The "LONE SURVIVOR" movie
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
The latter part of the movie was a bit half baked, missing lots of details re: the village, Marcus' journey there, and other details. Time constraints I reckon. A read of the book would be a good compliment to the film if one hasn't read it.
Joined
·
5,799 Posts
"The Lone Survivor".......does that refer to the guys in the movie......or in the audience........? :think
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
I really enjoyed the movie and recommend it
Adam made good points. The end was fuzzy. A read of the book would be a great complement to evaluating how close the movie depicts reality. One may also want to read Victory Point which contests some of Marcus Luttrell's telling. Personally, I see Luttrell as an absolute hero and the differences aren't attempts to obfuscate, but differences in perspective.
Some minor inaccuracies off the top of my head I think I saw in the movie:
-The SEALs used an EMBTR as their primary radio vs. the radio depicted in the movie.
-The helmets they initially wore on the mission were non ballistic (they have holes in the top for ventilation). That doesn't seem right. For training they'd be fine but operational? I think not.
-When they were debating what to do with the shepherds, they didn't consider taking them with them. On the other hand they didn't necessarily show how difficult mountainous terrain is and leading tied prisoners through that type of terrain might haven't have been an option as well as the risk that they would yell for help or compromise them in some other way.
-The death of Michael Murphy wasn't depicted as described by Luttrell in a recent interview.
-Rangers rescued Luttrell in reality. Their uniforms, helmets & body armor weren't accurate for 2005.
-The Air Force Pavehawk that eventually rescued Luttrell made a very precarious landing on the edge of a cliff.
-The surviving SEALs didn't watch the QRF get shot down.
-The Spectre didn't provide support during the day.
One realistically depicted detail was the lack of use of automatic fire by the SEALs. I REALLY enjoyed that attention to detail because most military movies fail in this area.
The other interesting detail is real world considerations impact your support as was depicted when the Apaches had to support other troops in combat.
Adam made good points. The end was fuzzy. A read of the book would be a great complement to evaluating how close the movie depicts reality. One may also want to read Victory Point which contests some of Marcus Luttrell's telling. Personally, I see Luttrell as an absolute hero and the differences aren't attempts to obfuscate, but differences in perspective.
Some minor inaccuracies off the top of my head I think I saw in the movie:
-The SEALs used an EMBTR as their primary radio vs. the radio depicted in the movie.
-The helmets they initially wore on the mission were non ballistic (they have holes in the top for ventilation). That doesn't seem right. For training they'd be fine but operational? I think not.
-When they were debating what to do with the shepherds, they didn't consider taking them with them. On the other hand they didn't necessarily show how difficult mountainous terrain is and leading tied prisoners through that type of terrain might haven't have been an option as well as the risk that they would yell for help or compromise them in some other way.
-The death of Michael Murphy wasn't depicted as described by Luttrell in a recent interview.
-Rangers rescued Luttrell in reality. Their uniforms, helmets & body armor weren't accurate for 2005.
-The Air Force Pavehawk that eventually rescued Luttrell made a very precarious landing on the edge of a cliff.
-The surviving SEALs didn't watch the QRF get shot down.
-The Spectre didn't provide support during the day.
One realistically depicted detail was the lack of use of automatic fire by the SEALs. I REALLY enjoyed that attention to detail because most military movies fail in this area.
The other interesting detail is real world considerations impact your support as was depicted when the Apaches had to support other troops in combat.
Joined
·
903 Posts
I really enjoyed the movie, especially for its sound teams ability to capture all the grotesque realities. I also second Rod on his observations, however I do believe they wore protecs and just RRV racks with their assault packs on the mission. Even the ranger batt CSAR team was photographed only wearing boonies as headgear and were later reprimanded by higher for not wearing body armor, even though they were out of water, in 100+ degree weather in the most severe terrain imaginable.
Joined
·
339 Posts
The bump helmets were accurate to what SEALs were using at the time. What bugs me is why they weren't wearing them. It would be a bit sensible to put them on when you're in rocky terrain and you could fall off a cliff and hit your head...
As to taking the shepherds with them, one did have a radio. If someone in the village noticed that three guys didn't come back after the regular amount of time, or if they were supposed to maintain radio contact periodically, someone might go out looking for them while assuming they were lost or something bad happened to them. More problems.
I thought the movie was alright. The suppressed rifles sounded right, they all fired single shots, and overall it was a good "based on" action movie.
I didn't like the fact that they didn't really show us anything about how badass the SEALs were supposed to be. They show us a compilation of their training, and I guess the audience is supposed to assume they are all the perfect warriors. I haven't read the book, but there could have been a 10-15 minute segment at the beginning of them in Iraq of a sniper mission, or a raid, or something to show how professional and efficient the SEALs are.
The ending was a bit anti-climactic. It just seemed a little too Hollywood for me.
I don't really understand why they were pushing dirt in their wounds. Why wouldn't they have med kits?
Also, the falling scenes were weird and almost comical due to how drawn out they were, and with all the jump cuts.
Joined
·
1,365 Posts
Having watched the film two weeks back I would agree the end of the story seemed a little rushed....I haven't read the book yet but I certainly shall as soon as I can get myself a copy.
There may well have been moments while Mr Luttrell was writing the story that he had to guess the timing & actions of events during the action ,not only his own but the other members as well....I would accept that as being normal considering the situation....heat of battle etc.
I did find it shocking to say the least that in this high tech age the support and comms was so poor......as for the goat herders....if I were in the same position....I think I would have taken the most ablest one along as insurance and explain carefully to the other two that if the Taliban suddenly appeared they would be short one goat herder in the near future but he would be free to go once extracted....but....they probably had very good reason not to take any as I'm sure they would have thought through every scenario available to them.
Overall the story conveyed the true heroism of all the team not just the one & the bravery of the Afghans who protected Mr Luttrell from the Taliban which shows not all Afghans are under Taliban influence, I wonder what will happen to those Afghans once coaltion forces have left ?.
Which model helmet were they wearing or not as the case may be ?
Chelseaboy
There may well have been moments while Mr Luttrell was writing the story that he had to guess the timing & actions of events during the action ,not only his own but the other members as well....I would accept that as being normal considering the situation....heat of battle etc.
I did find it shocking to say the least that in this high tech age the support and comms was so poor......as for the goat herders....if I were in the same position....I think I would have taken the most ablest one along as insurance and explain carefully to the other two that if the Taliban suddenly appeared they would be short one goat herder in the near future but he would be free to go once extracted....but....they probably had very good reason not to take any as I'm sure they would have thought through every scenario available to them.
Overall the story conveyed the true heroism of all the team not just the one & the bravery of the Afghans who protected Mr Luttrell from the Taliban which shows not all Afghans are under Taliban influence, I wonder what will happen to those Afghans once coaltion forces have left ?.
Which model helmet were they wearing or not as the case may be ?
Chelseaboy
Joined
·
13,360 Posts
I saw the film on opening weekend.
I didn’t expect the film to be 100% accurate to the minute detail other than the fact it was based on a true story like the disclaimer notice at the beginning of the film.
I do agree the latter half of the film did feel somewhat rushed and incomplete in terms of the all the facts, but then again how much can you squeeze into a two hour film in terms of all details while compromising the facts/truth with Hollywood and the viewers while honoring those who’ve fallen?
The film reminds me of how I felt when I first saw BLACK HAWK DOWN, but LONE SURVIVOR delivers a more gut wrenching performance IMHO.
I didn’t expect the film to be 100% accurate to the minute detail other than the fact it was based on a true story like the disclaimer notice at the beginning of the film.
I do agree the latter half of the film did feel somewhat rushed and incomplete in terms of the all the facts, but then again how much can you squeeze into a two hour film in terms of all details while compromising the facts/truth with Hollywood and the viewers while honoring those who’ve fallen?
The film reminds me of how I felt when I first saw BLACK HAWK DOWN, but LONE SURVIVOR delivers a more gut wrenching performance IMHO.
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
I'm interested at getting to the bottom of the bump vs. ballistic helmet issue.
In all my discussions with SOF community members (primarily Army), Mogadishu made a huge impact on the community as some Delta members received head injuries while wearing bump helmets. This lesson may have not made the jump into the NSW community though the amount of cross work and the four years of operational experience would have provided many opportunities.
I'll put out some feelers through Brandon Webb and SOFREP.
Punisher 2-2 - interesting point about the backlash over the Ranger's kit.
In all my discussions with SOF community members (primarily Army), Mogadishu made a huge impact on the community as some Delta members received head injuries while wearing bump helmets. This lesson may have not made the jump into the NSW community though the amount of cross work and the four years of operational experience would have provided many opportunities.
I'll put out some feelers through Brandon Webb and SOFREP.
Punisher 2-2 - interesting point about the backlash over the Ranger's kit.
Joined
·
41,730 Posts
I saw it at the beginning of the week, thought it was pretty good. Apparently, Berg had to rush thru parts of the story to have time for the mission to be portrayed in detail. The opening lacked the focus and delivery of the prelude of The Kingdom , and seemed like any number of cable shows on Hell Week. They have only so much to work with, given the loss of three of the team, how much Marcus Luttrell could see in that difficult terrain, and all that he endured. From the insertion, to his being found by the villagers, is the best part of the movie.
I got the impression that the helmets were used for fast-roping in to rough terrain in darkness, and as a platform for the NODs. Switching to boonie hats indicated to me that they expected the mission to be reconnaissance, with no engagement. In stealthy movement in the wooded, mountainous ground, helmets would have some disadvantages.
As previously posted, there lingers the question of the bad comms situation, and of what reasons and/or conditions resulted in the lack of any communications support assets over the area.
If perhaps a bit less than it could have been, overall, a film not to be missed, for honoring brave men
I got the impression that the helmets were used for fast-roping in to rough terrain in darkness, and as a platform for the NODs. Switching to boonie hats indicated to me that they expected the mission to be reconnaissance, with no engagement. In stealthy movement in the wooded, mountainous ground, helmets would have some disadvantages.
As previously posted, there lingers the question of the bad comms situation, and of what reasons and/or conditions resulted in the lack of any communications support assets over the area.
If perhaps a bit less than it could have been, overall, a film not to be missed, for honoring brave men
Joined
·
7,180 Posts
I saw the movie too, I'm not gonna go into the whole gear debate. There was one thing that stood out for me, and that was the way they depicted their physical ordeals and their deaths, which was really getting to me.
I watch really gory brutal movies and I am really not easily phased, but this was really something different. It might be due to the fact that it was a small group of people so it was easier to "connect" in a way to them and see them all go through it (and knowing it really happend somewhat close to what was shown).
It was really hard to see. Even when you compare it to Black Hawk Down, that didn't get to me just as much.
Edit: I have read the book twice before seeing the movie, so I can see how some of the elements might have appeared to be rushed, particulary the beginning of the book vs the beginning of the movie.
I watch really gory brutal movies and I am really not easily phased, but this was really something different. It might be due to the fact that it was a small group of people so it was easier to "connect" in a way to them and see them all go through it (and knowing it really happend somewhat close to what was shown).
It was really hard to see. Even when you compare it to Black Hawk Down, that didn't get to me just as much.
Edit: I have read the book twice before seeing the movie, so I can see how some of the elements might have appeared to be rushed, particulary the beginning of the book vs the beginning of the movie.
Joined
·
7,180 Posts
I have to respectfully disagree, I didn't feel a second like it was comical at all. Maybe that's because I once fell down about 100 feet of mountain side (roughly the same angle) myself, it feels alot longer and it hurts like f($k, and nobody was shooting at me and there were less rocks.
It hurt me just watching it.
Joined
·
1,606 Posts
I watched this by myself about 2 weeks ago and enjoyed it greatly. Tonight I watched the movie with my wife. During the first few moments of combat up to the first fall over the cliff, my wife was having a hard time watching it. She had even almost decided to stop watching the movie. It was really that intense for her as she had connected with the story. After the movie I was discussing the real life events and interviews with Marcus and family members of the fallen. I was getting choked up discussing this with her. After my years of service and various tours I sometimes get emotional about such things. I still can not watch a military funeral wether it is real or in a movie. I usually lose it once the flag is presented to the loved one. Just can't do it. During our discussion neither my wife nor I could fathom those in the US that spit on and look down upon any soldier after so few have given so much for the many. How can anyone not look upon people such as Marcus Luttrel and his team mates and not see a hero?
Joined
·
7,180 Posts
It's a difficult topic really, but I can understand your sentiment. I can't understand it either, I mean even if you're against the war, if you're against the politics.
So at the most basic level a fallen soldier is a person who died doing their job, so in my opinion, even if you don't respect the profession, everybody deserves the simple respect of giving their life in the line of their service whichever that may be.
Politics and personal beliefs play a large role. Some are just opposed to the idea of war and it's always the line level people that take the brunt of that opposition. Partisan politics influence those beliefs, see the vilification of Chris Kyle by some groups or the portrayal of Erik Prince as either a hard working entrepreneur plugging inefficiencies or a profiteering war monger depending on which side of the line your politics fall on. People's personal beliefs shape the perceptions but all too often they are more influenced by groups with self serving agendas like garnering more votes.
It's unfortunate many can't separate the people from the position they are put in. Even if you don't agree with the legitimacy of a particular armed conflict, there is room to appreciate the sacrifices people have to make during those conflicts.
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
