I was a combat soldier in the Vietnam conflict. The first thing that comes to my mind watching this film was the equipment used by modern soldiers. In Vietnam we had the clothes on our back, just underwear and shirt, pants, boots, and our weapon. Some soldiers wore "flack vests" but where I served with a small unit in the jungles of the south, I never saw that. It was just your weapon and the clothes on your back. As to the story, it raises from the very beginning all sorts of moral questions. The film opens with actual footage of the over the top training and stress imposed on elite fighting units such as the Navy Seals. We see signs right from the beginning of the film that such severe and brutal training regimens set up a trauma and stress situation inside the emotions and lives of soldiers. There is a critical point in the film where the choice to kill "innocent" people or not to kill them changes everything that happens later. A lot of people will argue about what the choice should have been, and how it might have changed the soldiers chances of survival. That moment is a key to understanding what comes after in the film. Field Command Incompetence. Another issue defined, if not focused upon directly, is how often the field command, Colonels and up, what are called "field" officers, seem to be incompetent, arrogant and often ineffective. Recent published studies of the history of military service of American Generals, for example, show us that the field commanders of armies on the ground is often a tragic disaster. Emotions. Like many who watched this film, I found the long combat sequence very riveting and yet repulsive, in that they are hard to watch. There are several sequences that caused me to have a strong emotional reaction and I had a lot of tears on my face by the time it was over. There is a point in the film where we see a photo of the soldier who survived (Whalberg's character) with the Afghanistan man who gave him "hospitality" and saved his life at a great cost to his village. It is very well acted by an very talented Middle eastern actor. It is very easy in this film to become angry about the bad people that are represented by the Taliban fighters. It is easy, honestly, to just become very angry about all Muslims everywhere in a film like this. Suddenly, right in the middle of this intensity of revulsion towards "terrorists" there is an incredible emergence of human dignity, beauty, that lifts the film upwards, that changes the whole narrative of the film from soldiers captured inside a desperate fight to stay alive, toward the greatest attributes of human society; that of respect and refuge, of personal honor and dignity even in the face of the most terrible events. The film was executive produced by Whalberg, who also stars as the "Lone Survivor", and you can see in his performance and from the credits that roll at the end of the film, that he was very invested in this story. While it is a sort of "classic" Hollywood soldier story, the film has many surprises. It is incredibly effective at showing us, using dramatic events, the stress and trauma a modern soldier fighting the "war on terror" endures over a short period of time in their lives, one that leads to suicides and many other problems for our returning veterans; not to mention the villages and lives changed forever in Afghanistan and the other locations where this kind of warfare continues to this day. I think this film does a much better job at showing this dangerous stress than most other films; but this also makes the film hard to watch. This is a very mature film, very violent. The violence is showed inside of an honest context, but viewers should be prepared for a highly emotional and violent film experience.
Lone Survivor (2013) 720p YIFY Movie
Lone Survivor (2013)
Marcus Luttrell and his team set out on a mission to capture or kill notorious Taliban leader Ahmad Shah, in late June 2005. Marcus and his team are left to fight for their lives in one of the most valiant efforts of modern warfare.
IMDB: 7.8456 Likes
The Synopsis for Lone Survivor (2013) 720p
Marcus Luttrell, a Navy Seal, and his team set out on a mission to capture or kill notorious al Qaeda leader Ahmad Shahd, in late June 2005. After running into mountain herders and capturing them, they were left with no choice but to follow their rules of engagement or be imprisoned. Now Marcus and his team are left to fight for their lives in one of the most valiant efforts of modern warfare.
The Director and Players for Lone Survivor (2013) 720p
The Reviews for Lone Survivor (2013) 720p
Fidelity to the incredible stress of modern warfareReviewed byTurtle HeartVote: 8/10
If there is one thing that this film will accomplish is to make you feel something. I assure you you will not get bored watching it. Now, what you will feel will no doubt be up to you. For myself, I felt mostly rage against a botched mission in an ineffective war. Raytheon should be annoyed that a movie about a mission failed primarily because of communication issues showed their red flashy brand on the comms equipment. I wanted the characters to succeed, to survive, but I could not ignore the fact that they were soldiers being there only to kill an enemy commander. Having all Americans die in slow motion while scores of Taliban died instantly and kind of stupidly didn't help with the empathy. Also showing pictures of dead soldiers with their families with a pathetic American remake of Bowie's Heroes singing in the background at the end of the movie just fueled more rage. People in the field try to carry out their mission and survive, while their deaths become political and mediatic material. I didn't enjoy that. On the other hand, the fights were realistic, the subject based on real events and, outside the pathetism described above, I did not detect a bias towards one side or the other. You will witness two hours of low tech war in all of its horror and stupidity. The actors also play well, although I like Mark Wahlberg in almost everything he does. The story, while showing the preparation, courage and resilience of four soldiers in enemy territory, also showed other things, like the logistical blunders that lead to stupid deaths, over-reliance on technology that doesn't really work as you expect and how choices have consequences on the ground that are beyond the ability of normal courts to understand, whether looking from the legal or moral angle. I liked a lot about the movie how it made you think long after it was over. What would have happened if they just killed the herders? What would have happened if they tied them up, went a bit down, risked a sniper shot at the enemy commander, then just ran? What would have happened if the Pashtuni would have ignored the wounded American or would have killed the Taliban scout force when they came to them? How would the mission have gone if the four guys would have known from the get go that they would be completely alone, with no support or hope for extraction? Overall, a very emotional movie, two hours long, that shows more a general type of heroism than one with a specific purpose. Nicely directed and acted. A bit over dramatic, but then that's to be expected. Worth watching.
After viewing Lone Survivor, I was disappointed on many levels. I can handle a bad movie, we pay $10.75 and hope for the best. Lone Survivor, however, is propaganda, and I was insulted by the movie's lack of integrity and general stupidity: 1) Bad guys brandishing weapons traditionally struggle with accuracy in movies. Fine. But these four guys face an onslaught of hundreds of soldiers (many with automatic weapons), fall off multiple steep cliffs, survive direct hits with boulders and trees, yet spring to their feet for another round with the bad guys. Even when struck by bullets, they tough it out and continue to fight on. Look, I have nothing against our Navy Seals and root for them while in battle, but even they must abide by the laws of physics. 2) The underlying message was that our guys are smart and brave, their guys are wicked and stupid. If this were true, the war would have been over ages ago. Incidentally, the makers of the movie were granted full access by the U.S. military. 3) Speaking of which. . .according to the LA Weekly, the producers of Lone Survivor are convicted cocaine dealers and have ties to Russian oil and an alleged contract murder. And while that isn't necessarily an indictment of the movie (for example, I enjoy Polanski movies but realize he's a convicted sex offender) it does give me pause for the movie's motives. 4) The symbolism of the cute little village boy was kind of like, "Oh look, they're not ALL bad. A cute little kid, just like one of ours!" 5) I'm dismayed and frightened to learn how well this movie is faring at the box office. Putting aside its political overtones, this movie is plain lousy: dreadful character development, false New Mexico landscape, overlong and poorly executed battle scenes, and midway through the movie, poof, it gives up on the narrative back at the base. 6) I suspect this movie is for people with yellow "I Support the Troops" bumper stickers. Let's watch our brave boys fight and kick ass, from a safe distance of course. Or hackneyed sports announcers who love to talk about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Calling yourself a patriot, while voting for politicians who would deny health care to a soldier suffering PTSD, a lost limb or worse. If you think that's exaggeration, look it up. 7) One star, but only because zero is not allowed. I am heartened so many others also rated the movie poorly. After all, Lone Survivor isn't a Disney fantasy, and we simply would like better screenplays and realism in our movies. I recently viewed Twelve O'Clock High and was extremely impressed by its portrayal of the brave American men who flew daylight bombing missions against Nazi Germany in World War 2. Here we are 65 years later. . .