A silly colonialist wet dream wrongly marketed as an anti-war film

Rating: 3/10 (16 January 2018)

An anti-war film would hardly restrict its range of viewpoints to "good" versus "bad" soldiers because intelligent filmmakers understand that the purpose of being a soldier is morally tainted to begin with. There are notable exceptions to this, e.g. revisionist westerns such as "Soldier Blue" (1970) but generally speaking, in the 21st century, a film that wants to be labelled antibellicist would feature victims' and civilians' viewpoints at least as much as those of the actual military. Or at least (and I should say most importantly) it would clarify that there can hardly be such thing as a good soldier in modern warfare.
And the reader needs to ask themselves an honest question: does the villain die like a true villain would nine times out of ten in real life, i.e. like a psychopath or a sleazy coward, or does he die like a hero, fighting until the end? Obviously the latter. Watching Stephen Lang's character engaging the main characters in such epic single-handed fight, neither fleeing nor surrendering, made me think that the people behind this film don't dislike the character at all--they just regret the choices he happens to make. Almost as though he ended up in the wrong side of morality by chance or mistake. And that's why this is not an anti-war film.
Other than that, there's some funny blue people living in trees and some utterly implausible and obviously computer-animated imagery. Overall, I have to call this silly. No better adjective comes to mind.