taylorsrout
Joined Feb 2019
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews4
taylorsrout's rating
Most war-genre indies suffer from low budget and a lot of them try to get around it by separating a couple of guys from a unit and giving them a gutsy mission. This usually means you end up with three guys in the woods prattling on for two hours.
This film - predictably - separates a few guys from their platoon, but it's a plot point, not a production necessity. Dialogue is riveting, story is excellent, pacing good, all in all a rare gem among a field of stones. Worth a watch.
This film - predictably - separates a few guys from their platoon, but it's a plot point, not a production necessity. Dialogue is riveting, story is excellent, pacing good, all in all a rare gem among a field of stones. Worth a watch.
Why I waited this long to watch this film I'll never know. Leo's first Oscar? Of course it's going to be brilliant. I wasn't disappointed.
One star knocked off for heavy-handed tropes pandering to native populations, but that's just to avoid giving it a 10, which no film deserves.
One star knocked off for heavy-handed tropes pandering to native populations, but that's just to avoid giving it a 10, which no film deserves.
I love a good war flick so I tend to forgive budget issues, which this one clearly had. It suffers mostly from being the "three guys stuck in the wilderness" trope that lets the producers avoid expansive scenes they don't have the budget for, but, as those films tend to do, this one bogs down real quick.