How much should the title of a movie say about its content? With some movies you will have no idea what it’s about reading the title (for example John Carter), there are also movies where it’s very clear what you can expect (think Alien or E.T.). Lone Survivor doesn’t leave anything to the imagination either, but if you don’t like spoilers (and since I don’t even watch trailers you can imagine how I think about them) this title almost completely ruins the tension building of the film. If the title is not enough, within the first seen it actually shows you who the one survivor is. This is something I found very hard to forget while watching.
I would like to watch my movies with the least amount of knowledge possible. This way the story can surprise me, drag me in and introduces characters to me I care about. When you know beforehand what is going to happen, you invest less into some aspects of a movie. Lone Survivor is about a group of Navy Seals (played by Mark Wahlberg, Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch, and Ben Foster). Their assignment is to track down Al Qeada leader Ahmad Shahd and capture him.
Within the first part of the movie it manages to portray the camaraderie between the soldiers. These are men who have trained very hard to be part of the Navy Seals and care about each other like brothers. They trust each other in every situation. They have fun together, but once they are on a mission they are focussed. The group is dropped at their destination and start their journey to the supposed hiding place of Ahmad Shahd. The mission unfortunately does not go as planned and when they are no longer in control it becomes a game of survival.
This movie is based on a book with the same title, so re-using the title might have been a good idea from a marketing perspective. In the book Marcus Luttrell (portrayed here by Mark Wahlberg) writes about his experiences during the mission. It is a book (and thus a story) I had not heard about before.
I liked the way director Peter Berg has brought this story to the big screen. The tension slowly builds and once the men are in danger, you feel the severity of the situation. Part of that is great acting and a good eye for detail. The movie has been shot in New Mexico, but thanks to nearly invisible special effects it makes it feel like Afghanistan. It’s a war movie which shows war in gruesome detail. At the end of the movie it also pays tribute to the soldiers who lost their lives during their duty.
If the title of the movie would have been different I would probably have cared more about all the characters. It would have had a bigger impact because now I already knew which characters would not make it. Lone Survivor is not a bad movie though, but small changes (the title and the opening scene) could have made its emotional impact bigger.
Good point about the title. But it still sounds like the story and characters brought you into the film and you still felt the tension.
In a way, it’s like “Argo”–at least for me–where I knew how the film was going to end, but I was still at the edge of my seat from the tension.
Well, it partly brought me in, but I felt it could have been more had I known less. I had not heard the story about Argo either and that movie did not tell you anything before watching.
Good review Nostra. The movie pays attention to whom it is that really matters in a story like this: The soldiers. For that, the movie’s a lot more emotional to watch and sit by, as each and every one of these soldiers meet their fate. Well, except for one, that is.
Yeah, that it does, but it could even more had you not known before that they would die.
Books and movies that start with the end really need to be exceptional in the middle. If not, it’s hard to hang on and really read/watch. But this one did grab you eventually … probably means if was well done. Do you think it would have been a better movie if they had not given away the punch line?
Yeah, you are right. It did grab me, but it could have even more. It kept lingering in the back of my mind. I do think it would have been better without the punchline.
I feel that way about most films and books. In literature, it’s been a popular format since Shakepeare, maybe since Chaucer, but it needs to be used with a light touch. I admit, I used it in my own book … it makes it easier to plot the story because there’s no doubt where you are going. That’s not an excuse, just an explanation.
I’m just like you. I would have enjoyed this much more had the film had a different title and poster. I just couldn’t invest in any of the characters I knew were dead…
Exactly, glad to hear you felt the same about that.
Interesting stuff. I can see your points!
Thanks a lot.
Great review Nostra. I had mixed feelings about this film. I thought it started incredibly strong with great attention to detail and character development that felt fluid and natural. However for me, as soon as the action started I think the film lost sight of everything else and became a simplistic Good Guys Vs Bad Guys action film. I also think it relied on far to much emotional manipulation techniques and fluff, especially in the final act.
Thanks. I did not get that feeling when the shooting started, although I did think the bad guys were pretty bad shots. I see what you are saying about emotional manipulation, but it is expected of these type of films though.