6 of 12 people found the following review helpful
Meretricious, mendacious war-porn,
This review is from: 5 Days of War [DVD] (DVD)
This is a thoroughly bad film, for a number of reasons.
First and most important is its dishonesty, which would make Ananias blench with embarrassment. The film was financed by Georgian interests, and it should be clear to anyone who has the slightest recollection of recent world events that this is a crude piece of Georgian government progaganda. Nowhere in this film is there any indication that the Georgian army started the war with a division-level surprise attack preceded by an artillery rocket bombardment on the Russian peacekeeping forces in South Ossetia. One might think that an intelligent propagandist would understand that such gross distortions of the truth are unlikely to prove effective. Perhaps there are still some who cleave to Dr Goebbels' assertion that the bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed.
Second is the poor quality of the storytelling and characterization. The cast includes a number of fine actors, whose talents are entirely wasted here. The film is "based on real events" only to the extent that a fictional and weakly-plotted yarn unravels against the background of an historical conflict. Highly-improbable events are used to provide rapid reversals of the narrative on at least three occasions, but all dramatic impact is lost, because it is hard to care where the narrative goes next. Likewise, the lack of depth to the characterisation of any of the film's protagonists means that nobody is likely to care whether or not they survive the random outbursts of pointless violence that are the main content of the film.
Third, these random outbursts of pointless violence. I have no particular objection to violent films; "Pulp Fiction" and "9th Company" are favourites of mine. The rolling orange explosions, the improbably large volumes of automatic fire, the slo-mo running around in wide-mouthed shrieking horror, all are competently done. But they are no different from what is done in hundreds of other films. Ever since "Saving Private Ryan", film-makers seem to have been determined to out-do each other in the spectacular portrayal of armed violence, seemingly not realising how quickly this becomes stale and dull; in consequence, they fail to achieve the impact still made by Peter Watkins' "The Wargame" or "Culloden". There may be some film-goers who find the slo-mo portrayal of a rifle bullet exiting a woman's breast to be jolly good entertainment, but I beg to differ.
I wish I could find something good to say about the film, but there really isn't anything. It is meretricious, mendacious Hollywood war-porn of the most contemptible kind.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 21 Jan 2012 19:41:23 GMT
P. WILLIAMS says:
The "alleged" reason given by the Georgian Government for their missile attack on South Ossetia between 7/8th August '08 was to reclaim land that and protect peace-keeping troops that the Russians were attempting to take and that the Russians had fired on previously with non-peace keeping troops. You can't say the film is Georgian Government propaganda simply because the Director maybe Georgian and he may have been financed by Georgian backers? What a shallow and ignorant comment? Where do YOU propose he should seek out his backers for the film? Antarctica? The Andes? Perhaps China or The Seychelles? No, of course he is going to look 'locally' so to speak.People like YOU see conspiracy theoreys where none exist.
In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jan 2012 00:46:18 GMT
Ernst Wiltmann says:
Please elaborate, why you call this comment shallow and biased. Please present an argument that in fact would call this comment shallow and ignorant. Your view of this conflict is not enough to validate such a statement.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›