The Patrol_360P

source: The Patrol

Considering the low budget of the film, the Patrol does a sterling job of showing the various emotions, conflicts and actions that can occur during war. For those decrying the film as garbage, I wonder if that 'knowledge' is based on how many hours you've clocked up on COD or how many times you've seen 13 Hours. One reviewer attempts to suggest the SA80 is a wonderful rifle as one Private routinely bitches about it during the course of the film. Apparently, said reviewer knows more about the quality of the firearm than Ian V Hogg, one of the foremost experts in the field of small arms. "Soon after being adopted for service, problems began to surface: the first five years of this rifle's service have been disastrous. A number of manufacturing defects showed up in service conditions, and it was not until the closure of the RSAF at Enfield and the setting up of an entirely new production line, with new computer- controlled machine tools, at the new RSAF Nottingham, that the quality of the production weapons began to improve. It will take some time for the poor reputation gained by the initial issue weapons to be overcome; the only consolation is that the same sort of thing has happened to other military rifles in the past, and they have managed to live down their early reputation and prove their innate reliability. It is to be hoped that the L85A1 will do so as well." A quote from the reviewer: "So if the SAS don't use a certain weapon it must be rubbish ? Not sure if that's good yardstick to judge something with". The SAS weren't alone. The Pathfinder company of the Parachute Regiment and Brigade Patrol Group of the Royal Marines also ditched the firearm in preference to M16 based platforms. As for the SAS being a 'good yardstick'. The answer to that one is quite firmly "yes, actually". Britain's premier counter-terrorist, long range patrol & other special operations tasked unit might actually know a little of what they're talking about. As mentioned by the unit's Lieutenant, the later A2 modification saw a quantum leap in reliability, although the weapons this unit are using are quite obviously earlier versions complete with their reliability issues. The same reviewer feels the action is reminiscent of Vietnam rather than Afghanistan. Really? What a surprise. An unpopular counter- insurgency conflict where the lines of battle blur more often than sunsets. As for the fractured cohesion of the unit. Is there any real wonder? Paratroopers, Royal Marines & Territorial Army soldiers mixed in within one patrol? A recipe for problems in anyone's book. I suspect if you're after a 'ooh rah' war movie, watch something starring John Wayne or Michael Dudikoff, not something that might actually be based in some sort of reality.

As I just said on Allo Ciné French website a few minutes ago, when you choose to watch a war movie, you also have to choose between realism and spectacular pop corn entertainment. Both don't fit together. Because realism - reality connection - may be more boring, more atrocious and more crazy and unbelievable than the usual large audiences movies schemes, with the good guys vs the bad guys, the love story and the "they remained happy ever after " crap. Here in this film, you have nothing of this. The soldiers who fight in Afghanistan are not TRANSFORMERS or RAMBO characters every day. Please, watch this film as a documentary like movie, so close to reality that it will deceive many silly viewers who expected a Michael Bay like flick with one hundred million dollars budget. The main problem with film critics, is that the people confound objectivity with subjectivity. Because if a movie doesn't square with the idea they had of this feature before seeing it, if that doesn't fit, they will say the film is a crap. And this jeopardizes the idea that the film may have on large potential audiences who read those prick critics as if it was the Bible. So, yes, that's a very good movie, so far it's the first picture from the director, an ex soldier himself, with a tiny budget and unknown actors.

A group of soldiers are on patrol in Afghanistan during a fiction operation known as Icarus. This story is loosely linked to operation Achilles and might be more accurately stated "inspired" by true events rather than based upon. We get to know the characters by their nicknames, Smudge, Stab, Ginge (ginger) and Welch. The banter between them is not the healthy kind as they concentrate on their differences. Once one in the group dies, the troops begin to question the war and their mission while their commanding officer who has the same thoughts is forced to toe the company line. The film is about the relationships of a diverse unit who question their leadership. The war acts as a background to escalate tension. This is not your classic war film about combat and killing the enemy. It is a war drama, one where young men are placed in combat roles and don't believe the cause is worth their life. If anything, this is more of an anti-war film, showing how someone like Bowe Bergdahl could do and say the things of which he has been accused, although the message is not heavy. Parental Guide: F-bomb.

Whenever I watch a British made film about the modern British army I always wonder why a military person wasn't hired to advise on the nitty gritty. Could have been a great film as I thought the acting was quite good. What let it down for me was incorrect clothing insignia, ill fitted helmet covers and mistakes most soldiers just wouldn't make. I did like the scenery as it was as close to Afghan as is possible.

i found this movie to be slightly bit eclectic, and slow. i like that in some ways, but it lacks excitement in my opinion. i am glad i watched it, but found it to be nothing like the "hurt locker" like everyone keeps saying. maybe because i am not English i am missing a sort of understanding from a British perspective. it doesn't hold the same entertainment value i find on British television. definitely worth watching, though you might fall asleep. the acting is good, and the theme consistent. i didn't understand some of the British slang words, but my imagination filled in the blanks. if you like military history, or military film, you will enjoy this film. it's a fancy documentary type film, with a lot of camera movement, but does a good job not to make you dizzy like some films do with all the jumpy cameras moving around.

I could rant for ages about the bad reviews but to name a few. Firstly if your not British how can you say what its like as a british soldier in afghanistan, secondly the muppet who said it was more nam than stan and that hos mates had a great time in afghanistan well i ask you this , losing a mate infront of you, what is great about that? What a muppet. Clearly all the bad reviews are from people who have never served a day in the forces or they sat in an office all day and pretend to friends and family they were Rambo and The closest they probably ever got was call of duty or the cadets. 1 review even says that the sa80 is brilliant. Not so when this film was set. Nor was the soldiers equipment. I served 21 Years before a medical discharge 3 tours of Afghan, Bosnia, Kosovo and NI. For the low budget it was made on i found it good. A refreshing change from seeing some hollywood star looking pretty with a rifle that never jams and has everlasting rounds. The sound is pretty damn good. The acting pretty good and they do pass as soldiers., but give me this over Hollywood any day. The scenery is realistic and beautifully shot I think they done a great job and should get together for another. Oh and for the record a happy soldier is a moaning soldier. In all I say give this film a chance and don't listen to idiots who think call of duty is what war is about.

If you want to watch a war film with action in it, this isn't for you. Storyline was quite boring, and a lack of actual military knowledge made this film worse This film is too political for me, i want to see gunfights, attack strategies, ambushes, exiting parts of army life, not people walking, and moaning Its hard to describe a film that doesn't have much going on in it Despite what the cover says, the hurt locker is a lot different to this film In my opinion, this film just makes the British army look rubbish Wouldn't recommend this film to anyone

Well made and fairly watchable film, despite the absence of any combat action or visible enemy. What is surprising is the great accolade the film has received among IMDb reviewers for it's insight and statement, I think it's undeserved. A anti-war film? And so what, when the last time you saw a serious pro-war film? If that's one's criteria for declaring a film great then this is the non-action war film to watch. The writer/director has said he was unhappy with the way the war was being portrayed by the mainstream media. If the U.K. media is anything like the U.S. mainstream media, which has taken a non supportive view of the war in the middle east for the longest time (thou they are less vocal about it since the current President took office) then I'm not sure why the filmmaker is concerned. Though if radical Islamic groups ever decide to look for a jihadist propaganda film they need look no further than The Patrol, with it's "this is not your war" message written all over it. Again, from an American perspective, soldiers fighting this war experience fear and frustration among many other things, but generally speaking they recognize the enemy for what it is, and continue to fight because Islamic terror against the U.S began long before 9/11 and will not end until it is defeated. The characters in The Patrol stop fighting and abandon the war, but to be true to reality the film should acknowledge how Al Queda, the Taliban, and others would gladly follow them home and continue their slaughter. Though politicians try to hobble the military, it does not prevent soldiers from conducting themselves like the professionals that they are.