Eyes of War

As a teenager, Elena (Paz Vega) hated her grandfather (Christopher Lee) because he was a "fascist." He treated the fascist leaders after the Spanish War. His explanation of why he did so was most interesting, and showed him to possibly be a great psychiatrist.

She called upon him to treat her war photographer boyfriend (Colin Farrell) after he returned from Kurdistan and was undergoing leg paralysis that was psychosomatic. Their exchanges as Mark (Farrell) relived his war experiences were fascinating, as were Dr. Morales' soliloquies.

The film was excellent in showing the cost of war is far higher than the dollars and cents we spend to fight them. Without adequate treatment, those who return will suffer the rest of their lives for their experiences. Farrell was excellent as was Lee.

Definitely a worth wile movie to watch, regardless of its overthrowing qualities and contrived passions. A traumatized war photo-journalist, returns home from kurdistan, taking the pictures more that he can hoard. But not just the pictures, he is consulted by the psychiatrist and the movie unfolds. The movie hits rock bottom when his psychiatrist tells him "We can't take the pain away, we have to live with it forever...this is called life" when the protagonist is lying on his bed. Collin Ferrell acting is great like always (Cassandra's dream, In bruges). Overall he does justice to the movie. To be honest this movie seems as it is well behind its time, in moments i felt like it was 80's film. What i actually mean is the movie would have nominated for awards if it was 80's, 2010 was a wrong time. The overall acting is good,I like the score too, the worst part is the movie itself. The movie doesn't lead us anywhere, nonetheless this movie is different than other in the respect that, it doesn't attenuates like other movie. It only gets denser after every minute of it. Last but no the least great story this movie had potential and i myself was expecting much from it but overall the movie is mediocre. 6/10

Specialist, low-budget, low-key but praise-able Colin Farrell stars in this tough, low budget British war film, as an army photographer right in the thick of Iraqi fighting war-zones. He returns home to Ireland and struggles to readjust, being shell shocked.

The story, although very real, sometimes seems diluted and gets lost. The acting is effortless, solid and ultimately low-key, like the film, and fails to be anything but unimpressive - even if commendable in nature. The tone is moody, chilling at times and the pace is slow and emotion building (making it hard to submerse in).

In Summary - Not everyone's cup of tea and almost too morose to be enjoyed. I think Farrell fans will prefer it as he is the main piece. A commendable production.

this is the third of the 2009 Colin Farrell movies which I have recently following on from Doctor Parnassus and Crazy Heart but this surely is his finest acting performance in a movie to date.

There are many movies of course about war and more recently about Iraq. this is not really an Iraq war story but Colin Farrell does play as a war journalist in Kurdistan and returns from there with a trauma wjhich engrosses the main story of the film.

the film title of TRIAGE is a strange one and requires looking up as to meaning before or after watching the movie. the context of TRIAGE within the movie occurs as i recall in only one actual scene of the film when the Kurdistani Doctor is seen having to play 'God' in order to decide who lives and dies.

Like the American movie 'Brothers', somebody returns from a war-torn drama with a psychological trauma and with a story to tell which is not what the folks back home are expecting. Farrells acting performance is spot on all the way and there are one or two graphic scenes in the film, one near the end, which will definitely make you flinch and probably weep.

overall this is not a powerful film like The Hurt Locker and I disagree with the earlier comment about the Grandfather. He clearly has an important part to play in the movie and Farrell links to all the main characters effortlessly.

Okay it was not filmed in Kurdistan for whatever reason and Kurdistani actors/extra may or may not have been used.

Despite the graphic scenes, I commend this movie for viewing. It is not top notch but it is certainly entertaining.

Would have liked to have seen more focus on the concept of the film title and exploration of issues relating to triage rather than the story which eventually evolved between the character of mark Walsh (Farrell) and his best friend David. I really doubt many people will watch the movie and know what TRIAGE means.

Not on general release anywhere I understand, privileged to watch it on good quality DVD.

Firstly, let me just say that the TIFF audience did seem to like it and they responded well to it. There were quite a few moments of light humour that were enjoyed and the Q&A session revealed that a lot of people truly were touched by the movie.

Next, let me say that the story was quite powerful. The character played by Farrel was developed and real. It would be hard not to be emotionally effected by this film, and it would be hard not to leave with something to think about.

Unfortunately, a great story and a great character don't make for a great movie. While many of the scenes were spectacular and a lot of the dialogue worked quite well, on a whole the film didn't do its story justice. It actually felt, much of the time, as if I were watching the subplot of another film. In fact, if you've watched enough war films you'll probably find that this movie WAS the subplot to many of those films. That alone doesn't equal a bad film, but it does make it more challenging for the film to hold its own. That didn't happen. Farrel's character--due to his acting as well as the writer/director's desire to explore that type of character--was fine through and through, but the characters around him all tended to speak their lines solely for the purposes of advancing Farrel's character, or to push out a philosophy of war. To illustrate this, just pay attention to the scene in which we're introduced to the grandfather, Christopher Lee's character. That scene introduces a whole back story and turbulent relationship that has nothing to do with anything... it was just pinned on the story awkwardly so as to justify a powerful speech in which he defended his questionable actions in a long-ago war. Well, that's pretty much what the rest of the story felt like. And the payoff wasn't great. It ended mostly how you expect it will end, and gives a message we've heard from a thousand other films.

So, again, if I had the option, I'd give this story a 9/10. The execution of the story remains a 6.