "The Passion of the Christ" - only true American heroes die like that, not afghans who are more or less just a meat between bullets and Americans in this movie.

Overall, i liked this action picture, the sound design and sound editing were really top notch (no wonder it got 2 Oscar nominations) - you can hear every detail in the forest, every breaking bone (ye, the fall from cliffs scene was gripping). Actors were just OK, nothing special. The gunfight was terrific at least in the beginning of battle, truly terrific sound design and camera work. Later, well, when bad guys were shooting with RPG's every 2 min to our heroes, and they were suffering real good but still were able to do some heroic stuff, the tension was kinda lost.

Overall, 8/10 for me because of good production values and for that it is based on real events.