wcactusboy This movie was great and very accurate for the most part. There were some inaccuracies in the beginning and middle of the movie ,but they were very minor and did not bother me. However at the end of the movie, things got totally inaccurate. Don't want to say too much ,but the ending couple been much better.

cot-38335 Lone survivor It seems empty, a hollow movie that should have been filled in with care and concern for its main characters. Instead, more time is devoted to combat sequences-which are admittedly well done-than to any sort of character development.Lone Survivor tells the true story of Marcus Luttrell, the sole survivor of a failed Navy SEAL mission, "Operation Red Wings" in the mountains of Afghanistan in 2008. Mark Wahlberg plays Luttrell "convincingly", but his character isn't given much to work with. He has no solid back story, all we know of Marcus is his love for his fellow soldiers.Also the title being called lone survivor straight away tells us that this movie will be just like a call of duty story mission where all his friends die he is the only one left alive and he just barely survives, which ruins the movie because of how cliché and un-original the whole movie is. In the end the lone survivor was an uninteresting and really cliché film with no story involved, yes it was based on a true story but there was too much Hollywood magic in the film and was just a bad film.

dardsweglord The movie starts very promising. You get to know the team and what kind of mission they are facing, but the fact that almost the entire movie got spoiled in the movie title "Lone Survivor" is just sad. The title fits, but it ruins the whole movie. When for example the Apache escort gunships came, you knew something really bad was going to happen so that the two Navy Seals couldn't go home. The title also spoiled that the main character was going to be the only survivor of the four Seals that were sent on the mission.Making a 2-hour movie out of a non-fiction book, while trying to build characters, is tricky. In this case, I believe too much time was spent up front creating the characters, while too little focus was given to the ending."Lone Survivor" does not disappoint in its depiction of a group of Navy Seals who fight off scores of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. Confronted at the beginning of their mission with the dilemma of letting three goatherds go and risking the compromising of their mission or killing them - they let them go. The subsequent loss of all of the four Seals but one, Marcus Lutrell, and the killing of 16 of their comrades in a helicopter crash trying to rescue themOverall, I think the movie was still a good movie and it had its good and bad moments but movies aren't always perfect.

Gavin Purtell 'Lone Survivor' is a very well-made and fast paced war film. It helps that it's a true story out of Afghanistan and does a great job of setting the scene and characters in the first half hour, before putting you right in amongst the action for the final 90min. I really liked how some of the camerawork was frantic in the right moments and slow/steady in the other moments. Let me just say that when they 'descend' the hillside, you really feel it!Is 'Lone Survivor' as good as 'Saving Private Ryan'? That's debatable, but it's certainly better than 'Black Hawk Down' in my books, as far as modern war films go. There's no politics involved, just survival, and this has plenty of teeth-gritting moments! It helps that there's only really the four characters on their own in the wilderness - does a great job of showing the isolation.There's a fair bit of blood and violence, but nothing too grisly and it all looks very realistic - there's no cohesion to what the soldiers (Navy SEALs, rather) do, they're literally fighting for their lives as best they can. The photos at the end compared with the actors are good, although Peter Gabriel's cover of "Heroes" would've been better served if it was the David Bowie original. Otherwise, a great score.