MovieChat Forums > Mercenaries (2012) Discussion > The Good, the Bad and the Hubris

The Good, the Bad and the Hubris


First off, if you saw the review that said the cast doesn't look like S.A.S. but instead looks too "girlish," just ignore that. Clearly that reviewer is a couch potato and is assuming that all the musclebound "movie mercs" he's seen before represent real life. Scary how people's minds work sometimes.

Anyway, on the good side, the production values were decent, the acting was good, and for the most part this could have been a really good movie.

However, now we come to the bad part, and by bad I mean truly, utterly awful. Although soldiers don't always look like Schwarzenegger, they do have various traits that are apparent to anyone that knows what to look for. Training becomes ingrained and second nature, so there are tells, such as how someone stands or moves, how they interact with their environment, etc. The actors that were cast as the mercs here were, unfortunately, visibly clumsy and awkward, sometimes tripping over simple obstacles that a soldier would easily see and avoid. Their acting skills reflected how civilians would react to various events, despite their scripted dialogue verbalizing the contrary. Honestly, it was pretty horrible. This was not the fault of the actors, let's be clear. This was entirely the director's responsibility. He should have hired an experienced consultant to teach the actors how to respond like soldiers, not panicky civies.

And then there's what I consider to be the movie's worst sin of all: absolutely no proper or logical tactics present. At all. Again, the director (who is also the writer on this one) clearly doesn't have the slightest inkling of combat tactics and strategy, and it shows. Oh, how it shows. The mercs make every mistake in the book. From the moment the first shot is fired, all the way to the end credits, they continually do absolutely everything horribly, horribly wrong. I don't mean it was bad tactics, I mean there were none present.

Bottom line here is that the director/writer dropped the ball on what could have been a really excellent movie. It's reminiscent of a potentially talented writer ignoring the need for an experienced editor. You can see how talented the writer could be, but the product is flawed. Had he taken the time to consult with those that know the subject, and rely on actual experience to tailor the material so it made sense, including the actors' need for a crash course in "how to act & react like a seasoned soldier," we really could have been looking at a winner here. I see real promise with this director, especially if he learns when and how to ask for help when it's needed.

I'd also like to see what he could do, as a director, with someone else's really good script.

reply

I agree with pretty much all that you said in your review but feel I have to mention that if you do look at the full cast and crew credits, there is a military advisor listed. I wonder if the people giving that advise were well placed, experienced military!!

I don't have a military background and so don't spot the things you mention as I'm watching these kind of action genre movies, and for a low budget British production, I think they have done well. The locations and sets looked great too, as did the colour grade. It was an easy watch with some pretty good moments that kept me interested.

reply