Afghan Luke

Is this movie worth seeing? It might be. It helps us to understand what our people are going through in a war that doesn't meet any of the traditional definitions. Mateen gives Luke an important quote which essentially means "There are no enemies. Only future allies." The reverse is also true.

And the people are poor and have to do what it takes to get by. Someone is making billions from the drugs, but not these people, and they resent being told what to do by outsiders.

This isn't a comedy, but for those who prefer comedy, there's just enough to make the movie tolerable. The quirky characters are enjoyable. Mateen, who is mostly comic relief, has a chance to be more than that when he experiences a tragedy.

It's not exactly family friendly, with numerous instances of the sound going out and a character's mouth blurred, middle fingers blurred (I assume), and the reality of war. For a movie about war, though, this is not that violent. I actually saw the fourth "Rambo" movie the day I saw this, and that was far worse.

It's not a classic, but maybe if you like war, it's something worth seeing.

(2011) Afghan Luke DRAMA

Canadian freelance reporter/ journalist, Luke Benning (Nick Stahl) thinks he has witnessed from a distance a well renown Canadian sniper cutting a finger from each of his kills while fighting in Afghanistan. And upon going back to Canada, he tries to get it published, but with no avail he ends up getting fired for wanting to pursue it. So he decides to go back to Afghanistan to that exact same location where it all happened so that he can physically check on the bodies himself. From looking at the big picture, to make it a goal to convict a single person of war crimes, for something as trivial as checking up on people who're already dead and buried, you would've think that would have to be the least of his problems. I still have know idea why that is so important when they're worst things that happened in the war of Afghanistan, such as unreported sexual assaults of women in the military (The Invisible War), freelance shootings by covert operations and then cover up (Dirty Wars), and torture tactics at Guantanamo Bay, road side bombs, Taliban extremists targeting foreigners and Taliban extremists using children as martyrs, and I can go on forever. The other confusing aspect of this movie is the fact that viewers don't have any sense what this movie is about, is it about the reunification of Afghanistan people, the fact that they sell pot to make a living when their is nothing else, or to produce proper sanitation even though Taliban extremists also target foreign aid workers. This movie narrow mindedly addresses a small little problem out of something bigger. And as a result of them doing that, it kind of portray Luke Benning as an annoying douche.

There is something in this film that brings out a visceral negative reaction from some reviewers. Perhaps it was not quite PC enough, or it offends a nationality or group. What is certain is this film is much better than the detractors portray.

The story follows Luke, a photojournalist, who thinks he's stumbled upon war atrocities committed by a Canadian sniper team. When his story is buried by his news service, he is compelled to return to Afghanistan with his friend Tom, who has other ambitions, to find out the truth. Luke soon finds out that the truth is hard to come by. As Elita (Pascale Hutton) tells him, "you try to make sense of this place, a place that makes no sense."

Just as in war there are parts in the story where nothing much is happening, then crazy people and crazy things happen, then all hell breaks loose. Bombs explode, people die, and you're left with many questions but not everything is answered. This is very much a war film, but it's no "action movie." It's no Battleship or G.I. Joe: Retaliation. You never know for sure who is a friend or who is the enemy. As Luke says "it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys, until they try to kill you." This is the essence of any insurgency, like Afghanistan.

The negative reviewers fault the film for some technical errors, like having four man sniper teams when they're usually two man teams, and then giving it 1 star. That's like slamming Apocalypse Now for having surf boards on Army helicopters or having Russian roulette in The Deer Hunter. Sure, there are no strip clubs on the Army bases in Afghanistan, but these few lapses can easily be overlooked for the true theme of the film. That war is nuts, and you have to be kind of nuts to be there.

The acting was very good, both the westerners and the Afghans. The movie was shot in Canada with excellent cinematography on a low budget, but it's easy to believe that this was shot on location. The country looks just as bleak and barren and occasionally beautiful as you've seen on the news reports. The action sequences are well done, it definitely feels like you're in the middle of a firefight when the bullets start flying.

What is certain is this movie deserves more serious consideration than it received. Maybe it's too soon, or maybe some object to a negative story about Canadian soldiers. It is definitely worth seeing and it's much better than the less than 5 out of 10 stars rating it has received on IMDb. See it for yourself, and there's a good chance you'll agree.

I know this is fiction, but if you're going to have a movie embedded within an historical context, at least attempt to make that context somewhat accurate, or at least believable to anyone with even a limited knowledge of the event/events. I had to turn this off after 15 minutes there were so many inaccuracies.

The two things that did seem accurate.

1. It looked like it could be Afghanistan.

2. His guide was getting high.

Not accurate;

1. Snipers are not in four-man teams firing from moving vehicles. 2. There are no tent-bars in Afghanistan, much less those with dancing white women. Alcohol is against the law, and while I am sure that alcohol is smuggled in, it's abuse is not flaunted because it is illegal. 3. What newspaper has ever suppressed a story that denigrates soldiers?

Answer... none. The typical tact is to exaggerate every infraction and try to instigate it into some Muslim outrage and retaliation.

Journalist Luke (Nick Stahl) believes he witnessed a Canadian soldier (a sniper known as Freddy Krueger) cutting off the fingers of a dead Taliban fighter as a trophy and feels this is a crime. No one believes him when he is back at the newspaper in Canada. He feels he must return to Afghanistan and get evidence.

The is a good story, simple and easy to follow. The acting performances and dialogues were spot on, but it was the photography that held me. It was extremely good. The movie was not shot in Afghanistan , but somewhere in Canada and the cinematography was fantastic. How did they do that? Kudos.

His friend Tom (Nicholas Wright) goes with him but is more interested in the high quality of drugs there. His one-time guide, called a fixer, Mateen (Stephan Lobo) constantly changes sides and says something like: Your enemy today is your future ally. And, we witness a War Lord who wants to be a music producer. There is some humor in these sub plots.

This is a different type of war story. Luke is on a mission to find the burial place where the Taliban fighters were shot. Although Luke had been in Afghanistan many times before, he is discovering that things have changed and is now more dangerous and the tension is higher as no one can suspect what will happen next.

This is a film most won't see because the actors are unknown and has a low budget, hence not much promotion. But, if the cinematography held me maybe it will hold you too and the story is a good one.

I know you are probably thinking you know the outcome of Luke's mission, but you don't. However, if you do know the outcome, book yourself on the Psychic tour. You will make a lot of money. The outcome is really good. HA! And, yes, I am ready for a sequel. (7/10)

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Yes, many f-bombs.