Lone Survivor

lone_survivor_xlrg

Release: Christmas Day 2013 (limited)

[Theater]

Before we dive into an analysis of this film, let’s first get one thing straight: this is no Saving Private Ryan. The critic who made that comparison probably made it in the (understandably) dizzying buzz after experiencing an early screening of Peter Berg’s war film and felt compelled to give it the highest of accolades to kick off the onslaught of promotional efforts that was to come. In so doing, he was pretty successful in spreading the fire. There has been almost no end to people calling this a modern Spielbergian masterpiece.

Here are a few things the two films have in common: blood. Bullets. Blood. Excessive swearing. Blood. Gut-wrenching deaths. Blood. Blue skies. Blood. Americans and their red blood. But there the commonalities run out.

Lone Survivor is a grisly look at the botched Operation Red Wings, a mission undertaken by four Navy SEALS in an effort to track down and eliminate a high-priority member of the Taliban in the hostile hillsides of Afghanistan. Over the course of roughly 72 hours, the fates of Navy Lieutenant and team leader Michael P. Murphy (here portrayed by Taylor Kitsch), Petty Officers Second Class Danny Dietz (Emile Hirsch) and Matt Axelson (Ben Foster), and Hospital Corpsman Second Class Marcus Luttrell (Mark Wahlberg) would be decided by a combination of poor communication and even worse luck. As the film’s title blatantly informs the masses, only one would be living to tell the tale of these extraordinary days. That man was Marcus Luttrell.

Director Peter Berg (Battleship, Hancock) bases his film off of the written accounts penned by Luttrell in 2007. He apparently benefited from the technical support of former Navy SEALS, including Luttrell, to stage a good chunk of the action sequences. The director set a precedent by becoming the first civilian to become embedded with a Navy SEALs team in Iraq for a month while he wrote the script. As a result, Lone Survivor is more than likely technical perfection. But taken as a filmgoing experience, there is simply something missing from the equation that would have earmarked his film for not only inspirational but educational purposes. For reasons that are about to be explained, and though it’s far more graphic, Saving Private Ryan still seems like the go-to option for classroom use.

This really isn’t intended to be a compare-and-contrast review; it’s coming across that way because the claim that this is “the most extraordinary war film since Saving Private Ryan” is an overly sensationalized marketing strategy for Berg’s picture — one that needs to be put into perspective.

The first thing that should be noted in the differences column is that Lone Survivor severely lacks character development and enough chemistry between these Navy SEALS to make the circumstances truly horrific. In the line of fire they call each other brothers but that word is in the script, not in their hearts. We enter the field with machines, not distinct human personalities that we easily can attach life stories to. However, Berg believes its possible to empathize with the performances since this is based on a real occurrence. Based on his direction, the patriotism on display should be more than sufficient to make an audience care. In actual fact, it’s just barely enough. There’s no denying the emotional impact of the film, yet the question still lingers. If we got to know these soldiers as more than just the rough, gruff American heroes that they most certainly are, the aftermath would be even more devastating.

Berg also can hardly be described as the master of subtlety. Lone Survivor ultimately feels like a blunt instrument with which he may bludgeon us over the head, and the lack of character development makes the proceedings even more numbing. During the protracted (read: violent) sequences of confrontation with members of al Qaeda, bullets and bodies fly at random, and often times it’s not the fact that 180 cajillion bullets pierce through flesh that’s painful to watch so much as the environment is unforgiving. Several times over watch in agony as the four guys tumble down the mountainside, smacking into trees, rocks, animals — you name it.

During any one of these excruciating slow-motion edits it wouldn’t be completely surprising to see Berg pop out of a bush, break the fourth wall and ask those in the audience who are still dubious about our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, “Well what do you think of our soldiers now?!” We get it — war is hell, and the sacrifices these people make are enormous. If that’s the main take away from the film it’s hardly an original one. We can get the same effect by watching the news. More often than not live footage of what’s occurring is more affecting than a movie can ever hope to be.

A third, and lesser flaw revolves around the casting of Mark Wahlberg. The marquee name is just large enough to ensure the others get shoved to the background and that as many tickets to this event are sold. Marky-Mark’s a likable enough actor, but where Spielberg’s epically sprawling film can get away with so many big names (Hanks, Sizemore, Damon, etc.) Lone Survivor‘s disinterest in developing characters or even a great deal of camaraderie between the guys makes Wahlberg’s presence seem awkward and misjudged. Contrast him to Hirsch, Foster and Kitsch — still relatively known actors but at least these three are relegated to the tragic roles that they play.

This is not a terrible film, but it’s not going to end up being the definitive story about what happened during Operation Red Wings — although that may not be possible. There was so much chaos on this mission, as evidenced by Berg’s storytelling here. Truth be told, it’s probably impossible conceiving a film that truly renders the nightmare experienced by this lone survivor. Though Luttrell was on set, often providing advice to Berg on how to best depict what he saw over these few days, the others sadly weren’t able to offer their input. It’s realistic, sure. But a classic film it most certainly is not.

Film Title: Lone Survivor

2-5Recommendation: Though patriotism bleeds through the film reel, there’s not enough here to show why this disastrous mission really mattered. For those who haven’t heard about this mission (or anyone still undecided about seeing this film), the best route to take would be to track down Luttrell’s written account (of the same name) where, presumably, no detail should be spared. There’s detail aplenty in Berg’s film, too, but much of that pertains to the gruesome way in which some of our beloved soldiers have fallen. That’s not noble; it’s just sickening.

Rated: R

Running Time: 121 mins.

Quoted: “You can die for your country, but I’m gonna live for mine.”

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.impawards.com; http://www.imdb.com 

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “Lone Survivor

    • thanks kindly Alex. I always try to do a movie the justice it deserves and in this case i’m afraid I couldn’t support it all too much.

  1. It was an entertaining watch, but took things a bit too far by casting the Avengers in a story that is supposed to be based on real life. It makes sense that Captain American can survive bumping his head on trees and rocks, or that Ironman can take massive falls with bullet holes everywhere, but get right back up.

    I am sure you get my point, it was a little too much. I liked it a bit more than you did, but only in the sense that it is a little more than your typical popcorn action flick. Well written review Tom!

    • Thanks muchly. I think the fact that it can be likened to a ‘typical popcorn action flick’ is the problem here. This is supposed to be a tribute to the brave soldiers who fight and often lose their lives in the process. There’s no doubt about the patriotic elements here but yeah, umm….each single shot these men shot at the Taliban seemed to work instantly yet it took about five hundred bullets to take down three out of four American soldiers. I don’t mean to be harsh or unappreciative of the job they are doing overseas, but the movie kind of didn’t do justice here. Not in my mind, anyway. Thanks for reading though!

      • A superior move would have toned down the action, and featured them trying to survive sneaking around the wilderness. Of course, a few fire fights, since three men need to die, but a calmer and more realistic approach would have done the job a lot better. It annoyed me as well that bullets seemed to connect way more, when shot in the opposite un-American direction.

  2. I agree the film is nothing remotely subtle but I still enjoyed it a lot more than i thought. I think my biggest issue with the film is the marketing, the title, and the poster. Going in I wanted to feel no connection with any of the non-Wahlberg characters as I most certainly knew their fate. That being said, Ben Foster proves again that he’s one hell of an actor. Wahlberg not as much.

    • I agree with you Nick, the marketing behind this annoyed me. That’s why I had to lead this review off the way I did. I like Wahlberg enough, but he’s not that great here, and they really could have gone with someone less recognizable. . .because A) he looks nothing at all like the real Marcus Luttrell (so it’s abundantly clear Berg was going for accuracy there) and B) he’s just too recognizable. Plain and simple. Other than that, the story wasn’t executed that incredibly either really. . ,a disappointment for sure

  3. Hmmmm, sort of very on the fence with this one hey Tom? I might check it out sometime, but I am glad someone dismissed the notion of it being the next Saving Private Ryan (I hadn’t heard that, but if I read it that would have sold me). Great review.

    • Thanks so much. I had to put that baby to rest Immediately!! Such hyperbole.

      There are definitively some great sequences here but the vast majority of this film is watching four men getting shot to death. If that sounds fun, go right ahead!! Lol. Nah, but seriously, Marcus Luttrell was an extremely brave man (all of them were, actually) and he deserves a better film dedicated to him and his boys than this. That’s just my two cents, though.

      • That’s my stance precisely. It’s kind of a shame, and I hate to (yet again) put you off of a film that has importance, but yep. hahah (by the way, I meant to leave you a response on my Act of Killing post, but I have no interest in really going back to that post much since it aggravates me so much, so i apologize on that hahaha

    • Yes. I don’t mean to be a negative Nancy over here, but my goodness. The line needs to be drawn somewhere!! Haha. Thanks for stopping by good friend.

  4. Great review. I totally agree.

    And the paragraph starting with “Here are a few things the two films have in common …” might be the best you’ve ever written.

    • haha cheers my friend. That paragraph I intended for just comedic purposes, but I’m glad it was effective in some way. 🙂

      It’s a shame we have to agree on this, because I really really wanted to love it. I actually did love some parts of it. . .a few moments towards the end had me nearly choking up emotionally, but the rest left a lot to be desired. . . .

  5. Good review Tom. It paid attention to who mattered most, and in this story’s case, it was the soldiers who fought and died. Sad to watch, but it’s also done very well in a way that doesn’t try to preach to those who want to see this.

    • Thanks buddy, yeah those are good observations. It didn’t preach. But it was heavy-handed as hell. I’m not sure I like Peter Berg. This film was very sad, indeed.

Comments are closed.