| Page 1 of 10: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] |
| Index | 94 reviews in total |
144 out of 193 people found the following review useful:
not a balanced portrayal., 17 August 2008
Author:
Craig Barron (countvonbarron) from Texas
I'm a sergeant in the army and have served 2 tours in Iraq and am preparing to go a third time in December. This film was irresponsible and not balanced in it's portrayal. First off every single soldier has an 8 year commitment. However long your initial enlistment is (3,4 years etc) you then serve the remainder of your time as part of the IRR (indivdual ready reserve). Moreover every single soldier knows about stop loss. It wouldn't have been portrayed the way it was in the movie. He would have known about it ahead of time. They don't tell you the day you get out and make it a surprise. Especially as an E6 a staff sergeant. The combat scene was not realistic. Soldiers guarding a checkpoint WOULD NEVER leave it to chase a vehicle. That is general order no 1 every soldier is taught that from day 1 of basic training. Furthermore the portrayal of PTSD was not wholly accurate. The army has programs in place to treat it. The character played by Joseph Gordon Levitt would not have gotten a bad conduct discharge for breaking a window. He would have received punishment under the uniform code of military justice. For a bad conduct discharge there would have to be a pattern of behavior over a period of time and then every effort would be made to rehabilitate that soldier. The discharge would only come after that had occurred. Finally the scenes of the authorities chasing Ryan Phillipe is BS. The army does not pursue you if you go AWOl. For short awols the soldiers usually receive punishment under UCMJ. For long awols over 30 days the army drops them from the rolls and stops their pay and benefits. If you attempt to get a federal job your name is entered into a database as a deserter. Lastly the final scene is total nonsense. Assuming he was awol less than 30 days he would have been demoted at least 1 grade. He would not have kept his current rank. The soldier was portrayed as a coward. Bottom line. I know personally soldiers in my unit 1 in my squad who have been stop lossed and although they may complain EVERY one of them will do their duty honorably. This movie claims to be pro soldier but it does not portray our soldiers in an honest way and that is dishonoring the memory of all of our soldiers both alive and dead who have served and are still serving over there. Also in response to adx2-1's comment he is right about the policy. 90 days before deployment and 90 days after the unit returns to home station. And under the current dwell time policy it would have been at least a year before he returned. Although it is never stated how long it is suggested that it is less than a year.
73 out of 112 people found the following review useful:
I'm getting out!, 30 March 2008
![]()
Author:
phantomtristan from United States
Director Kimberly Peirce ("Boys Don't Cry") brings another powerfully
charged film of such raw emotion that upon later reflection of the
movie I felt like I had witnessed real events.
Stop-Loss follows the fictional story of a soldier, Brandon King (Ryan
Philippe), who has returned home after a tour in Iraq. His contract is
up and he just about to get out when he is stop-lossed (a "fine-print"
section in all soldiers' contracts that gives the President the power
to extended soldier's contracts in time of war). He refuses to be
shipped back to Iraq, and goes AWOL in search of his state's senator
for help. What follows is his road trip to fight the stop-loss as well
as showing the devastating affects his fellow soldiers (Channing Tatum,
Joseph Gordon-Levitt) experience from the horrible war. Its' acting,
directing, and writing had such a feeling of authenticity, and combined
with the fact that 81,000 of our brave soldiers have already been
stop-lossed since Spetember 11,2001, this film feels like a true story.
One thing that made this film succeed so well was it's director was a
woman, and she was able to make a movie were you could feel and see the
emotions these guys were feeling even as they would desperately try and
mask them.
The acting was extraordinary from the three main soldiers, most notably
Ryan Philippe who is so gritty and real in his performance that he
seems like he actually is a marine. Channing Tatum gives a genuine
performance, but Joseph Gordon-Levitt's is the most haunting of the
trio as a soldier who fights his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder with
excessive amounts of booze and slowly slips into a deep hole of
despair.
This films is not a propaganda piece, it simply portrays something that
is going on right now. It brings up many good points, but never bashes
you with a certain viewpoint but leaves it to you to decide. This is
such emotionally powerful, deeply moving film, the best film I have
seen since the year started, and destined to be one of my favorites
from this year.
133 out of 235 people found the following review useful:
Stop-Loss Is Not Anti-War, It's Pro-Soldier, 13 March 2008
![]()
Author:
Erico_77375 from United States
What is bravery? Is it trying to do the right thing while facing death
in the process? What is patriotism? Is it selflessly giving to your
country your services and possibly your life to protect and idea? What
is honor? Is it following through on your responsibilities to others
who depend on you? In today's United States Army, these questions
aren't merely hypothetical, but the basis of character. Kimberly Pierce
understood this when she made her sophomore film Stop-Loss, which is
extremely likely to be my favorite film of 2008.
Stop-Loss tells the story of a group of soldiers from Texas who are
coming home from Iraq. Just before they see stateside, they encounter
an ambush that kills three of their respected brothers. The squad
leader Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe) feels responsible for the deaths.
He intends to leave the service for good when he gets back along with
his best friend (Channing Tatum). This is good news to Brandon's
family; his father (the great Cirian Hinds) was a vet from Vietnam.
This is also good news for his friend's fiancé (Abbie Cornish), whose
love only shadows her loneliness.
But when Brandon turns in his gear and paperwork, he is told that he's
to ship back out to Iraq on a stop-loss, which he instantly contests
with his superior (Timothy Olyphant). The result has Brandon on the run
as he goes AWOL to find a way out of going. He is aided by his friend's
fiancé; he decides his best chance is to convince a local senator in
Washington to help him. Along the way, he gets a tour of conscience. He
meets the family of one of his dead men, whose brother knows about
people who could get soldiers through to Canada. He also goes to see
another of his comrades (Victor Russak), who was severely wounded in
the conflict. And at the end, Brandon must make one of the hardest
decisions that anyone will ever have to face.
Love it or hate it, this film has be one of the most unusual films
dealing with war. It neither sides for the conflict in Iraq or against
it, finding the argument to be beside the point. No doubt that Brandon
does say something unflattering about his Commander-in-Chief in one
scene, but the film makes it's bravest decision in being pro-soldier
from beginning to end. We like these guys, we honor their dedication to
our country and we only want them to find happiness and safety back
home. But we can tell nearly from the start that coming home isn't
going to be easy when tensions flare up in unpredictable ways. One of
the men (played flawlessly by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) seems to need
violence in order to feel normal. The film doesn't hate him for it, nor
do we since we know that, in the words of another great movie, he had
"a bad war".
There is something to be said about the decisions made in this film. In
lesser movies, Brandon's decision would be more clear-cut depending on
the filmmaker's political views. There would be some who call Brandon's
plight cowardice and the film addresses this by allowing Brandon to
have more than a couple of emotions. He's not afraid to fight or to
die, but has a more interesting reason to resist. And the film doesn't
see any easy answer in the options left to him. We see the life of
another AWOL soldier up-close. There's nothing pretty about that.
A lot of the success of the film has to go to the amazing casting of
the film. I have never been much of a fan for Ryan Phillippe), but he
might have just converted me. This is an amazing performance of such
complexity and earnestness that I was left truly amazed. Joseph
Gordon-Levitt has been a rising independent superstar, completely
washing away his child actor days in films that are challenging,
playing parts that require his brand of smooth ferocity. This character
is important even though he does little for the plot by being a tragic
figure. I believe he might see his first nomination for this role. But
my favorite performance may also be the most worthy of the Oscar this
year: Abbie Cornish. Cornish isn't just throwing diamonds as a young
woman in love with an impossible man.
Stop-Loss might just be the best military film since Platoon that deals
with soldiers as individuals and not part of a strategy board. Kimberly
Pierce, whose first and only other film was Boys Don't Cry, sees
soldiers in a way that other filmmakers haven't (and those filmmakers
are almost exclusively male, a few veterans themselves). She declares
that she had documented hundreds of interviews with soldiers. This is
one of the extremely rare cases that fiction proves to be the better
format over documentary. In making this a fictional tale, she can tell
a broader story and accompany the emotional journey of all her
characters. She did this with her first film, which told the sad story
of Brandon Teena. I didn't think that she could have made a better film
than that. She has proved that she could and has.
All in all, I love this film and cannot recommend this to enough
people. It's going to be attacked unfairly by the pro-war crowd who
either feel that the film encourages wrong behaviors or weakening
morale. In fact, I think that the film shows the real indomitable
spirit of the fighting men with honor. But I also find that those who
attack movies like these usually think that the best way to support the
troops is to keep them in harms way. Stop-Loss isn't a cry to "cut and
run". It's a testament that soldiers will remain honorable no matter
how they come home. Something that John McCain might keep in mind
60 out of 96 people found the following review useful:
A "Deer Hunter" for the Iraq War, 27 March 2008
![]()
Author:
E Canuck from Vancouver, Canada
Just saw this film in an advance screening and once the tension and
threat (very real) of the opening battle scenes were borne and past,
the film grew on me, as the story became one of the soldiers at home:
their war aftermath and their war that just won't quit or let them go.
It occurred to me at one point this was quite like watching a "Deer
Hunter" for the Iraq war. There were certainly similar aspects,
including aspects of the soldiers' relationships with each other and
with others at home, and in terms of the casualties and injuries that
continue to pile up well after leaving the battlefield.
Stop Loss is perhaps a more political film than the "Deer Hunter" was,
because of the timing of its release, while the issues of the war in
the film are still very much on the boil in the USA. I think it intends
to position itself in a relevant and timely place, and time will tell
whether it has staying power as a lasting and powerful war or antiwar
film.
There is enough humanity, good drama and strong acting in this picture
that it may deserve a place in the lineup of memorable or important
American war films.
73 out of 122 people found the following review useful:
A Great Film! Too bad that this story is the reality for a lot of people., 16 November 2007
Author:
alexbq2 from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I had an opportunity to attend an advanced screening of this film
yesterday in Boulder CO. I am not in any way affiliated with film
industry or the critique. I was just a lucky walk in.
I've seen a preview of this movie a few days before and was not
impressed by the trailer. It looked like another belated anti-war movie
(better late then never), with youthful actors looking ruggedly pretty
for the camera.
What I saw was a fist full of reality mixed with a great story of, I
guess, a youth becoming a man not in a sexual way.
The plot is obvious from the trailer, so there is nothing I can give
away. The ending was not surprising, at least to me. And the ending was
both obvious and powerful.
The beginning is very life like. If you've seen Gunner Palace, or been
to this war, you'll recognize it. It starts in a format of home movies
made by soldiers who serve in Iraq. It was apparently based on the
films and photographs shot by actual soldiers. Some of this footage was
included into these opening sequences, much was recreated by the
actors. So it is ultra realistic. The only way to tell them apart is to
look for Ryan Philippe, who is good in his role but stands out due to
being easily recognizable.
The film quickly moves into a war sequence, demonstrating the horrors
of war. Do not expect to see the charge of the light brigade. It is not
a massive battle, but you will see the bullets flying, and more
importantly killing. If you were put off by the violence in Saving
Private Ryan, you may want to close your eyes for a few minutes at this
point. Past the gun battle we are back in the States. So the Iraq part
is only about 20 minutes.
The real story kicks in when Ryan Philippe with his war buddies returns
home a decorated war hero looking forward to put the past behind him
only to find out that his contract was extended by the Stop Loss policy
and he is to go back to Iraq. The film does not become boring or
preachy. And through the main character's journey both we and he
realize that he has very few options: go to jail, abandon (physically)
the country and everything he is and has, or go back to war. What
choice can he make? So what was my point about the "becoming a man"
story? Well, the way I see it, the main character's final decision, is
not just forced on him. It springs not from fear or just inevitability,
but from his sense of responsibility towards his parents and friends
I'm not going to say 'country', this has nothing to do with flag waving
patriotism. His accepting to go back, is an act of an adult. He accepts
all the horror, the risk, the BS, the unfairness. He does it through a
conscious decision. The decision is to take care of those who depend on
him. That sounds pretty grown up to me.
Thanks go out to Kimberly Peirce, who wrote and directed this film. And
directly in front of whom I was sitting quietly last night while she
was presenting her movie.
You also may want to check out Harsh Times, Gunner Palace and The
Execution of Private Slovik.
30 out of 39 people found the following review useful:
A Noble Effort, 4 August 2008
Author:
Lechuguilla from Dallas, Texas
Well intentioned, this film tells the fictional story of Brandon King
(Ryan Phillippe), an American soldier who, after successfully
completing a heroic but horrendous tour of duty in Iraq, is notified
that, despite his wishes, he must return to Iraq for yet more combat
duty, a real-life contingency called "stop-loss". It's a fate that
neither King, nor real-life soldiers, want or deserve, but which the
U.S. government justifies in lieu of a wartime draft.
The film's first few minutes provide a montage of images and scenes
showing King, and his men, in Iraq, as they bond together as protective
buddies, and as they endure a violent urban ambush, during which
several buddies get killed or seriously wounded.
Back home in Texas, King and a couple of his men briefly celebrate
their hero status. But life for them quickly deteriorates, as their
wartime trauma leaves both physical and mental scars. And then, King
gets his "stop-loss" notice. This sets up the rest of the film's plot.
The theme here is obvious. The brave soldier, having endured more than
enough danger and trauma, is still just a powerless individual. As
such, he or she is caught between having to resubmit to the horrors of
war, or submit to a perilous and life-altering AWOL status in the U.S.,
or elsewhere, forever on the run from an overpowering American
political system. It's a timely and worthy subject for a film.
That much effort and care went into the creation of the film, from
background research to attention to detail in costumes, production
design, and military protocol is obvious.
And the film's color cinematography also is quite good. There are lots
of close-ups, to get a feel for what the characters are going through.
Many scenes feature natural lighting, used in clever ways. At times,
the film has an almost documentary look and feel. Acting is overall
credible. I especially liked the performances of Linda Emond, as King's
mom, and Abbie Cornish, as a young woman who tries to help King.
The major problem is the script. Characters are rather stereotyped and
two-dimensional. The plot is fairly predictable. And the story and its
attendant theme are a tad too direct. I could have wished for a little
more depth, and a plot twist or two. The film's ending is not very
satisfying.
Yet, "Stop-Loss" is a noble effort to document the brutality not only
of war but also of an American government that uses, then basically
throws away, people, to ensure the preservation of an American war
industry and continued power of faceless bureaucrats and corrupt
politicians.
33 out of 51 people found the following review useful:
'Coming Home' for a new generation, 4 April 2008
![]()
Author:
the_Poppuns
It's horrible that we need a new one, you'd think people would learn
their lesson the first, or hundredth, time they were taught it. But
anyway, the movie is pretty good. At the very beginning it reminded me
of 'Redacted' and then later 'In the Valley of Elah' and you could say
with most movies that that would be a detriment but they're all telling
stories about the same subject. So it's not like anyone is copying
anyone else.
This movie is more movie-ish than those I mentioned. It works as
entertainment(that sounds wrong) as well as being informative. It's
showing you a certain situation people are going through but it's also
a "movie", with action scenes, good acting, relationship issues, etc.
As I said the acting is good. Ryan Phillipe is I want to say
underrated, but maybe he's not rated at all. He's an extremely good
looking person who could have just been in romantic comedies and made
some nice money that way, but instead he's carved out an interesting
resume for himself. He does some of his best work here. Joseph Gordon
Levitt, everyone's favorite young indie actor, shows up here as well,
although he has a smaller role than he normally does. He and the rest
of the cast were also really good. Ciaran Hinds makes an interesting
cowboy, btw. I wouldn't have guessed that. The only problem I may have
had with the film is that I didn't like the ending. But that doesn't
take away from the fact that I think this is a well-made movie.
The film is serious. It'll probably be depressing for most people. But
hey life is depressing right now. Especially for people involved in
this situation and maybe those folks should consider whether they
should really watch it or not. Because I would think they'd want to
escape that reality. The people who aren't paying attention to what's
going on should see it. I'd have less problem recommending this to
them. I think it's the least likely of the Iraq based movies to offend
anyone. It's got a few violent war scenes but nothing over-the-top or
terribly graphic. It's just basically wave at you saying "hel-lo, this
is the stuff you're trying to ignore but should really be paying
attention to.' There is a normal amount of cursing and no naked people
that I can remember.
If you haven't been watching the Iraq war centered movies, it's time
you saw one and this would probably be the easiest to take.
28 out of 43 people found the following review useful:
thoughts from an army wife......., 30 March 2008
![]()
Author:
nataliestone_ar from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
First I have to explain my situation.....my husband is in Kuwait in
holding to go to Iraq for his first tour. A group of us
wives/girlfriends saw it last night. We were expecting to shed some
tears and instead left angry. Don't get me wrong I loved the movie and
will buy it when it comes out on DVD..I DO LOVE HOW IT WILL BRING THE
EMOTIONS OUT OF YOU GOOD AND BAD... LET ME EXPLAIN....
1. All soldiers are informed of STOP-LOSS when they enlist. I'm sure
most don't think that it will happen to them.
2. P.T.S.D....what some people have called Gulf War syndrome is REAL
and is was well done in this movie...yes soldiers may beat a wife, get
drunk, and yes take their own life. THIS IS REAL!!! Thank you for not
sugar coating this!!!! 3. I was very upset in the women in this
movie....kicking your husband out of the house after the stress of
war.... then turning around and having the nerve to cry as they lower
him into the ground.....then a soon to be wife not being able to wait
for her soldier to finish one more tour of duty.....A mother helping a
son run from what they both know is a duty that can not be
helped...that is what he signed up to do.
4. Was happy to see that one soldier was able to rise up from all of
the pain and loss. To become the soldier that he knew he could be....I
also felt sorry for him for not having the support that he needed.
5. In real life the AWOL soldier would not have gotten off that
easy.....demoted and docked a full months pay.......
THIS MOVIE IS PLAYED OUT IN REAL LIFE EVERY TIME A SOLDIER COMES
HOME......YOU NEED TO THANK A VET FOR EVERYTHING THAT THEY DO...BECAUSE
IF IT WEREN'T FOR THEM WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE ABLE TO MAKE OR WATCH THE
MOVIES THAT WE ALL ENJOY OR VOICE OUR COMMENTS ON.
19 out of 26 people found the following review useful:
Okay, but..., 13 April 2008
![]()
Author:
adx2-1 from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
When I saw the preview, I thought it would be an accurate portrayal on
how stop-loss affects soldiers. Unfortunately, it was a little off the
wall in how it showed Brandon getting stop-lossed. In reality,
stop-loss takes place 90 days prior to deployment and stays in effect
until 90 days after the soldier returns. Each unit is given one year of
"dwell time" in the US, which means they won't deploy during that
period. The film's portrayal of Brandon getting stop-lossed only a week
after he returned from Iraq to go to Iraq again for another tour a few
weeks later was as realistic as shooting 100 rounds from an M4 without
changing the magazine once. Also, with his actions after he was
stop-lossed (saying f*** the President, going AWOL, etc...) he wouldn't
have just went back to Iraq still a Staff Sergeant like he did at the
end of the movie. He probably would have gotten a court-martial
instead.
Other than those things, it isn't a bad movie. Just inaccurate. I
served three tours in Iraq already and I was stop-lossed for my second
one. I knew I was stop-lossed over three months before I left, they
didn't wait until two weeks before it was time to go to tell me I was
stop-lossed. I made the decision to reenlist later on instead of
getting out at the end of my second tour.
19 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
Insightful movie about loss and dealing with ones own fragile existence in Iraq, 13 July 2008
Author:
llampwork from United States
I really liked this movie. I wasn't looking for a bloody battle scene
and there wasn't much of that expressed. Most of what was conveyed was
the loss of friends in a situation that could happen to soldiers who
march into harms way. Then the soldiers return home, back to the way
things were? Their lives are not the same, and the people at home can't
understand because they weren't there to see a friend die in their arms
at the hands of some terrorist killers.
My brother just retired from the Army. He volunteered in Iraq for 1
year. He safely returned home, but his life had changed from that
moment he was in Iraq. He said they lost a few young men, and another
returned home severely burned from a cocktail thrown into the vehicle.
At 130 degrees, how can they keep the windows closed in a military
vehicle with the engine off. Two men that died were young (18 and 20).
I feel the young soldiers have not received enough training and are too
young to deal with the stress of war.
The movie had me thinking about the young men and women that barely
have a year of training and next have RPGs hurling at them, roadside
bombs, suicidal bombers walking into streets. How can anyone be trained
to deal with that and be aware of it before it happens?
I commend the different positions on war in this movie: 1) Soldiers who
are willing to die for their families and country. 2) Soldiers who have
served their country and feel they should have the choice to step down
from their jobs.
Stop-loss was something I never heard of until I saw the movie. How on
earth can we say in the United States we have FREEDOM to choose if that
privilege is removed when you enlist? It is like when you quit a job,
move to another state, join a religion. FREEDOM to Choose! The
Stop-Loss sanction nullifies the FREEDOM to step down after serving
your country for 1 term or more. Do they think that will encourage
people to sign up to serve in the armed forces if the contract removes
their basic right of FREEDOM that we all hold so dearly. I was angry to
hear soldiers are forced to return to serve multiple times. Many
soldiers clearly need to stay home to recover and try to live a normal
life instead of sending them back to die. It sounds as if these
soldiers are no more than a body with a gun to send back into war.
I would recommend seeing this movie!
| Page 1 of 10: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] |
| Plot summary | Ratings | Awards |
| Newsgroup reviews | External reviews | Parents Guide |
| Official site | Plot keywords | Main details |
| Your user reviews | Your vote history |