THE 100 BEST WAR MOVIES: #39. Lone Survivor (2014)

 

               “Lone Survivor” is based on the best-seller by Mark Luttrell (and ghost-writer Patrick Robinson) and written and directed by Peter Berg (trying to get into Heaven after “Battleship”).  Luttrell was the only survivor of a four man SEAL recon unit that was part of Operation Red Wings in Afghanistan in 2007.  The ill-fated mission was to capture or kill a Taliban leader. The movie was filmed in New Mexico. It’s budget was $40 million and it made over $150 million. Luttrell moved in with Berg for a month when he was writing the screenplay. And Berg became the first civilian to imbed with a Navy SEAL team in Iraq.  

            The film starts strong with archival SEAL training footage running over the credits which indicates strong Pentagon support for the production.  This also dispenses with the normal training sequence common in movies like this.  This results in little character development, but the film is more about a quartet of brothers than about four individuals anyway.  As though the title is not enough of a giveaway, our first shot is of Luttrell (Mark Wahlberg) being medevaced in terrible condition.  His narration sets the tone.  “There’s a storm inside us… an unrelenting desire to push yourself… into those cold dark corners where the bad things live….”

            Operation Red Wings is outlined efficiently using maps, slides, and even toy helicopters.  The target is a Taliban bigwig who is established as kill-worthy through a scene where he ruthlessly beheads a villager (and not with one clean cut).  The insertion is very “Black Hawk Down”ish.  (In fact BHD is this movie’s closest equivalent).  The environment is the opposite of Mogadishu, however.  Very mountainous and scenic - if it weren’t for the creepy foreboding.  SNAFU rears its ugly head with the lack of communications with their base.  Soon after, they are discovered by three goat-herders and its dilemma time.  The debate comes down to kill them so they can continue the mission to eliminate a high-value target or let them go because it would be a war crime that could put them on CNN and in Leavenworth (Luttrell’s position).  Lt. Michael Murphy (Taylor Kitsch) makes the call. 

            It does not take long for the movie to become a “last stand” scenario.  A large force of Afghanis hunt the four in the hillside forest.  Being true SEALs, our boys take the fight to the enemy and give much more than they take, but they still end up taking a lot.  All four suffer numerous wounds.  (Luttrell deals with them by packing them with dirt because that’s what real men do!)  The violence and action is amazing.  It is one of the best combat sequences ever filmed.  There are a couple of breathers fitted in for them men to talk like American warriors and for the audience to unclutch their arm rests.  At one point, they are blown off a cliff by an RPG and proceed to roll down the hillside in a shot that makes you respect stuntmen immensely.  One good roll deserves another as they actually voluntarily repeat the bone crushing feat soon after.  In the only LOL moment in an otherwise grim film, Luttrell ends his second trip face to face with a rattlesnake!  (A moment foreshadowed by a warning about poison snakes pre-mission.)  One bad thing about escaping by rolling down a cliff is it gives the enemy the high ground.  Only one of our heroes will make it out alive. And before you say that means three Americans will die, prepare to be shocked. Macho guy warning:  the movie closes with pictures of all the heroic dead with Peter Gabriel singing “Heroes”, so have your hankie ready.

ACTING:   A                 

ACTION:   A+  (9/10)                   

ACCURACY:  B            

PLOT:  A                         

REALISM:   B              

CINEMATOGRAPHY:    A+

SCORE:   A                 

 

SCENE:  the combat scene

QUOTE:  Marcus Luttrell:   [after finding his lost gun in the middle of the fight] See? God's looking out for us.

Michael Murphy:  If this is what happens when God is looking out for us, I'd hate to see Him pissed.

                “Lone Survivor” accomplishes what it sets out to do.  It is a tribute to the American participants.  Obviously, the Navy liked what it saw in the screenplay as the movie had significant military support.  Berg also had the complete support of the families of the four men.  Mission accomplished with a flair for the entertainment potential of the story.  The movie kicks ass for a significant length of its running time. I timed from the first gun shot to Luttrell hiding at 33 consecutive minutes!  It has more action than a vast majority of war films and is in BHD territory.  The violence is graphic and adrenalin-fueled.  However, the deaths of Murphy and Axelson dilute the Taliban bloodbath.  You don’t wallow like in some movies.  The movie is clearly pro-SEAL, but anti-war.

            Berg deserves a lot of credit for climbing out of that “Battleship” hole.  He worked hard to get everything right and the movie shows great craftsmanship.  There is a variety of cinematography that keeps us cinephiles happy.  Lots of hand-held, some POV, a little slo-mo, perhaps too many close-ups.  You definitely think you are with those guys.  Kudos to the music which is understated, but effective.  There are long stretches with no music, which I like.  The sound is also excellent.  Mostly of the gunfire and explosions variety.  I don’t usually mention make-up in my reviews of war movies, but Howard Berger and his crew used the autopsy records to get the details right for the wounds.  The dialogue is appropriate for Navy Seals.  There is not a lot of banter, but it’s not forced.  The comradeship and brotherhood are apparent.  The movie gets the military ethos right, but hammers it in a bit.

            One strength of the film is the acting is great. The quartet is up to what must have been a difficult shoot. You really care about them and there are some tearjerking deaths. The four actors went through a boot camp. The movie takes some time to humanize the four. On the other hand, the Taliban are uniformly evil, even to other Afghanis. The movie manages to put a face to the two lead baddies. Go head and hiss, but keep in mind the four Americans are foreigners in their country and are there to kill them.

                HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  As far as accuracy, the movie reminds me of “We Were Soldiers” except this is based on a memoir so you could question the source material.   I’m not going to go into the possible inaccuracies in the book right now. The fact is that Berg bought the rights to the book and had Luttrell as his technical adviser (he appears in the movie).  Does anyone suggest he should have told Luttrell that he thought he was lying and change the screenplay in his face?  One significant thing is that Berg reduced Luttrell’s disputed estimate of 80-200 enemy to a more realistic 50 or so.  (Imagine that, a director reducing the odds!)  The mission was as outlined.  The communications problems and the goat herders’ incident happened.  Based on my research, I can live with the debate as depicted.  The ensuing fire-fight was as close as one man’s recollection put on film can be expected to be.  The deaths of the three were vetted by the families.  The helicopter disaster was accurate although Luttrell did not actually witness it. 

            The movie goes off the historical path after the fighting ends.  Luttrell did not walk out, he crawled seven miles.  Luttrell’s rescue by Mohammad Gulab and his insistence on protecting his “guest” as part of the Afghani trait of Pashtunwalli is close, but there was no more excitement after that.  The ending battle was like the one in “We Were Soldiers”.  Crowd-pleasing, but the type of thing that makes discerning viewers say “I bet that didn’t happen” and sure enough…  The rescue was actually mundane and Luttrell was not at death’s door.  He did not flat-line.  Why does Hollywood always insist on putting a cherry on top?  The sundae was plenty good already.

            CONCLUSION:  “Lone Survivor” is a very good movie.  It has most of the attributes that I want in a war movie.  It tells a story that deserved to be told and it does it in an entertaining way.  It is reasonably accurate.  The combat is realistic and there is plenty of it.   The acting is stellar (especially Ben Foster), the cinematography is not pedestrian, the technical aspects are solid, and the plot is not an afterthought.  It’s a must see for every male, American war movie lover.

Top Ten for the Last Ten

Recently I read an article about the ten best military movies of the last ten years.  It was from a respected site and was a competent list.  However, it was heavily inhabited by box office successes and overlooked more obscure movies.  I had seen all of the movies and some of them are not good.  None of them are terrible, either.  You can see the article here.  It got me to thinking about what my list would look like so I  back and looked at list of all the significant war movies over the last ten years.  Here is my take on the top ten.

10. Beneath Hill 60 - The story of a mining engineer and his unit that dig a mine under the German line in WWI. It is an Australian film that is well-acted, claustrophobic and suspenseful.

9. My Way - If you have never seen a South Korean war film, you are missing the best combat porn available. This is the gonzo tale of two rivals who fight in the Japanese army against the Soviets and end up in a Soviet prison camp and eventually in the German army in Normandy in time for D-Day. You heard that right, now see it to believe it.

8. 13 Hours - Speaking of combat porn, this American true tale of the Benghazi incident has plenty of ammo expenditure. It does not have a political agenda. It depicts the FUBAR of modern war well. It is pretty accurate, but of course the body count is inflated.

7. Good Kill - This shamefully overlooked movie deals with drone warfare. Ethan Hawke is excellent as the stressed out and conflicted push button warrior who kills terrorists from the air conditioned comfort of an air base outside Las Vegas. Learn about the modern war on terror and its collateral damage.

6. Eye in the Sky - This movie is similar to Good Kill, but it looks at drone warfare from the political and command level. It stars Helen Mirren as the Pattonesque Colonel who is obsessed with getting a high value target and is willing to risk civilian casualties. The movie is eye-opening about the incredible technology available to the "good guys" and the political decision-making behind the scenes.

5. 13 Assassins - This is the best samurai movie to come out of Japan in a long time. 13 ronin are hired to assassinate a very villainous shogun. In the process they must stop his army at a village. They set the village up in an extreme update of Seven Samurai. The action is incredible and will leave you exhausted, but smiling. If you've seen Seven Samurai, see where samurai films are now.

4. Rogue One - This may be a sci-fi movie, but it also has a lot of the elements of a WWII movie. It is the best Star Wars movie since The Empire Strikes Back. It has some of the best combat scenes in recent war movies, an intriguing plot, and appealing characters. And the special effects are incredible. It is a prequel to the first Star Wars.

3. '71 - Another criminally overlooked gem. The title refers to 1971. A British soldier, played outstandingly by Jack O'Donnell, gets separated from his unit in Belfast during "the Troubles" between the IRA, the Protestants, and the British. In one night he encounters all sorts of intrigue and action. It's an edge of your seat thriller.

2. Lone Survivor - Another tastefully done combat porn film. Based on a true story, four SEAL team members are sent to take out a Taliban leader and end up with his jihadists trying to wipe them out. The cast is great, with Mark Wahlberg and Ben Foster standing out. Historically accurate, but enhanced for the viewing pleasure of anyone wanting a high body count.

1. Zero Dark Thirty - How did this movie not make the other list? Perhaps it was not considered to be a military movie, but if you consider movies about the war on terror to be military movies, this is the best. It accurately tells (to the best of our knowledge) the story of the take-down of Bin Laden. Jessica Chastain is amazing as the CIA analyst who tracks him down which leads to the raid. It is well worth the wait, but the lead-up is great, too.

BEST AND WORST OF 2014

      Another year of watching war movies and another mixed bag.  I saw 89 war movies this year and finished the 100 Greatest.  Besides some great movies, I also saw a discouraging number of very bad movies.  But that's my life, so I'm not complaining.  Some of my fondest memories are of truly terrible movies.

THE TOP TEN

10.  Lone Survivor - a balls to the wall "who will survive?" scenario set in Afghanistan involving a SEAL team behind enemy lines
9.    Captain Blood-  Errol Flynn swashbuckler with plenty of action and some nonmushy romance with Olivia DeHavilland
8.    Go Tell the Spartans -  early in the American phase of the Vietnam War, an outpost is defended against a Viet Cong attack while Burt Lancaster deals with the insanity of the war
7.    The Dawns Here Are Quiet-  Soviet film about a male sergeant and five female soldiers who take on German infiltrators in some woods 
6.    Das Boot-  one ill-fated tour by a German u-boat in 1941 which is the best submarine movie ever made
5.    Born on the 4th of July -  the biopic about disabled Vietnam veteran Ron Kovic from gung-ho warrior to anti-war activist 
4.    All Quiet on the Western Front-  the granddaddy of all war movies based on the greatest war novel
3.    Paths of Glory-  a drama about the trial of three French soldiers in WWI who are accused of not making a suicidal attack and must be sacrificed for unit morale/intimidation
2.    Tropic Thunder-  the funniest war movie comedy ever made which satirizes several famous war movies

BEST MOVIE 2014:  84 Charlie MoPic (1989)

                This year the best war movie I saw was an old favorite – “84 Charlie MoPic”.  It won my March Madness Tournament to determine the best Vietnam War movie which means it beat some stiff competition.  Most of my readers may not have heard of it, but it deserves to be better known.  I go way back with this movie.  I first saw it when it first came out.  It was shown on PBS.  (It was one of the first movies I taped with my cutting edge new VCR.  I showed it in my American History class a few times.)  I don’t think it spent much time in theaters and made less than $200,000.  It was nominated for the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Festival and Best First Feature for writer and director Patrick Sheane Duncan (“Courage Under Fire”) at the Independent Spirit awards.  It was a “found footage” film long before “Blair Witch Project” made that style popular.  The movie was filmed in Southern California on a very low budget with unknown actors.

                84C is the military designation for a movie cameraman.  The premise of the movie is that 84 Charlie (Byron Thames) is tagging along on a long range patrol to chronicle what happens in the bush.  The entire movie is seen through MoPic’s lens and we only see him briefly at the end of the movie.  The mission of the five man patrol is to locate a North Vietnamese Army base camp in the Central Highlands of South Vietnam in August, 1969.  The mission is being led by a green lieutenant (Jonathan Emerson) who is called LT.  He is looking to get his combat ticket punched for promotion purposes and sees the motion picture (to be called “Lessons Learned”) as a career move.  He is not exactly welcomed by the veteran LRRP squad.  In fact, the sergeant who runs the unit (and continues to run it in spite of the LT) is downright belligerent and disrespectful.  OD (Richard Brooks) is hard core and makes it clear he thinks the presence of LT and MoPic will get his men killed.  The rest of the unit is heterogeneous in the classic tradition of small unit films.  Easy (Nicholas Cascone) is the radio operator who is close to the end of his tour.  He jokes around a lot.  They are the kind of lame jokes soldiers tell.  “I wouldn’t shit you, you’re my favorite turd” is typical.  Pretty Boy (Jason Tomlins) considers himself to be lucky, but is about to crack.  Hammer (Christopher Bergard) is the cocky M-60 gunner.  Cracker (Glenn Morshower) is a hillbilly who is a lifer.  He’s the guy who is usually called “Pop” in war movies.  His best friend is the African-American OD.   The five are very tight knit in spite of their various backgrounds.  The mission is pretty standard for a long-range patrol.  The men hump through the boonies until they reach the enemy camp.  They call in artillery and then move to the egress point.  This is when things get complicated and the movie becomes a “who will survive?” story.



                Although the movie is called a “found footage” movie, I prefer to refer to it as a movie that was filmed completely in POV.  This makes it unique among Vietnam War movies.  There are several excellent movies set in the war, but none does as good a job of putting you in the grunts’ boots.  The movie is as micro as you can get, but you will learn more about the soldier experience than any other film.  It is like a tutorial on what a mission behind enemy lines would have been like.  You are on the mission with the men.  The movie is excellent on the details.  There are many small touches that prove that Duncan was a veteran of the war.  For instance, the men use C-4 to heat their rations.  The uniforms, equipment, and weapons are realistic.  The dialogue is authentic and not forced like in many Vietnam War movies.  Duncan throws in a lot of slang (“there it is”) and it helps if the viewer is already versed in how the soldiers talked.  Much of the dialogue is the unit members ribbing each other.  Few war movies are better at portraying the unique comradeship of American soldiers.  Part of the film involves interviews with each of the men.  This aides in character development and gives various perspectives of typical soldiers.  For example, Easy was “volunteered” for service by a judge.  You care about the men and the dynamics in the unit are fascinating.  Although there is some stereotyping, the movie avoids the trope of the incompetent and/or frag-worthy officer.  The conflict between LT and OD is not trite or predictable.  The acting is surprisingly good for such a no-name cast.  Brooks (“Law and Order”) and Morshower (Lt. Col. Matthews in “Black Hawk Down”) went on to respectable careers.  For “cherries”, the cast acts naturally and there are no histrionics. 

               The movie is mostly talking and marching, but so is war.  It builds nicely to the action-packed concluding act.  Easy stops joking as things get really serious and there are some gut-wrenching deaths (including a great twist).  The movie does not pull its punches and can be quite emotional.  Given the budget, the action is not up to other Vietnam War movies, but the “fog of war” aspect of the jungle setting ameliorates this. Besides, the object of the film is more drama than action.

                Most lists of the best Vietnam War movies overlook “84 Charlie MoPic”.  It can be argued that it is not the best, but there can be no argument that it is in the top five.  It is a must-see for any fan of Vietnam War movies. 

GRADE  =  A+ 

a trailer

the whole movie! 

 

THE WORST MOVIES I SAW IN 2014

5.  Heartbreak Ridge -  Clint Eastwood wins the war in Grenada with a motley crew of post-Vietnam Marines

4.  The Boys in Company C -  a motley crew of draftees fights the establishment and plays soccer in Vietnam

3.  The Inglorious Bastards-  going behind German lines with a motley crew of misfits

2.  Tank Battalion-  a tank crewed by some motleys gets caught behind enemy lines in Korea

THE WORST:  The Steel Claw  (1961)

                “The Steel Claw” is a George Montgomery movie set in the Philippines around Christmas time after the Japanese invasion.  That’s right, it’s a Christmas movie!  You couldn’t tell that from the title?  The movie was a labor of love for Montgomery and a gift for his multitude of fans.  He starred, co-wrote, produced, and directed.  The man was the Da Vinci of B movies.  Speaking of producing, it looks like he emptied his wallet to pay for the movie.  I mean literally.  He did have a crate of pineapples that he was able to use to hire some Filipino actors.

                It’s Christmas Day in 1941 in Manila.  Capt. Larsen (Montgomery) is visiting a brothel.  He’s a regular.  He is not in a Christmas spirit because he has recently lost a hand and has just a stump.  Now that his playboy persona and disability have been established, it’s off to a special mission.  Larsen has to go into the jungle to hook up with a rebel leader named Santana (Mario Barri).  Larsen is to ransom a captured American general for $5,000 (ironically, the same amount spent on the film).  At the rebel camp he meets a tramp.  Her name is Lolita (of course) and she is the type of girl who feeds the chickens while wearing high heels.  There is some painful to watch flirting accompanied by sappy romantic music.  Before setting off into the wilds, Larsen fashions himself a steel claw using the local blacksmith facilities.  Santana’s band joins a band led by the sexy Rosa (Carmen Austin).  She and Santana have something going on which makes four because Lolita insists on coming along in her high heels.  She is almost eaten by a giant snake and gets a spanking from Larsen.  Frolicking then ensues.   

                They ambush a train using Rosa disguised as a sexy water buffalo herder.  The train is used for an assault on the Japanese base.  This results in a wild fire fight with some of the most hilarious deaths I have ever seen in a war movie.  (And that’s coming from a war movie death aficionado.)  As if the action cannot get more intense, we are now treated to a train chase!  The general is rescued, but he is not who he appears to be.  Lolita is wounded and may not make it.  They are in a race against time to reach the rendezvous ship.

                When I saw that the movie starred George Montgomery I thought that since I had heard of this actor, the movie might be a step above the kind of WWII movies you can watch on You Tube.  Wrong!  The movie is incredibly bad, but does have the guffaw factor.  I laughed out loud several times, mostly at some of the ludicrous deaths which included a shark victim.  You have to give the extras credit for giving their all in their demises.  The movie appears to have been made without rehearsing and with only one take for each scene.  The acting is wooden with the exception of Barri who brings some panache to his role as Santana.  He outacts the gringo Montgomery.  There is a modicum of homage to the Filipino guerrillas and you do have the female rebel leader so there is some homage there (although I think it was probably due to Montgomery sleeping with Ms. Austin). The dialogue is what keeps the movie from being a messterpiece.  It is actually not horrible.  We do get the memorable line when they are waiting for the ship:  “Keep listening and listen hard.”  Unfortunately there are not too many howlers like that one.

                “The Steel Claw” is a must see if you are the George Montgomery fan.  Otherwise, avoid it like the plague.

GRADE  =  F-

NOW SHOWING: Lone Survivor (2014)

                Well, it was one of those rare days when I got to go see a war movie in a theater.  That happened only twice last year – “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Phantom”.  Hopefully 2014 will be a banner year for war flicks.  It is off to a grand start with “Lone Survivor” which is based on the best-seller by Mark Luttrell (and ghost-writer Patrick Robinson) and written and directed by Peter Berg (trying to get into Heaven after “Battleship”).  Luttrell was the only survivor of a four man SEAL recon unit that was part of Operation Red Wings in Afghanistan in 2007.  The ill-fated mission was to capture or kill a Taliban leader.

                The film starts strong with archival SEAL training footage running over the credits which indicates strong Pentagon support for the production.  This also dispenses with the normal training sequence common in movies like this.  This results in little character development, but the film is more about a quartet of brothers than about four individuals anyway.  As though the title is not enough of a giveaway, our first shot is of Luttrell (Mark Wahlberg) being medevaced in terrible condition.  His narration sets the tone.  “There’s a storm inside us… an unrelenting desire to push yourself… into those cold dark corners where the bad things live….”

                Operation Red Wings is outlined efficiently using maps, slides, and even toy helicopters.  The target is a Taliban bigwig who is established as kill-worthy through a scene where he ruthlessly beheads a villager (and not with one clean cut).  The insertion is very “Black Hawk Down”ish.  (In fact BHD is this movie’s closest equivalent).  The environment is the opposite of Mogadishu, however.  Very mountainous and scenic - if it weren’t for the creepy foreboding.  SNAFU rears its ugly head with the lack of communications with their base.  Soon after, they are discovered by three goat-herders and its dilemma time.  The debate comes down to kill them so they can continue the mission to eliminate a high-value target or let them go because it would be a war crime that could put them on CNN and in Leavenworth (Luttrell’s position).  Lt. Michael Murphy (Taylor Kitsch) makes the call.  They let them go and head for an extraction point.  You don’t need to know the title of the film to know that the decision will have fatal consequences.

                It does not take long for the movie to become a “last stand” scenario.  A large force of Afghans hunt the four in the hillside forest.  Being true SEALs, our boys take the fight to the enemy and give much more than they take, but they still end up taking a lot.  All four suffer numerous wounds.  (Luttrell deals with them by packing them with dirt because that’s what real men do!)  The violence and action is amazing.  It is one of the best combat sequences ever filmed.  There are a couple of breathers fitted in for them men to talk like American warriors and for the audience to unclutch their arm rests.  At one point, they are blown off a cliff by an RPG and proceed to roll down the hillside in a shot that makes you respect stuntmen immensely.  One good roll deserves another as they actually voluntarily repeat the bone crushing feat soon after.  In the only LOL moment in an otherwise grim film, Luttrell ends his second trip face to face with a rattlesnake!  One bad thing about escaping by rolling down a cliff is it gives the enemy the high ground.  Murphy sacrifices his life for the others (a basic theme of the film) and is rewarded with one of the best war movie deaths. 

                The cavalry arrives in the form of two MH-47 helicopters carrying a large force of their SEAL brethren.  The result is shocking.  Only Mark and Matthew Axelson (Ben Foster) remain and they are sieves.  Axe has a head wound that has him pissed.  His subsequent death tops Murphy’s.  This movie does death scenes well.  Mark hides and when he wakes, the battle is over.  He is rescued by an Afghan villager (wearing white) and taken to his home in a village because you can say what you will about their crap culture, they are very hospitable.  When the Taliban arrive to take Luttrell, its shootout at the O.K. Corral time with a touch of the cavalry arriving.  Macho guy warning:  the movie closes with pictures of all the heroic dead with Peter Gabriel singing “Heroes”, so have your hankie ready.

                “Lone Survivor” accomplishes what it sets out to do.  It is a tribute to the American participants.  Obviously, the Navy liked what it saw in the screenplay as the movie had significant military support.  Berg also had the complete support of the families of the four men.  Mission accomplished with a flair for the entertainment potential of the story.  The movie kicks ass for a significant length of its running time.  It has more action than a vast majority of war films and is in BHD territory.  The violence is graphic and adrenalin-fueled.  However, the deaths of Murphy and Axelson dilute the Taliban bloodbath.  You don’t wallow like in some movies.  The movie is clearly pro-SEAL, but anti-war.

                Berg deserves a lot of credit for climbing out of that “Battleship” hole.  He worked hard to get everything right and the movie shows great craftsmanship.  There is a variety of cinematography that keeps us cinephiles happy.  Lots of hand-held, some POV, a little slo-mo, perhaps too many close-ups.  You definitely think you are with those guys.  Kudos to the music which is understated, but effective.  There are long stretches with no music, which I like.  The sound is also excellent.  Mostly of the gunfire and explosions variety.  I don’t usually mention make-up in my reviews of war movies, but Howard Berger and his crew used the autopsy records to get the details right for the wounds.  The dialogue is appropriate for Navy Seals.  There is not a lot of banter, but it’s not forced.  The comradeship and brotherhood are apparent.  The movie gets the military ethos right, but hammers it in a bit.

                As far as accuracy, the movie reminds me of “We Were Soldiers” except this is based on a memoir so you could question the source material.   I’m not going to go into the possible inaccuracies in the book right now.  (Maybe in a Book/Movie post.)  The fact is that Berg bought the rights to the book and had Luttrell as his technical adviser (he appears in the movie).  Does anyone suggest he should have told Luttrell that he thought he was lying and change the screenplay in his face?  One significant thing is that Berg reduced Luttrell’s disputed estimate of 80-200 enemy to a more realistic 50 or so.  (Imagine that, a director reducing the odds!)  The mission was as outlined.  The communications problems and the goat herders’ incident happened.  Based on my research, I can live with the debate as depicted.  The ensuing fire-fight was as close as one man’s recollection put on film can be expected to be.  The deaths of the three were vetted by the families.  The helicopter disaster was accurate although Luttrell did not actually witness it. 

                The movie goes off the historical path after the fighting ends.  Luttrell did not walk out, he crawled seven miles.  Luttrell’s rescue by Mohammad Gulab and his insistence on protecting his “guest” as part of the Afghani trait of Pashtunwalli is close, but there was no more excitement after that.  The ending battle was like the one in “We Were Soldiers”.  Crowd-pleasing, but the type of thing that makes discerning viewers say “I bet that didn’t happen” and sure enough…  The rescue was actually mundane and Luttrell was not at death’s door.  He did not flat-line.  Why does Hollywood always insist on putting a cherry on top?  The sundae was plenty good already.

                “Lone Survivor” is a very good movie.  It has most of the attributes that I want in a war movie.  It tells a story that deserved to be told and it does it in an entertaining way.  It is reasonably accurate.  The combat is realistic and there is plenty of it.   The acting is stellar (especially Ben Foster), the cinematography is not pedestrian, the technical aspects are solid, and the plot is not an afterthought.  It’s a must see for every male, American war movie lover.

 

Grade =  A-