The usual gungho Hollywood schlock - cowboys and indians updated but no better

Rating: 4/10 (1 January 2015)

Another reviewer here on IMDb who says he is a former SEAL assures us that the depiction of the 'frogmen', from their unkempt appearance and painted weapons to their living quarters and ops room is almost 100pc accurate. Well, hallelujah and yippee!
He goes on to say that all SEALs and former SEALs have an eternal pride in fallen comrade who are never forgotten. Nothing wrong with that, in my book, but the circumstances in which they fell are often, as here, highly dubious and questionable. But more of that later. First to the film.
In the second decade of the 21st millennium filmmaking techniques and equipment have come on apace: hand-held cameras add rather spurious realism, make-up is more realistic, we can now simulated a chap having the back of his head blown off with amazing verisimilitude (as far as I know - I've never actually seen it happen in real life), and computer editing and computer graphics are a godsend.
But strip away all the modern equipment and techniques and this film was first made - and often since remade a hundred times - over 50 years ago: in those days the 'baddies' were what were then called 'red indians' and were slaughtered without ruth, and the 'goodies', the ones we were expected to cheer for, were the US army cavalry. Now the 'baddies' are the Taliban, who are slaughtered with ruth, and the 'goodies' are Navy SEALs, the 'frogmen'. And we're still expected to cheer.
True to the cliché, the indians/Taliban baddies are nasty cutthroats who are apparently prepared to die in their hundreds for no obviously good reason, whereas the US cavalry/SEAL goodies are made of true grit and although most of them die - except, of course, the film's main star - they die bravely. And Lone Survivor is true to the cliché. That there's less to the film than meets the eye - despite the former SEAL reviewer who claims it is almost 100pc accurate - because quite obvious when, as has to happen in a film of this kind, things start to go wrong.
The opening credits show us SEALs in training, in hard training, the sort wimps like you and I could never survive and we are then treated to an interminable number of minutes to the almost statutory 'bonding' scenes: virtually incomprehensible dialogue and loads of brotherly joshing which shows us that the well-trained killing machines 'care' about each other.
Yet they don't, or they don't according to Lone Survivor: at the first hint of trouble they fall out and bicker, can't decide what to do, the chain of command is ignored and generally set the scene for screwing things up.
There follows what is really nothing but an extended gunfight in which a great many Taliban get themselves killed - Lord, how stupid they are! - but our band of brothers soldier on and on and on, throwing themselves down rocky hillsides in an attempt to escape despite all being shot and wounded several times in multiple places.
Finally, the last act in the cliché: our star, by now the 'lone survivor', is taken into the care of a 'good' Indian/Afghani and cared for, and this chap and his villagers are so noble that they are prepared to lose their lives just to protect 'the American'. Well, pass the sickbag. The film ends with the US cavalry/Apache gunships riding in to rescue the film's main star in a scene in which a further several hundred indians/Taliban are slaughtered. Overall, this is the laziest of lazy filmmaking and offensive claptrap.
As for the politics of it all, here's a question: what right does the US think it has to invade a country such as Afghanistan? And why is it so surprised that 'the natives grow restless' and do all they can to kick out the invader? And why does the US expect the rest of the world to cheer on their gungho guntoting knuckleheaded idiots.
Were any part of the US actually to be invaded, you could bet your bottom dollar that the US 'natives' would resort to their armoury of weapons to try to kick out the invaders. So why the surprise when the Taliban does the same?
The final offence is, of course, that Lone Survivor was made in Hollywood to try to multiple the sums invested several times over as suburban nerds and geeks go along to their multiplex to wallow in bullshit. But then what's new. If you like the usual kind of gungho jingoistic crap, this film is for you. If you have read what I have to say and agree with me, give it a miss.