After watching this movie I half suspect this is a propaganda film funded or produced by the US army. Quality wise it's on par with a couple of others I've seen and the amateur production values don't do anything to deter this impression.
Firstly there's almost zero story or characterisation in this film. All the characters are shallow one dimensional husks who are as lifeless and devoid of emotion as the script. The script fails to humanise the characters, while the audio is poorly mixed and dialogue often sounds muddy and near indecipherable.
The camera work is no better as there's very few instances where its not shaking or moving about. Ever heard of a tripod? It's even worse during the battle scenes, and while yes I realise shaky cam is a technique used, it's not really a technique that's utilised here because the whole movie practically has shaky cam to one degree or another. On top of that the cinematography is poorly executed, often with unnecessary close ups or odd angles being chosen. There's a number of instances where things that shouldn't be out of focus are. Again, this can be an effective technique, but the poor camerawork elsewhere lends me to believe it's just crappy filming.
It looks gritty and authentic, which is almost all the movie has going for it. Aside from some entertainment from the longer battle scenes. Those in the first half of the movie are very brief and devoid of any emotion or intensity. Showing a gun battle just from long distance doesn't draw the viewer in or present a sense of danger.
In all it was a poor quality production, which led to a poor quality film.
Firstly there's almost zero story or characterisation in this film. All the characters are shallow one dimensional husks who are as lifeless and devoid of emotion as the script. The script fails to humanise the characters, while the audio is poorly mixed and dialogue often sounds muddy and near indecipherable.
The camera work is no better as there's very few instances where its not shaking or moving about. Ever heard of a tripod? It's even worse during the battle scenes, and while yes I realise shaky cam is a technique used, it's not really a technique that's utilised here because the whole movie practically has shaky cam to one degree or another. On top of that the cinematography is poorly executed, often with unnecessary close ups or odd angles being chosen. There's a number of instances where things that shouldn't be out of focus are. Again, this can be an effective technique, but the poor camerawork elsewhere lends me to believe it's just crappy filming.
It looks gritty and authentic, which is almost all the movie has going for it. Aside from some entertainment from the longer battle scenes. Those in the first half of the movie are very brief and devoid of any emotion or intensity. Showing a gun battle just from long distance doesn't draw the viewer in or present a sense of danger.
In all it was a poor quality production, which led to a poor quality film.
Tell Your Friends