Jarhead 3: The Siege

This isn't a film, it's a stupid laddish bullet-fest and nothing more. Guns, guns, and more guns, unleashing a million rounds, making lots of noise, and completely bombing.

I often wondered why some actually not bad or even serious movies would insert a totally unnecessary cast, a comic-relief like jerk in the screenplays to completely ridicule and ruin them. The worst outcome is putting such clown figures in an action movie. We had seen Bruce Lee's martial art Kung-Fu movies stupidly arranged such totally unnecessary and inappropriate role and degenerated those supposedly suspenseful action movies into not quite serious enough ones. This "Jarhed 3" was another victim by such stupid arrangement in its screenplay, allowing a totally unnecessary character, Blake, played by the annoying Filipino American, Dante Basco, to mess up with and almost ruined it soon as this jerk-like guy holding a camcorder, appeared on the screen.

I am not so sure about the connections between the screenplay writer(s), the director, or even the executive producer(s) with Dante Basco, but one thing I could definitely assure is this sore-thumb like character completely torpedoed this, by general standard, not too bad, albeit quite serious action TV movie. Of course, there are many flaws and loopholes inherited from the screenplay's scenario and plot, but except this jerk-like stand-alone Blake character, all the other players did their jobs quite seriously. The clown character in a serious U.S. Embassy is not just possible but unthinkable, that stupid arrangement simply and totally ruined the believability of this movie, even there were many settings, furniture, bullet-proof windows and glasses were so vividly and realistically destroyed.

The Chinese got an old saying to describe such inappropriate careless arrangement that doomed the outcome: "A whole well-prepared pot of porridge is ruin by just one piece of small rat dropping", Blake/Dante Basco, is indeed that piece of rat dropping.

This movie was bad on so many levels.

1. unrealistic, the "freedom fighters standing in mid open places, with 5 guns pointing and hooting at them and they don't get hit, after like 100 bullets go past them, and if they had missed at least they would hit the people behind with how center clustered they stood. as well as standing in the middle of a hallway, no cover. not hit once, not before you give the "guy we don't trust" a gun to prove himself, then they drop like flies.

2. When the movie uses the name jar head 3... claiming to be a sort of sequel down the genre.. At least follow the premise from the other movies. Jarhead 1, damn good movie, you follow the protagonist, you get to experience what he feels and how he perceived things, you are in the story, good job! Jarhead 2. Little worse than the first but stile decent enough for entertainment, it follows somewhat the lines of the original.. then you got this thing.... Just going thru all the action movie stereotypes, just as if the director had a list in front of him that he had to check every box on as he made the movie... At least the two first movies tried to be realistic, opposed to just pure classical action movie setup, that no one wants anymore.

3. The comic relief, the douche bag, and the black hype up guy, and the annoying guy who are useless... WHY ALL THESE STEREOTYPES? seems like the director, just check every box again...

4. The literal second the last guys die... the rescue comes in, nonchalantly, not even trying to secure the area in case more enemies comes in... I mean, if the rescuers, were so close, that the second the propane tank had exploded and the dust settled, they could walk in... then one would expect they were within firring range to help shoot right? or at least lob a grenade.... So poorly made, in terms of realism.

5.the plot was weak...

Or is it Jars? No wait that is not what they mean right? Either you are as cluelesss about war in general like I pretend to be or you may find my joke distasteful. Hopefully you can forgive me. The movie itself that has nothing much in common with the original Jarhead movie (which I have to rewatch, but I remember liking a lot), is closer to the 13 hours movie. For better or worse.

But I do like Scott Adkins and if you are here for some action (shooting, war scenario and whatnot), you could do worse. The stunts and the action are decently done to say the least. Not much story, not much in character development - but I don't think anyone expected anything in that department! No pun intended ... solid overall, if you have low expectations.

Imagine a war movie without one single hand grenade. Unreal? Yep, Jarhead 3 is this movie. Boring characters, cliché story, zero creativity. I would have never imagined that I would say 'I prefer any Michael Bay movie instead of this' but here it is, I am saying it.