Lots of opinion on this film- and here's mine

Finally a review for this film worth reading. I rented this last night, seeing as this and Blue Demon seem to be the only films I haven't seen or would not see in a million years at my local Blockbuster. I was quite shocked at how well I enjoyed this movie, not in the sense of a movie or the fact it was fake but how it was conducted. Would I rather have seen a story through the eyes of someone there, such as this, or through a third person view, such as Saving Private Ryan or Blackhawk Down. I'd rather see it the first way because it is easier to use my imagination to put myself there and believe this is realling happening. When I got it I did check to see if it was real or not, though while watching it I got lost in the movie by thinking it was real. At some points it did lose me, such as the firefights did some things that are near impossible...but none the less kept me interested. Anyway, onto your review.

"I watched it cold, without any knowledge of it being a doco/ movie or whatever. As the film developed my assesment of things drifted from thinking the prime character was someone living out a last action hero fantasy... to a fool who looked like satisfying his death wish but didn't have the right to include the translator and cameraman in his fate.... to disbelief that someone with anything greater than a boy scout merit badge would wander in hostile territory lighting campfires... to final realisation of the simulated documentary status when I saw the Captain Solo camera/ gun scenes in the cave. Thus, it took me a long time to work it out, and the film was pretty rivetting getting to that point."

Exactly, for some reason Americans have this fetish with the end of things. You can tell someone the end of a book or tell someone how a movie ends and people freak out and get mad. It is not about the end, but rather the beginning and middle as well. If those didn't matter then why not skip to Chapter 11 and watch just that?


Leaving aside the entertainment value of it as an action movie, it does have deeper perspectives to some folks, and apparently not to others. I wonder if there has ever been a "conventional" war in history, where the majority of combatants on both sides didn't believe in the righteousness of their cause at some point during the conflict. I trust most folks would agree that the current situation is rather more complex than simply a war between two sovereign states.
This curiously named War on Terror would more appropriately be called a war on hate, or a war on fear. The only problem is that it's pretty hard to get rid of hate or fear by killing someone's friends. I suspect that there are a lot more angry and hurt folks in the world after the War on Terror commenced than before."

It was an interesting way to portray the War on Terror, and such a subject is so complex they finally gave it to the other side. I mean, how many World War II movies do you see from a German side? What about American Revolution movies from the British side? In fact the only book/movie that is publicly known is "All Quiet on the Western Front" and that was written by a German none the less, but popularized by Americans. Just the fact they tried to give the Afghani points a positive view at some points were shocking.

"I've been listening for a while now for Western Leaders to explain why some middle eastern folks hate the west so much, but apart from an explanation I find incredible... being that Muslims are jealous of the West's wealth, I am still listening. (the incredible bit being that any rational person could believe someone would be a suicide bomber because they were jealous of wealth)"

Well terrorism, in my humble idea, comes down not to being jealous but frustrated. They want the US out of the Middle East, they want their voice heard, they WANT things, yes, but they are refused to get what they want so they do what humans have done throughout time, revolt. Their revolt is against another country though so by doing terrorism they hurt their enemy when if they went in a conventional war they would lose. By doing terrorism the media pays attentions to them and they get their message out. When you speak of being jealous of wealth you then have to ask, how come we don't kill Bill Gates? When you say being a suicide bomber is irrational because it is over wealth, then how come CEOs will screw over hardworking families, or even the robber barrons of the 1880-1910 would have their workers work to death. What about the criminals and gangs that kill for money and wealth. What about the companies that promote war, where thousands die, just so they profit? How is strapping a bomb to yourself to get what you want irrational when dropping a bomb the size of a bus onto a city rational?

"News citizens get from the media (be it factual, semi factual, or complete fiction) appears to vary enormously depending on what country one lives in.... which probably explains some of the differences in political outlook of posters about this film.
However, perhaps a bright point is that God is onside in this conflict. Curiously, God appears to be on both sides. Perhaps God is having a bet each way on the folly of man?"

The media shows only half the story and what they want to show. This film did help open up the other side and what you don't see, as I stated above.


"In summary, whether the filming was actually in Kabul or Timbuctoo isn't relevant to me. If I was more involved in movie making rather than movie watching, perhaps it would have more importance."

The emotions felt during this movie were the important part, not if it was real or where it was filmed. Exactly, right on.