inc-10

(2013-04-20 03:49:42)

Tasteless.

Well, all kinds of things went wrong with this movie.For starters, the opening sequence is awesome. One thing this moviereally had was best camera crew ever. Everything feels very intense allthe times, very close to the real war footage. Also, all the props,vehicles, uniforms, even explosions look very real. This is the goodpart.The mediocre part is main story. It's a mix of Hotel Rwanda and Tearsof the Sun, but feels like a bootleg version, a cheap knockoff ofthose.And then there's the bad part. Just after awesome intro, you get"treated" with shots of Tbilisi, with landmarks, people smiling, andgod forbid, trancey music in the background. It looked like acommercial for some travel agency, with only "Visit Georgia" messagemissing from the scene and was most tasteless thing I've ever seen in afilm. I live in similar post-soviet country and I do understand thementality in desperate desire to explain your culture to the world toget less looked as some remote hellhole, but this is outright tastelessand maybe Georgia hasn't come to this yet. The script had generally no direction. Awesome war scene here, somecorpses there, cameramen and photography director knew what to do...But director didn't. First, that simple shot with church and bloodyriver from 'Tears of the Sun' gives 10 times stronger emotion thanwhole pile of bodies shown in '5 days of August'. Even though lattertries sooo hard to portray Russians as savages.Second, despite awesome camera and props, fighting had no point in thismovie. You see soldiers shooting stuff and each other, but it's unclearwhy or what's their plan. I don't think any people who had any ideaabout how soldiers and military works were on the set. Mi-24 choppersshooting random buildings with rockets? And here I thought that everypilot is given orders and targets to waste expensive munitions on...Also, MI-24 sports a deadly cannon, but it's used only once, missingeverything, and soldiers act as chopper had blind men for pilot andgunner, not taking cover. Tanks constantly missing targets and notusing machine guns? Taking down a chopper with a single LAW rocket?SU-bombers taking down a restaurant residing in basically nowhere? Thisall felt very bizarre and pointless.I could go on, but there's no need. Let's just say that this movie isvery average, has some good moments, lots of unmemorable moments, andsome outright stupid ones. So pick it up from bargain bin, but don'texpect too much.6 stars I give are for 2 reasons: Awesome camera work (it felt likelive action at places) and the fact that despite being incredibly dumb,this movie IS entertaining... and that's good, even if it's for allwrong reasons....as for amount of propaganda, this movie is 100% okay, consideringwhat comes from Moscow. Sure it's all bloated and overrated but this ishow we rock in those former USSR satellite countries. Even 50 of suchmovies can't counter a single evening news show from random RussianTV-channel. For westerners, you just have to accept that rules aredifferent, but watching all those Normandy landings in every Hollywoodmovie and video game, maybe not as much as you might think.

Lee Eisenberg

(2013-04-19 22:34:47)

Russia-Georgia War had been brewing since World War I

Renny Harlin has long been one of the purveyors of brainless actionflicks, so for him to direct a historical movie sounds suspect. "5 Daysof War", about the Russia-Georgia War of August 2008, is OK but wouldbe better had it looked at the roots of the war. The focus is anAmerican reporter (Rupert Friend) covering the war, and how everyone inthe region feels as if the world has abandoned them like it did Rwanda.What I learned about the roots of the five-day war -- and I heard thisfrom a Russian, so there's bound to be some bias in favor of that side-- is that it goes back to World War I, specifically the ArmenianGenocide. When the Ottoman army started massacring the Armenians, therest of the people in the Caucasus thought that they all might be next,so they turned to Russia for help. They all of course became part ofthe Soviet Union (probably against their will). When Georgia became anindependent country, Abkhazia and South Ossetia wanted independencefrom Georgia, but Georgia's government refused, so Abkhazia startedwaging its own war for independence. Georgia's government respondedbrutally, and it got to the point where Russia invaded Georgia(although Russia's response was clearly pretty excessive). The movie isdefinitely pro-Georgia.While this is the story that I heard, I figure that to the people inthe battlegrounds, there was no difference between the Georgian andRussian armies. As "Catch-22" noted, anyone with a gun is the enemy.Andy Garcia is pretty good as Mikhail Saakashvili, although I'd alwaysthought that Bob Hoskins looks the most like the Georgian president. Asit was, a number of Americans, upon hearing that Russia invadedGeorgia, thought that Russia had invaded the US state. Despite thehostilities between the two countries, a Russian and Georgian athletestood next to each other after winning medals at the Beijing Olympics,which were taking place at the same time. While I was in Sochi, Russia,I got to taste the Georgian dishes lobio and khachapuri (Georgian foodis to Russia what Mexican food is to the US).Anyway, an OK movie, but nothing that I would highly recommend.

DICK STEEL

(2013-04-13 03:02:46)

A Nutshell Review: 5 Days of War

Five Days of August has been renamed Five Days of War outside ofGeorgia (despite the print at the start of the end credits proudlydisplaying the former), undoubtedly capitalizing on its predominant warfighting segments to help market the film, based upon real incidentsthat took place during the 2008 Russo-Georgian War during the saidperiod in which parts of Georgia got occupied by the Russians, shrewdlyplanned during the time when the rest of the world was distracted bythe Beijing Olympics. Directed by Renny Harlin from a story by DavidBattle, Five Days of August is a film that pays tribute to warcorrespondents and journalists who have given their lives in search forthe truth, being caught in crossfires and the likes to bring to theworld footage, photographs and reports from various war fronts, oftenwith minimal protection.The film opens in Iraq with what would almost be found-footage,introducing to us the protagonists of journalist Thomas Anders (RupertFriend) and cameraman Sebastian (Richard Coyle), partners in manyexperiences around the globe bringing war stories to their networks. Aswith most openings this segment was important to establish charactermotivations, to showcase and set the audience expectations that nostops will be pulled to feature military hardware, as well as to touchupon its political subplot that while Georgia had joined andvolunteered to the USA's coalition of the willing in the Iraqicampaign, the reverse isn't so true when Georgia herself required helpfrom the West in which she's trying to align herself to, irking theRussians whose waning influence had triggered an invasion in August2008 (or so the film will have it put).With a potential war brewing, Anders and Sebastian find their way toGeorgia, and as the trailer would have outlined the plot already, getcaught up in a wedding and picked up some locals including Tatia(Emmanuelle Chriqui in a role to look pretty and contribute nothingmore), getting some incriminating footage from the spoils of war andthe inhumane crimes against humanity committed by Russian mercenariescontracted for handsome sums to lead the invasion, and spend the entiresecond half of the film protecting the yet to be uploaded evidence on amemory card. For convenience of dramatization purposes, they hook upwith Georgian troops led by the same group of men who hauled theirarses out of Iraq, as well as demonizing the better equipped Russiansled by Col Alexandr Demidov (Rade Serbedzija) of a militia out toslaughter and plunder.Five Days of August is like a collaborative project by those forgottenby Hollywood, to make a shout out that they're still relevant for adecent paycheck. Renny Harlin was once the darling of Tinseltown,having directed blockbusters like Clffhanger and Die Hard 2, but alasin recent years have faded, but not into obscurity yet. Here he showswhy he's still capable of helming a complex, large scaled movieconsisting of a spectrum of genres straddling between politicalsquabbling through the behind the scenes cabinet meetings of theGeorgian president Mikheil Saakashvili, played by Andy Garcia. Garciaputs on a thick accent to play a very spirited president rallying histroops and countrymen to form a resistance against the invading force,with a very questionable deference to a US adviser played by Dean Cain.The has been Superman teams up with one time Batman Val Kilmer,although not sharing the same scenes, with the latter playing Dutchman,yet another journalist who appears a total of not more than 10 minutes.Even lesser screen time was given to Heather Graham, who got only theprologue.It felt documentary at times, although like most documentaries isfairly subjective in the way it wanted to tell its story. Havingthemselves funded in the production by the Georgians would clearly meana portrayal that's one sided and natural to be putting the other partyof a conflict in worst light than oneself. With cooperation, it meanthaving the means to feature plenty of military hardware, from choppersto fighter jets and scores of tanks in armoured battalions, in order toboost production values. Not to mention soldiers and crack forces too,with an incredibly lean and thin platoon supporting our protagonistsfrom point to point, appearing when called upon for plot convenienceswhich took the shine off a narrative, making the second half of thefilm very much like a standard war action flick with one side seen tobe winning little skirmishes. It's very obvious propaganda through andthrough.Still it served up enough to play out like an average war film,highlighted with a fairly wobbly focus on journalists and the risk andsacrifices they have to go through in order to bring the best coveragefrom conflict zones. It doesn't serve up any surprises and throws inthe expected basic romance under intense circumstances, but thoseexpecting a more engaging film about the Russo-Georgia conflict of 2008may have to wait for another movie to come along instead.

mickjo

(2013-04-12 16:59:16)

Good grief. What is a movie for?

Good grief. What is a movie for? Entertainment, or education? Scores ofAmerican and British war films are educationally deficient, butmarvellous entertainment. Frankly, I didn't know much about theGeorgian conflict, but I didn't watch in order to be educated.It may be biased, but as a piece of entertainment, well, it worked forme. The cinematography and special effects were very good, the storyengaging, and the acting, just fine. It drew me in and I genuinelyenjoyed it. I might equally enjoy a film biased towards the Russianside, just as I've enjoyed films about Vietnam biased towards theAmerican side (which most are).I don't understand why so many reviewers here have got on their highhorses. If the film had been about some conflict between fictionalcountries, would they have been less critical? Would they have beenable to concentrate on the story, the essence of which could be appliedto many wars, including ones in which Americans or Brits have beeninvolved and carried the lion's share of the blame?

belydym

(2013-04-10 08:33:16)

Good action in some places. Horrible idea. Overall: WASTED TIME!

Liked the action in some parts, quite realistic. However, the whole idea of the movie is too plain "Georgians are good,and Russians are bad"... Smells like cheaply paid propaganda movie.Nowdays only mind limited folks can think that Russia started the war.Whatever they say... Georgian president gave the order to slaughter"his own people" on the night before Olympic games started:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8281990.stmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_warWatch the classics "Saving Private Ryan", "Tears of the sun", "We weresoldiers"...P.S.: the scene with wedding is well described herehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/02/afghanistan.lukeharding

jalexoid

(2013-04-09 17:52:35)

The 8 minute movie

The ideas behind the story and the movie seem very noble - to bring toattention the horrors of war. For that we have story, eyewitnesses,victims, high press coverage and it all happened in recent history.However, something that was an ideal setting for a humanist drama iscorrupted by many flaws.Cinematography is frankly very bad. It's on par with home movies. Thereis little feel to the pictures you see and they do not deliver thefeelings that are behind the script. Unless you lived though thatparticular horror, this movie will not spark any passionate feelings.It's literally like watching a documentary of wildlife. In short, thepicture lacks any feel to it.Direction was ordinary at best. A few emotion filled moments wereapparent, yet the cinematography failures just wiped it off the face ofthe picture.Quite a lot of CG, yet it's not an action movie. It just kills anyunderlying messages. Though the CG was very good by itself.The story is over-politicized. Though I don't think that there isanything wrong to portray a single side of a conflict, I do have a lotof issues when that side is very political. It has very cleartendencies, that result in some strange plot "twists". Some make sense,some don't. Like in all stories the politics just covers up the humanside. It's no wonder that the story has tendencies, since quite a lotof Georgians worked on the movie. Sometimes such composition of crewresults in a highly emotional and expressive movie. Yet this time thosepersonal connections are lost along the way, giving way to thepolitical aspect of the story.The Georgians that were close to the conflict will feel emotionaltowards the movie and will relate in some way. People that were faraway will not see through the political veil and fail to relate tohardships and suffering of ordinary people.

Dugay-g

(2013-04-08 17:57:34)

realistic

I'm writing to respond to the many reviews that have labeled this movieas propaganda. The movie is about events as they unfolded on the groundand what it is actually like to be on the ground during an invasion.Not the most well scripted movie I've seen, but the action was rivetingand the feel of a war zone was authentic. Apparently some of the reviewers believe that if they were on theground watching their community being destroyed they would be much morecalm and fair in dispensing blame. I'm going to guess that they are allAmericans because they think that war is a battle of good vs. evil andthat there are legitimate reasons to drop bombs on civilian populationcenters!!! (BTW- I'm an American too) DROPPING BOMBS ON CIVILIANS IS AWAR CRIME!!! Not only do people die, but communities are destroyed,children are orphaned and in these conditions hatred breeds likewildfire. The men in aircrafts dropping bombs on a foreign populationof civilians are ALWAYS the bad guys. None of the reviews that I read discussed the cause of the conflict inany meaningful way. I myself have not researched the origins of theconflict in depth, but I can tell several things right off the bat.First of all I don't doubt that some Georgians were violent towardsRussians. When you consider the fact that the Soviet Union imposed apolice state on the Georgians for over 50 years its not surprizing thatthe Georgians would want to chase the heartless foreigners from theircountry. Have you ever heard first hand accounts of what it was like tolive under the police state of the Soviet Union. It was brutal. Theterrorism was constant for over 50 years. They had informants in everyaspect of the society that they were occupying (from Estonia to Hungaryto Georgia) and they monitored peoples' political leanings and dissentwas not tolerated. People disappeared on a regular basis. Terrorism.Try to imagine what it was like to live under that kind of blatant andbrutal oppression for more than 2 generations before you comment judgethe Georgians for whatever crimes they committed against Russianscitizens in Ossentia. Its not surprizing to me that the Georgian peoplewould want to kill the men who once managed the police state andprobably got rich doing it. As an example that even an American may understand, lets consider thelast time that our country was invaded by foreign troops - late 18thcentury. Did you know that the minutemen of Massachusetts were brutalin their treatment of the sympathizers of the British crown - known asTories? It became commonplace for the minutemen to publicly tar-and-feather a supporter of the British crown and then to burn their housedown. Not to mention the corporate vandalism that destroyed greatchunks of British corporate wealth ... most notably, the Boston TeaParty. Given that fact (and that many Tories were murdered outright)does anyone today feel that the British were justified in invading aforeign land of people who had decided to claim independence? If theBritish had the kind of air support that the Russians have, we'd verylikely still be a British colony today. The idea that the Russians hadthe right to use overwhelming military force defend the safety ofRussian citizens in a foreign country is blatantly fascist. Another thing that I can tell you is that the Georgians havesignificant oil deposits and they were in the process of opening theiroil to western markets ... if you want to discern the true reason forany war one should follow the economic implications and most of thetime that will lead you straight to the actual cause of the war. In summary, "5 days War" may not be an in depth and balanced account ofall of the factors that led to the conflict but it will serve tohumanize the true cost of war. And the use of foreign journalists totell the story is the most logical way to tell such a story because inthe real world that is the only way we can ever understand what isactually happening in such a conflict. Military officials coldly referto their mass murder as "collateral damage" and any modern militaryWILL always underestimate their numbers which is why we should payattention to what journalists tell us about such brutal crimes againsthumanity.

sixbells99

(2013-04-07 21:37:56)

Could have been so much better

The open sequence is gut wrenchingly brilliant and raw, leaving yougenuinely shocked. But as this scene fades into the next it appears thefilm changed director to one who watched to much A team and any 1960'sWorld war II film.For a film that purports to be a vision of real life events thedirector could not have got it more wrong. We are left with ridiculousbattle scenes that are in fact an insult to the real horror of war oncivilians. Hind gun ships firing bending missiles, the director lovesthis and we see these Hinds firing their bendy missiles all through outthe film. Andy Garcia does his best Borat impression while the mostshocking element of all is how much Val Kilmer has let himself go.If you want to watch a brutal, raw and realistic film on the horrors ofwar, watch the first scene and then turn your TV off. If you want towatch some comic book propaganda film then keep on watching. A bad filmthat at the start hinted on how good it could have been!!

tinovalkki

(2013-04-07 00:53:24)

I enjoyed it very much

5 Days of War is an action-packed international thriller from acclaimeddirector, Renny Harlin. Based on true events, this intense film is avivid account of a renegade American journalist, his cameraman and alocal woman caught behind enemy lines, and determined to not onlysurvive, but tell the world what was happening, during the swift butdevastating 5-day war between Russian and the Georgian Republic in2008.Best thing Renny has done for years. I don't usually like war movies,but this was so intense and touching. It really show how horrible warcan be. The visual effects of the movie were amazing and the movie wasbrilliantly scripted to follow the small group of people through muchof eastern Georgia as it was being invaded. It is definitely a must seefilm and an enjoyable film.

Steve Pulaski

(2013-04-06 15:54:14)

Prefers to sugarcoat, not to inform

5 Days of War is a film not out to give an accurate depiction of the2008 Russo-Georgia War, but to gloss over any implications and make itsown biased, fictitious version of it. War is a touchy subject toconduct a film on, but thankfully, many war films have beenexceptionally well done and stellar in quality. This is the first oneI've come across that is poor in quality.It's so rare to see a war film robbed of all character development,emotional elements, plot, coherency, and facts. Yet, 5 Days of Warshows us that it is possible and that when done in such poor quality itcan further cement an event into a sea of puzzlement. The United Statesof America wasn't up to date come time of the Russo-Georgia War inAugust of 2008, and Bush had decided to leave the country out of it. Asmart move if you ask me. The US was already starting to get hit withone of the most deadly recessions of all time and, already fighting twowars, it was a good plan to let two other countries just settle out thedifferences by themselves. So, to release a film in America about thewar was actually not a bad idea. The problem? Because our knowledge onit is so limited we could easily be persuaded the wrong way. And thatis what 5 Days of War appears to be doing. Persuading people the wrongway.Georgia and Russia both committed several atrocities in the time of thewar. The film makes it look like Georgia was minding its own businessand the big, bad Russians just decided to blow the hell out ofeverything Georgian. Georgia actually helped to trigger the Russiansinto fighting back in the war. That part is almost wholly absent.The film revolves around Thomas Anders (Friend), a reporter who wasrescued upon visiting Iraq with colleagues after being gunned down intheir car. A year later, he gets word that conflict is brewing inGeorgia, so heads out to cover the story. Anders meets a young Georgiawoman named Tatia (Chriqui) and another reporter named Sebastian(Coyle) where they must learn to survive during the war.It seems 5 Days of War is less concerned with actuality and being aninformative piece of work, and instead tries to be a gritty actionfilm. Going into this expecting a nice, expansive retelling of eventsleading up to the war, I was presented with typical war schlock withloud, unnecessary gunfire and over-exaggerated acting all around. Thisis also one of the first war films I've ever seen that was void of allthings emotional. It was moot in the field of playing with yourtear-ducts, mainly because you don't know the characters well enough toform any sort of opinion about them. There is a scene where one of themain characters is shot off of the back of a moving truck. Her friendsand companions are clearly shocked and sobbing uncontrollably. We asaudience members are staring blankly wishing a tear or two would form.Alas, nothing but utter silence followed by increasing restlessness anddreariness.At the very end, the film goes sentimental and right before the endcredits we see many people who've lost relatives in the five day warbetween the feuding countries holding pictures of their loved ones andhonoring them respectably. Even in this field emotion doesn't ring, butwe do feel sort of uneasy. Think about it; you watch an empty, mundanewar film that is absent of emotional elements only to be tested fortears one more time before the credits role showing people who havelost their loved ones in the same event. The whole act sounds contrivedand almost unforgivable.Starring: Andy García, Val Kilmer, Richard Coyle, Emmanuelle Chriqui,Rupert Friend, Johnathon Schaech, Dean Cain, Rade Šerbedžija, AntjeTraue, and Heather Graham. Directed by: Renny Harlin.

(2013-04-06 10:30:49)

V.Good Watch.

I become so infuriated when i watch a movie and see the review sectiondominated by comments that do not reflect the true quality of a film. Isee people writing all sorts of negative comments regarding this film.LET ME SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. This was a very good film reflectingthe events that took place in Georgia. A decent budget was given to thefilm so i would like affirm that this is not a B Movie. Andy Garciapays his role superbly but Val Kilmer is rather on the periphery inthis movie. This film is engaging from start to finish and it hasmoments in terms of the ethnic cleansing that are similar to momentslike in ' Behind Enemy Lines' This film was to represent the struggleagainst the Russian's and Russian backed separatist. The script wasfine and overall a very good war movie. It was also showing the braveryof reporters to tell the TRUTH and the struggles they face. The mix ofcharacters in the film was great and the arch villain was great. Thelittle twist were great. This film really was close to being aHollywood smash if it was more spectacular, but thats what it moregenuine. Ignore the comments a very decent watch. Now passion here isnot just displayed for this movie, but as a big movie fan who haswatched a range of movies, i hate it when i use IMDb, the first choicefor movie comments & guidelines that people can write such things thatare so far from the truth especially when there are some terriblemovies to put good movies into categories they should not be in.

Iraklius Sherozius

(2013-04-06 03:03:08)

Response to some ridiculous reviews

I have just finished watching this film. What I can say is that its notas good as other Hollywood war movies like Saving Private Ryan, Lettersfrom Iwo Jima etc. However, it manages to deliver the message. The waris terrible, does not matter whether you are Georgian or Russian. Weare all children of the god and we should take care of each other.If you compare Russian version of August(2008) events-Olimpius Inferno,to 5 Days of August, the most vivid difference one can find isoverwhelming hatred to evil Georgians. Whereas 5 Days of August managedto demonstrate kindness of the Russian troops at the end of the film.Even though this movie is not a documentary, this is certainly veryimportant message. Overall, good prevailed over bad.Another thing that bugs me is the comments I see about this movie. I amalmost sure that none of them were in Georgia during the august war,nevertheless they keep insisting on genuinely knowing the facts. Thisis getting ridiculous especially for the ethnic Georgian refugees whowitnessed mercilessness of this war. I will not go into details as itwon't open eyes of the KGB Zombied people. Carry on listening andbelieving in what you are said. I pity you.In the end, I would like to 'calm down' the haters of Georgia. BothAbkhazia and Samachablo (so called South Osetia) were are and will beparts of Democratic Multi-ethnic Georgia in the long run.

Pro Jury

(2013-04-04 04:19:58)

Serious Hollywood film versus real life Bradley Manning Video

This contains spoilers.A centerpiece of 5 DAYS OF WAR is that authentic video footage of aclear and brutal war crime is powerful evidence able to make change --in and of itself.In 5 DAYS OF WAR, the conflict involves some Georgians and the Russianswith roots in old Soviet politics. Whatever blatant and harshoppression is at the center of the complaint, it is distant to Americanfilm audiences. Other people living in far away lands may, or may not,have a tradition to respect the rules of war.This is all to say that 5 DAYS OF WAR is deeply flawed because it isnot grounded in reality. In real life, American film audiences are moreclosely familiar with American traditions. George Washington commandinga very humanitarian "rules of war" code placing virtue with theAmericans, in sharp contrast with the poor ethics of the Britishmilitary. The good guys (we Americans) act good. We act good. We aregood. It gave Americans deep pride to be American.The flaw in 5 DAYS OF WAR is most obvious today as we all know of theBradley Manning "brutal bloodlust video" released to the media andgeneral public showing U.S. military gleeful war crimes on civiliantargets. Authentic video footage that changed... nothing. It changednothing because in the real world of today, the side that tortures andmurders with robot drones is good, and the side that uses bare hands tofarm green beans and onions is bad. Today, in the real world, we allshare the ideas our leaders tell us.Life is easier now the happily cowed media and we regular peoplebecause none us ever need to think for ourselves; we have a leader whowill do all of the thinking for us. This is real life. 5 DAYS OF WARhas too much fantasy.

bret-44

(2013-04-03 09:40:36)

Great film - deeply moving.

5 DAYS OF WAR is a deeply moving and harrowing film. The story linecontains romance, good character development and plenty of action, butthe stark reality of war maintains a dominant impact throughout thefilm. It stirred an intense empathy for all those affected by thesehorrific events. Despite this, it is a thoroughly enjoyable if notconfronting movie that is thankfully devoid of the usual "Hollywood"approach to the subject matter.I realise that there are two sides to every story but the basis for thefilm and the events portrayed are undeniable. This story gives theviewer some insight into the Georgian perspective of events regardlessof how the Russian military sees it.War is just horrific regardless of right or wrong.

phd_travel

(2013-03-31 21:35:37)

Worth a watch despite the bad reviews

I found this movie well worth a watch. There are some faults but Ithink they aren't that major. The good points: Good on location feel. The battles and atrocities arequite well filmed. It's exciting and you feel part of the action. Showsthe hard job faced by war correspondents. This is a war many don't knowabout or vaguely remember. So it's interesting to see a movie about aconflict that took place so recently in 2008. Interesting casting with most cast members playing nationalities theyare not. Two Americans as Georgians: Andy Garcia as the GeorgianPresident and Jonathan Schaech as a soldier. Rupert Friend, a Britishactor as an American journalist. Val Kilmer as a Dutch journalist.Emanuelle Chriqrui, a Canadian Morrocan as a Georgian lady thereporters befriend and who is trying to rescue her family. At least shelooks her part.The faults: Some criticise that it was one sided showing the Russiansas the sole perpetrators of atrocities. I guess it's up to the viewerto look more into what happened themselves. But don't most WWII moviesfocus on one side's point of view as well? So I think that criticism isa bit unfair.Another fault is there are some parts of the story that have a Rambolike action quality and unbelievability. It was a bit ridiculous attimes during the rescue and scenes with the villains. This hurts thefilm but they had to make a story to entertain so I don't think it'sthat bad a fault.The movie wasn't successful financially and had bad reviews. Despitethat I think it was entertaining and still worth a watch. It highlightsa conflict not many people know about. For those who want action in afilm might as well learn something about a little known war at the sametime instead of just mindless action.

Alex Weinmayer

(2013-03-31 09:21:31)

It could be a nice flick

but a primitive story is too much of one-sided pro-Georgian propaganda.Good Georgians, bad Russians and nothing in the middle. Well, AFAIK Georgian government sponsored production so it wasn't forfree. Don't try to learn the history of the conflict after that. Cold War is back. Seems like Rembo from the 80s but lacks Silvester tosave the day. On the other hand it doesn't look like a typical B-movie it could beconsidering it's screenplay. Director's work is good, acting is not too bad. Special effects is nicetoo excluding cheap gasoline explosions.Worth watching anyway.

leontancfa

(2013-03-28 17:41:52)

touching story but it misrepresent the fact. pure political bias film

I can't say Wikipedia is 100% right, but at least you can get a moreneutral view on what really happened there.http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war Georgia started thewar first. Human Rights Watch actually found war crime evidence ofGeorgia's army. But the movie turned around and accuse Russia had donethe war crime. and even said Human Rights Watch found the evidence ofRussia! I cannot believe how the director can be so shameless! Thedirector/story writer has an obvious political bias in shooting themovie. I have to say if people are OK with South Sudan beingindependent, why not the South Ossentia?

adamm2009

(2013-03-28 05:20:40)

gripping, moving, heartbreaking, shocking. Uncomfortable realism

This is a gritty, realistic, shocking movie which reminds us of thesometimes terrible world we live in. Its depiction of the lives bravereporters live on the front line in war torn countries is prettyaccurate I would say. They risk everything to get the truth out to therest of the world who are not even interested most of the time,preferring to report on more trivial stories. As I write this briefreview, 63 % of reviewers have given this a score of 6/10 and over, 40% giving 10/10. This is in my mind what it deserves. The fact that over20 % have given this film 1/10 is offensive and ridiculous. I wouldsuggest the people who have given this film 1/10 are either Russian,vacuous soap opera watchers or fans of the likes of Justin Bieber,Paris Hilton and anything else remotely trashy and fake. This isgripping and dramatic and well worth a look.

Margarita von Dannfeldt

(2013-03-25 13:14:03)

A 113 minute long insult

There are a lot of flicks out there, a lot of historical movies thatget details wrong, wrongly used uniforms, movies that fail to tell thewhole story just to fit the 2 hrs on screen format. But I have neverseen such a deliberate mistreatment of actual history. This movie is a113- minute long insult to everyone portrayed in it - the population ofSouth Ossetia, Russians, Georgians, the militaries of both countries,the EU, the NATO and the viewer. Even the Georgian government fallsvictim to the horrendous plot. Unlike advertised, the plot is not basedon actual events but almost solely on the writer's fantasy, not hiscommon sense. The events portrayed in the movie have never taken place,could not have taken place. So be warned, the educational value of thisflick equals 0.While in the beginning of the movie the viewer was given the impressionthat this was an attempt to show the Georgian side of the story, atit's end I had to wonder if they were actually making fun of everyonein it. Andy Garcia's part is so badly written.The individual acting isn't all that bad, but even the mandatory lovestory fails totally because there is no connection between the actorswhatsoever. This disconnect also has a fatal effect on photography,which in itself is decent but very bland together with the soullessacting. Other than that the movie features a lot of explosions, a Rambo-likefigure and piles of bodies. And is surprisingly, if you strip it fromthe wrongful historical connection and omit Andy Garcia's parts, quiteentertaining.

levelclearer

(2013-03-25 07:35:52)

Old circus horse can not be taught new tricks.

The author made a try to persuade us of the documentary nature of hismovie while he failed even to abide by the rules of the politicalthriller genre. Old circus horse can not be taught new tricks. When yougo to film a "based on comics" flick don't say you have produced adocumentary. When you watch the picture you feel it almost physicallyhow a Rambo mold invisibly haunts the movie and you want to exclaim:"Stop that trash, release the Rambo, and let us at least have somefun.". Still fun is enclosed: war time love story is intervowen withthe plot which will give food for an excellent computer game. Thismovie really rocks sending authentic messages which howeverunfortunately have nothing to deal with the things the author tries toshow on the screen. The first one is - money is everything. The secondone - we want to see it this way no matter what it really was. Thethird one - action motion pictures with bad and good guys are candieswhich are much sweeter than real life. Just imagine an army consistingof sadists. An army of sadists. Every soldier in this army is a sadist.A sadist army is opposed by the army of saints. This is how the Russianand Georgian armies are portrayed in "5 days of august". OK. We willtry hard not to remember about the US soldiers deeds in Abu-Graibprison in Iraq. We will try hard to erase from our memory Vietnamesevillages burnt out with napalm, forests defoliated with agent orange,children without skin, tortured Vietnamese partisans, etc. Even ifSenator McCain will try not to let us forget it very quickly. Sure wewill forget about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Forever. And of course wewill not make any generalizations from a single case. Agreed weunderstand that any army can have a number of people with hiddensadistic inclinations, which remain sleeping until they break out incrucial war situations. But that normally is a sad, tragic exclusionrather than a rule that characterizes the entire army. The movieauthors so sincerely neglect this simple truth that the movie thereforelacks only one thing - those comics style "Pow" and "Bang" subtitleswhen Russian rockets hit a Georgian wedding. BTW, it's a very strangeway of living out a guilt complex. Actually it was an Afghani weddingand an American helicopter, and the country was Afghanistan, notGeorgia. US chopper crew took Afghani wedding for Al-Kaeda warriors.Sad. But it's war, it's people's factor. The answer is given in thetitles before the movie - there stands in black and white: Based on theactual events. On the actual events torn from time, place, andnationality and dressed up in the Russian army uniform. The Americanhelicopter cracking down on Afghani wedding transforms into Russianhelicopter destroying Georgian wedding. Dr. Goebbels smokes nervouslyin the corner. Violating the primary human right for objectiveinformation this cinematic work becomes highly cynical with regard toreal life. I think it would be a deed of honesty if movie producersopenly classify their work as "fairy tale" or "sci-fi", recognizingthat they have honestly fulfilled Georgian government order forcreating of a national myth, a legend, which has nothing to do withreality and truth. Russians say "Fairy tale is a lie, but there is ahint in it, a lesson for a good guy". OK, let Georgian good guys learnto hate Russia from Hollywood made fairy-tales, and let's see whetherthese lessons will do them good in a historical perspective. As alwaysHollywood shows very nice and expensive visual effects. Especially whenyou realize that they were made for Georgian money and every blast ofpropane gas is paid from the pocket of the Georgian tax payer. Stillvisual effects is the best investment of money in all this work. I'mnot surprised that Hollywood produces something like "5 days ofaugust". They have a hand in it. There are people who would pay forsuch kind of music. They say we were here when it happened and we knowwell how it happened and what really happened here we know very welltoo, but we hope that Hollywood stars would help the Georgian point ofview on the conflict to become dominant in the world. Why not ? But.Politicians may play games, but people are getting brainwashed, leftliving in the illusionary world where many things that take place inthe real world simply don't exist. For example, you will never knowabout Orthodox Church temple where people of Tskhinval were hiding fromGeorgian raid burnt with all who were inside. Burnt by Georgiansoldiers. You will never know about Georgian soldier yelling "yoo-hoo"and filming with his mobile phone camera as he worked his machine gunover the civilian houses. You will never know about a pregnant womanwho was running for the Temple and was shot halfway by Georgiansoldiers. You will never know about 80 year old eminent Georgian filmmaker, a live classic of Georgian cinema, who had to escape to Russiafrom Saakashvili's prosecution, just because he is too eminent and hedoesn't agree with all russophobia of Georgian regime. You will neverknow that Russian troops and fleet started moving only when Georgiansshelled and rocketed civilians of Tskhinval. You will never know aboutdemolition of the monument to Russian and Georgian soldiers fightingshoulder to shoulder against Hitler. All this was left outside thecamera still in order not to deviate from the emotional tune. Emotions! Message ! Pathos ! The three whales of this tale. The most gruesomething about this movie is that author violates even the basic rules ofthe political thriller and overwrites the history. What makes him dothis, I do not know, may be he watched too many early Nazi movies."Divide it by 16" as Russians say.