User reviews

You get so many action movies nowadays following familiar formulas that when you watch one of them you know that, just when the good guy is about to be overcome by an overmatching enemy force, the backup arrives and saves him. The formula desensitizes you.

But when a movie tries to be based on a real story, the good guys may not come. They do not come in an hour; they do not come in a day; and if they come, they are not invincible. Real problems do not follow formulas. Real life is sobering in its horror.

Lone Survivor does not have a very original or interesting premise for an action movie. An assassination mission goes wrong. However, the quality of the cinematography, solid acting and good action is what makes this a good action film.

Not a single actor phones it in. Everyone is trying to do their best. The film is also gorgeous. The Afghanistan these guys are in is fake because the entire movie was shot in the United States, but it looks authentic and breathtaking.

The action is raw and graphic. Not in guts-on-the-floor kind of way, but falling-down-a-cliff-side kind of way. Again, you can feel the effort put in. Broken ribs and punctured lungs were involved in the making of this movie.

There is one giant nasty pink elephant in the room and that's the fact that the main event at the centre of this movie's plot is bogus. Without spoiling too much, a crucial decision is made by these supposed Navy SEAL's and there is just no way this is how that situation played out. Therefore, the story is probably a lie.

There is another issue: this mission with its predetermined ending is all there is to the story. No backgrounds are given for the characters, no events other than this mission, and there is barely any examination of their relationships with one another. I remember as a little kid, I wrote a story about an imaginary military mission. I abandoned it because I realised that it can never be that interesting to read because the range of the story is too small. This film is like that. What's worse, the title of this film gives away the ending.

But it is a testament to Lone Survivor's quality that, even though it gives almost no background information about the characters, it still manages to make you care about them. And even with the weight of a potential lie at the centre of its plot, the film still manages to be such an interesting watch.

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.

If you read the book and heard the interviews with the actual "lone survivor" you know that this movie got as close to the real events as possible. The 4 actors really gave it their all. Beginning long before shooting when they started their training so they would look realistic. This movie is also the most visceral experience since "Saving Private Ryan". There were falls in this movie that actually hurt more just watching than when I broke my foot 2 years ago. And in the making of you see that crazy stunt people actually did those falls, supposedly without dying. It's of course impossible to spoil this movie given it's title but it's important to note that the guy who helped him risked his whole village for "The Americans" Safety. And he didn't think twice about it. Sometimes we forget that not all of them are Taliban. After all is said and done this is a must see if there ever was one.

The movie is not easy to watch. Right at the beginning you'll some training "videos" (more like footage) from the real people that are depicted in this movie. But it will be apparent a couple of moments later, that there is a lot of Death to follow. It's almost a case of what can go wrong will go wrong. And while there are a lot of other outcomes that this could've taken, decisions had been made, consequences had to be taken (upon).

What really gets you though are not some clichés about soldiers (and I think this stays as much as possible away from them), but the fact, that this feels as real as it can be, without you actually being in a war. Mark Wahlberg and the other actors have to go through a lot, when ... well you know what hits the fence. And it does hit pretty hard. Not for anyone squeamish, this is fraught with tension ...

A truly brutal and gripping cinematic experience, Lone Survivor may be brazenly gung-ho and jingoistic, not to mention somewhat anti-climactic, but it delivers a metric tonne of thrills and contains one of the most intense and bloodiest gun fights I've ever seen in a film. It might stretch the suspension of disbelief a little too much at times, with our heroes surviving not 1 but fatal-looking cliff falls, but the excitement comes from the fact that it puts you right in the action, and you feel everything. Every bullet, every kick, every punch and every single thing the protagonist crash into. It's a bleak as Hell depiction of the savagery of war and just how strong the will to survive truly is. It's not a masterpiece, and many movies have been made with a more complex and compelling message on war, but for its sheer amount of heart-pounding action, scenes, it's definitely worth at least one watch.

Lone Survivor (2013)

A more-or-less accurate depiction of four highly capable SEAL soldiers dropped into enemy territory in Afghanistan. They were then discovered and attacked by dozens of area Taliban. The recreation is riveting, disturbing in its intensity, and eye-opening. Whatever you feel about the war there, or even about soldiers killing other soldiers, you end up admiring the sheer abilities of these fit, smart, determined men.

And only one survives (this is told in the title). So you go into it knowing it will end badly, and also that one of them (probably Mark Wahlberg, the biggest name here) will make it. If the fighting, which makes up most of the movie in the center core of it, is seemingly endless, that's part of the point. But when it shifts to a local village near the end the tale has another kind of intensity, and a welcome change.

This is straight up action material. It lacks even the layers that other movies with similar settings add (see "The Hurt Locker" for one example). But in a way that makes this distinctive. It moves in linear fashion through time, through the events, and so you barrel along without mental complication to the end. It forces everything on the action, and the realistic portrayal of the unbelievable hardship and pain, and death, that comes along the way.

Check out the overly-long Wikipedia page on this movie for lots of facts about production, and about the liberties they took with the facts. Or just watch the movie knowing that there are the usual permitted changes that dramatization requires. Even as pure fiction the movie has enough kinetic and heroic acts to succeed on its own terms.

Greetings from Lithuania.

I read some reviews about "Lone Survivor" where it was mentioned alongside to a "Saving Private Ryan" - you can throw a rock at me if this comes close to "Saving Private Ryan" which is beyond many moons and seas compared to "Lone Survivor".

"Lone Survivor" is good action movie, with some heroic stuff (they definitely couldn't avoid that...), and i know that it's based on real events, thats why i'm giving it 8, because many of things displayed in picture were sadly true, many, but definitely not all. When someone is being killed in this movie (exept for bad guys from Taliban), it's shown in a similar way as Jim Caviezel aka.Jesus was suffering in "The Passion of the Christ" - only true American heroes die like that, not afghans who are more or less just a meat between bullets and Americans in this movie.

Overall, i liked this action picture, the sound design and sound editing were really top notch (no wonder it got 2 Oscar nominations) - you can hear every detail in the forest, every breaking bone (ye, the fall from cliffs scene was gripping). Actors were just OK, nothing special. The gunfight was terrific at least in the beginning of battle, truly terrific sound design and camera work. Later, well, when bad guys were shooting with RPG's every 2 min to our heroes, and they were suffering real good but still were able to do some heroic stuff, the tension was kinda lost.

Overall, 8/10 for me because of good production values and for that it is based on real events.

The whole movie is fiction, not a single bullet was fired from Marcus Luttrell, he was found with all 11 mags full of ammo, he abandoned his squad mates and fleed then lied and make money off the deaths of his fallen squadmates. Only one of them had combat experience.

I honestly do not understand the negative reviews on this film. Man this is literally the movie that inspired me to join the military and also to be a navy seal. The beginning can bore a little I let any viewer that i introduce to the film know that you need to see it before the good parts start. Now I understand some things are exaggerated but from the book its mostly accurate info just with scenes to add more drama and action. The actors are amazing and its such a good war scene. Overall in my opinion this is a perfect war movie from start to finish. I still hold back tears when they show the ending. Ive watched this movie about 200 times (no exaggeration) for a reason. Also the reason mark wahlberg is my favorite actor.

Something just doesn't click with Peter Berg's Lone Survivor.

It seems empty, a hollow movie that should have been filled in with care and concern for its main characters. Instead, more time is devoted to combat sequences—which are admittedly well done—than to any sort of character development.

Lone Survivor tells the true story of Marcus Luttrell, the sole survivor of a failed Navy SEAL mission, "Operation Red Wings" in the mountains of Afghanistan in 2008. Mark Wahlberg plays Luttrell convincingly, but his character isn't given much to work with. He has no solid back story, so the audience can't really connect with a familial side of him. Instead, all we know of Marcus is his love for his fellow soldiers, and we can cheer him on as a leader and warrior.

Berg (who directed and co-wrote) takes his time getting to the actual battle, which comes as the result of a bungled covert surveillance/capture-or-kill mission. Luttrell and three other SEALs have their location given away and are soon surrounded by Taliban fighters. This is where Lone Survivor is at its best: the action sequences are well-staged, compelling, and easy to follow, despite a rapidly moving camera and tricky terrain. Once the action begins, it rarely lets up.

However, the film's first forty-five minutes or so are combat-free, and one would think Berg would invest this time into developing characters and making the audience really feel the sense that these men have something at home worth fighting for. However, he chooses to attempt this through forced dialog (one character explains to his significant other back home that he has to "make that money" or something of the sort) and rather bland situations. By the time the combat begins, we really only care about the bond forged between our four heroes, and we can only care as much as for anyone we just met a half hour before.

By titling the film Lone Survivor, we expect casualties. We know that only one man is making it out of this mission alive, and Berg could have framed the looming sense of dread a bit better. Instead, he prefers long, drawn-out deaths, which seem somewhat sadistic at times. I understand that war is all hell, and that in a real-life setting, there's no cut-away from the harsh brutalities of death. But one SEAL's death in particular seems like cinematic overkill. In other cases, Berg eschews the generally gritty look of the film for fog-filtered, picturesque, slow-motion deaths which come across as stagy and shallow.

Lone Survivor is a well-made war movie, albeit one without a clear message. It is a simple retelling of facts, too true to them at points and too dramatized at others. It is no Black Hawk Down, or even The Hurt Locker. Nonetheless, its actors turn in realistic performances in their depictions of soldiers (Ben Foster and Emile Hirsch are especially good) in a film that ultimately keeps its audience at arm's length from them, emotionally speaking.

The most powerful aspects of Lone Survivor are its bookend montages of footage of the real SEALs involved in Operation Red Wings. I wonder if it would have been a better decision to have simply produced a documentary with the real Marcus Luttrell chronicling his amazing journey. It may have paid better tribute to the brave men involved in the battle than Peter Berg's Lone Survivor.

Based on the nonfiction book of the same name & set during the War in Afghanistan, Lone Survivor tries to recreate the US Navy SEALs' Operation Red Wings, a failed mission in which a survey team of 4 soldiers were tasked to locate the Taliban leader, Ahmad Shah. And even though it impresses in parts & has a lot in it to evoke the patriotic response from its target audience (which is American viewers obviously), Lone Survivor ends up going completely overboard in dramatizing the true events & suffers from the very clichés that most films of its genre find themselves trapped in.

What's right with this film is Peter Berg's dynamic direction, tense atmosphere, superb pacing, intense battle sequences, precision use of sound, music & relatively fine performances from its star cast who were actually capable of delivering more than what ended up being in the final print. What's wrong with it, however, is its lack of emotional depth or character development, sometimes going overly dramatic than required and too much reliance on action to push its story forward which ultimately crosses the fine line between exploration & exploitation to revel in the latter.

On an overall scale, Lone Survivor has nothing new to offer compared to what other films of this genre have already given us so far. Yes, it's brutal. Yes, it looks realistic to some extent. Yes, the battle sequences are disturbing, graphic &, in my opinion, explosively entertaining as well. But, there is also no denying that its characters remain hollow throughout its runtime, the story or characters aren't explored enough for us to invest our emotions in & all in all, this war drama is nothing less or more than a mere propaganda film, unfortunately.

The expectations where set to high with that line, it's a good film, great acting. I read the book prior to seeing the move, perhaps that was my biggest problem with this show. More character development would have made the movie more interesting. Narrative dialog would have helped fill in the blanks. The movie see end like a long 2 hour action sequence. There is more to operation read wings then was described here. This story could have been in the same class as Saving Private Ryan but it had none of the elements that made that show great. The action scenes where fantastic. The realism was top notch. The acting was a 10 star performance. The story was empty.

This movie has it all. You get to see how the seals operate, and how unbelievably good they are at what they do! I still remember watching this for the first time, after the movie I ran downstairs to google everything about it. I soon realised a lot of this is actually true, apart from some scenes made for dramatic reasons. I recommend looking at some of Luttrells interviews. They will give u a lot of insight to this amazing movie. Again, this is a must watch if ur into military stuff. Even the music from steve jablonsky is absolutely spot on. I must say I find the 7,5 rating strange, I rate this 10/10 every day of the week!

"Lone Survivor" is a brutal, graphic, combat movie. It depicts US Navy SEALs fighting against Taliban in Afghanistan in 2007. It is based on Marcus Luttrell's book of the same title. There is very little plot. The movie opens with scenes of Navy SEALs undergoing rigorous training. Trainees are shown lying down under oncoming ocean waves, being dunked in water so that they cannot breathe, doing pushups, etc.

After this brief segment, the film sets up each SEAL team member. They are shown to be lovable guys who have families back home whom they cherish and who cherish them. One SEAL wants to buy his fiancée an Arabian horse. Another is concerned about his wife's redecorating in a color called "honeydew." Given Marcus Luttrell's fame and the title of the movie, most people will know how this movie ends. That knowledge gives these scenes that much more poignancy, but also a sense of the director manipulating the audience. We know what's coming, and we know why the director included these scenes.

The SEALs are assigned to assassinate Taliban commander Ahmad Shah. They are shown with all their gear, penetrating a steep mountain covered with pines and strewn with boulders. They see their target, and are ready to carry out their mission. They are discovered by three Afghan goat herders. They consider killing the goat herders, but Luttrell advises against it. If they kill the goat herders, they will be condemned on CNN as bestial Americans who assassinate Afghan civilians. Immediately after the soldiers release the goat herders, the goat herders inform the Taliban of their location. They Taliban quickly surround, outnumber, and begin firing on the four SEALs.

The firefight is depicted in graphic, brutal, realistic images. A SEAL is shown aiming his weapon, firing, and a Taliban's turbaned head explodes into a squirting fountain of red liquid. Bullets penetrate flesh and blood and gore ooze out. This gunfight is lengthy and tense. I have to ask how it will affect viewers. Will viewers want to get a gun and make someone's head explode? Yes, our media is saturated with violence. Is that a good thing? Have we given up even asking this question?

The film never addresses the larger questions at play, and by not addressing them, they become all the louder. What are we doing in Afghanistan? How do we win in Afghanistan? Are we wasting the lives of fine, patriotic Americans and other allied men and women in uniform? Not to mention the polio workers, doctors and other aid workers the Taliban murders in Afghanistan?

How about the rules of engagement? If we are at war in Afghanistan, then why aren't we acting as if we are at war? Should the goat herders not have been immediately killed, thus possibly saving many soldiers' lives and leading to a successful mission – the death or capture of Ahmad Shah? If soldiers are forced to conduct a war while wearing kid gloves, how can they be expected to win? What if we had imposed these rules of engagement on our soldiers during WW II? Would they have been able to win that war? Would the swastika not still be flying in Europe as we engaged in endless talks with our "partners for peace"?

Again, none of this is discussed in the film, making the discussion all the louder inside the viewer's head. In fact there was some controversy when CNN's Jake Tapper asked Marcus Luttrell about the "Senseless" deaths depicted in the film. Marcus Luttrell asserted that no, the deaths depicted in the film were not senseless. Americans are asking this, though. What are we doing in Afghanistan?

'Lone Survivor' provides an accurate and effective portrayal of a group of soldiers on a mission to kill the leader of the Taliban. It makes for fascinating and, as you would expect, highly suspenseful viewing. The stripped back approach works to the films benefit, with the minimalistic editing and special effects contributing to the film's raw and real feeling.

Mark Wahlberg suits his character well and delivers a solid performance throughout, though I do think so more character development was necessary as very little is known of any of the characters we follow in the film. Having said that, 'Lone Survivor' is successful in doing what it sets out to do - telling a fascinating true story in the most accurate and effective way.

First things first, all those other commercial movies have some learning to do , Although this might make some business, at least Peter Berg , justifies the characters with utmost respect .

This movie makes you live the atrocious week in the life of Chosen SEAL members , You think along with them , when they have to make the toughest decision which will eventually decide whether they live / die.

As Marcus mentioned in one of the interviews , Sitting in front of a screen , enjoying the pleasures of life, its easier to comment on what had to be done, But what these guys did, is just IMPOSSIBLE,

F*** everything else, these guys are Real Heroes, I wish I could shake hands with Marcus just once in my lifetime, ( I am from India BTW ) ,

Do not miss this one , this movie moved me .

Movies should entertain, enlighten, or inspire. "Lone Survivor" does all three in measured doses. Special Forces (including Delta, Green Beret, UDT, LRRP et.al.) soldiers form a bond far stronger than even marriage-check. UDT Training is SO intense, many recruits actually have to be revived from near death-check. Special Ops must follow ROE, and not kill unless in imminent danger- check. Not ALL Afghans are bad-check. When surrounded, Navy Seals kill a lot of enemies-check. Not much new there. Gut-wrenching suspense- check. Lots of big explosions, check, check, CHECK! Entertaining-yes!

That the actors and director wanted this movie SO MUCH many took a pay cut to do so explains why it was made in the first place, when there have been so many similar films with more compelling story lines in recent years. I liked it, but I liked Back Hawn Down, and Zero Dark Thirty far more.

Lone Survivor entertains at an 8, enlightens at a 5, and inspires at a level that depends solely upon your individual patriotism. Wrap yourself in Old Glory and give it a 10, if you like.