État de Guerre

My hopes were high for this movie. The War between Georgia and South Ossetia/Russia in August of 2008 would seem to be a great background to a well-plotted, carefully crafted film that captures all the intrigue of the Caucasus. Since the Caucasus have always been a nest of ethnic divisions, political double-dealing and vicious banditry I would think any decent screenwriter and director could piece together a fairly intense thriller, I was so wrong. 5 Days of War is a twisted train wreck of special effects laden action and blatant propaganda with a parade of terrible acting. This film was disappointing on many levels. About 40 minutes into the film I realized I was watching a $20,000,000 piece of pro-Georgian anti-Russian propaganda. If anyone does a little research on this war they will clearly see that both sides committed illegal acts under international law. Georgia is actually blamed for triggering the war by using heavy artillery on a city unprovoked which killed civilians, Russian Peacekeepers and damaged large tracts of the city. Once the war began some Ossetia militias fighting with the Russians committed acts of ethnic cleansing and were not stopped by the Russian Military or Government. Shame on them and shame on Georgia for bombarding a city. I do not have a dog in this fight, I think that the problems of that part of the world should be answered by the countries and governments of that region. It is obvious that the filmmakers feel that we should clearly be supporting Georgia with their charismatic leader Mikheil Saakashvili played by Andy Garcia who is portrayed as a Georgian Thomas Jefferson or JFK. Why the hell did they use Andy Garcia anyway? This movie does nothing to help the outsider with the complexities of the actual situation. I want to know what the target audience was for the filmmakers. I was insulted by this film. Why would they take such a complex and historical subject and simplify it down to this? Westerners are natural allies of the peace-loving, compassionate Georgians therefore the obvious "Bad Guys" are the Russians and South Ossetians who bring murder, terror and misery upon the progressive Georgians. The world isn't so black and white and even us dimwitted moviegoers can appreciate the intricacies of politics in the Caucasus. The protagonist of this wreck is an unlikeable American journalist (Rupert Friend in a career ending role) who jumps head first into danger because of his troubled past. He is surrounded by a cadre of American/British journalists (Val Kilmer, Kenneth Cranham who are both wasted as ridiculous caricatures) who drink hard, take big risks and are always crying about how nobody cares about what is going on in the world. At all times they are protected and working directly on behalf of a group of saintly Georgian soldiers. They do not even pretend to be impartial and objective. The contrived role of Tatia (Emmanuelle Chriqui) is another low point in a film filled with an excruciating level of inaccuracies, clichés and thoughtless dialogue. Special effects are strong, location looks beautiful but the storyline and fact every major character is played by an American or British actor and not native Georgians/Russians is thoughtless and insulting (insulted again). ONLY WASTE YOUR TIME ON THIS FILM IF YOU HAVE TIME TO WASTE AND REALLY WANT TO HAVE YOUR INTELLIGENCE QUESTIONED. A TRAVESTY.

This film reminds me of Renny Harlin's breakthrough film from 1985, Born American. The scripts are lacking in both movies, but action sequences are well made and the propaganda aspects are similar. It's no secret that these films have a heavy anti-Soviet/Russian agenda, and actually as a Finn myself, I greatly enjoy that Harlin has the b*lls to p*ss of the Russians. His 1985 movie was especially gutsy considering that it was BANNED in Finland for a short while! (The government didn't want to endanger Soviet relations.)

So it's not a neutral movie, but it doesn't need to be. Somebody had to do it, and Harlin was the perfect man for the job. Russians have their own biased movies of this war, so a counterbalance was needed, and I'm sure "5 Days of War" beats the Russian movies by far in entertainment value, and will be seen by millions more.

I recognize, I will be subjectively. my ancestors are Georgians and the impression about that war was powerful. so, I love this movie. not very much but it is good price for the ambiguous speech of E.U., U.S.A. in the days of Russian aggression. the Olimpic Games were more important than massacres and cynical experiment of Moscow. yes, it is a propaganda film, not very inspired,naive, some stupid, unrealistic and full of American dusty recipes. an interesting script is prey of special effects. Manicheic rule is not best solution. but , more that, it is a lesson about Georgia existence. crumbs from Cold War, drops of friendship and heroism, cruelty in pure form, pieces of fake moments are ingredients of movie but not its essence. the American style to present fight of David against Goliath is only cloth for a profound story about hidden monsters. in fact, a cry of a lost world for who history is just bad wolf out of rules.

Based on fact, I'm not familiar with the actual events, and therefore cannot comment on the film's accuracy on the matter.

Regardless, despite mostly negative reviews from critics, I enjoyed '5 Days of War'. I found it very exciting from an entertainment perspective. The film's action sequences are visually stunning. To add to this, the cinematography and photography are also really good.

Rupert Friend stars as a reporter, who lost his girlfriend on a previous mission. Moving on, he is once again on a mission to find the perfect story. Val Kilmer stars as his informant, Dutchman. Along for the ride is his friend and cameraman, Sebastian (Richard Coyle). There's a hint at a love interest here in the form of Tatia (Emmanuelle Chriqui), which - fortunately - never develops. The result is a film that is fast-paced, concentrating only on the events around the war.

I didn't find Andy Garcia believable as President Mikheil Saakashvili - not his accent, nor his performance. I think this was the only element about the movie I didn't like. The film illustrates the danger reporters face for the sake of a story, and also shows the horrors and brutalities of war. There are a few disturbing scenes. Considering the actual war in Georgia on which the movie is based, its unbelievable to think only five days caused so much death, destruction and mayhem...

I've watched '5 Days of War' a few times already and enjoy it every time.

Would I watch it again? Yes.

Well, all kinds of things went wrong with this movie.

For starters, the opening sequence is awesome. One thing this movie really had was best camera crew ever. Everything feels very intense all the times, very close to the real war footage. Also, all the props, vehicles, uniforms, even explosions look very real. This is the good part.

The mediocre part is main story. It's a mix of Hotel Rwanda and Tears of the Sun, but feels like a bootleg version, a cheap knockoff of those.

And then there's the bad part. Just after awesome intro, you get "treated" with shots of Tbilisi, with landmarks, people smiling, and god forbid, trancey music in the background. It looked like a commercial for some travel agency, with only "Visit Georgia" message missing from the scene and was most tasteless thing I've ever seen in a film. I live in similar post-soviet country and I do understand the mentality in desperate desire to explain your culture to the world to get less looked as some remote hellhole, but this is outright tasteless and maybe Georgia hasn't come to this yet.

The script had generally no direction. Awesome war scene here, some corpses there, cameramen and photography director knew what to do... But director didn't. First, that simple shot with church and bloody river from 'Tears of the Sun' gives 10 times stronger emotion than whole pile of bodies shown in '5 days of August'. Even though latter tries sooo hard to portray Russians as savages.

Second, despite awesome camera and props, fighting had no point in this movie. You see soldiers shooting stuff and each other, but it's unclear why or what's their plan. I don't think any people who had any idea about how soldiers and military works were on the set. Mi-24 choppers shooting random buildings with rockets? And here I thought that every pilot is given orders and targets to waste expensive munitions on... Also, MI-24 sports a deadly cannon, but it's used only once, missing everything, and soldiers act as chopper had blind men for pilot and gunner, not taking cover. Tanks constantly missing targets and not using machine guns? Taking down a chopper with a single LAW rocket? SU-bombers taking down a restaurant residing in basically nowhere? This all felt very bizarre and pointless.

I could go on, but there's no need. Let's just say that this movie is very average, has some good moments, lots of unmemorable moments, and some outright stupid ones. So pick it up from bargain bin, but don't expect too much.

6 stars I give are for 2 reasons: Awesome camera work (it felt like live action at places) and the fact that despite being incredibly dumb, this movie IS entertaining... and that's good, even if it's for all wrong reasons.

...as for amount of propaganda, this movie is 100% okay, considering what comes from Moscow. Sure it's all bloated and overrated but this is how we rock in those former USSR satellite countries. Even 50 of such movies can't counter a single evening news show from random Russian TV-channel. For westerners, you just have to accept that rules are different, but watching all those Normandy landings in every Hollywood movie and video game, maybe not as much as you might think.