[AntiTrace]

One thing that really struck me during that interview on 60 minutes is when Marcus called himself a coward.

A few minutes earlier he was talking about carrying his buddy to an from hasty fighting positions and then he calls himself a coward because he put down his rifle to cover his ears so he didn't have to hear his best friends dying screams.

If you have ever heard someone screaming for their life, you know how horrible that sound is, especially when you are trying everything you can to save them but know you aren't going to make it. Its a sound that will haunt you for the rest of your life.

You know that after everything he had done in his career, and everything that he had been through on that missions, he thinks of himself as a coward because of that one single action.

That's powerful.

[Duke Castile]

That's not a knife! That's a fucking duck!

[TheMachinist]

Great book,great movie.Ben Foster KILLED it as Axelson. Those dudes were and are some straight up bad asses.

[Quintus Curtius]

I just saw this movie today. I liked it. As war movies go, it was well done, and told a pulse-pounding story. The only minor things I could have done without were: the photo montages at the end with all the family photos of the deceased (emotional overkill), and having Mark Wahlberg star in the picture. But that's just nitpicking on my part. Overall I'd recommend it. Well done.

The movie also presented an interesting field leadership question. Should the men have allowed the accidentally captured Afghans to go loose? Interesting question.

The only thing I might have done differently (and again, I say MIGHT) would be to tie them up and leave them there. They'd eventually free themselves in a day or so and by that time it wouldn't matter.

Letting them go, like they did, was a very risky maneuver.

But who knows? Who am I to say, or to armchair quarterback from my keyboard here?

But it does present an interesting question...I'd like to hear others' opinions.

[Peregrine]

Quote:

The only thing I might have done differently (and again, I say MIGHT) would be to tie them up and leave them there. They'd eventually free themselves in a day or so and by that time it wouldn't matter.

Likely would have died from exposure/animals (forgot where I read that one).

Also armchairing, how about throwing them off a cliff? Plausible deniability.

[Duke Castile]

It was interesting seeing Luttrell in the movie, which scenes he was in etc.

I wish they'd tied them up....

I thought Wahlberg did about as good as a job as he was capable. He had some good moments.

I like that guy that played Murph as an actor. I thought the other 3 guys playing Axe, Deitz, and Murph did a much better job than Wahlberg.

I would have liked to have seen the vigil in Texas and give a better sense for just how long that ordeal was going. It sort of seemed like it was just a couple days.

Watching that schnook get shot down was tough. I've fast roped out of those things before and I can never understand why it's done.

You can land and run off those things much faster than you can fast rope out.

There's a scene where I think one of the soldiers in the other schnook puts a pistol to one of the pilots head telling him to go back but it happened pretty fast.

It's insane that those two apaches that were specifically there to support the QRF were being called out in support of other operations.

[Duke Castile]

(01-19-2014 09:35 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  

Quote:

The only thing I might have done differently (and again, I say MIGHT) would be to tie them up and leave them there. They'd eventually free themselves in a day or so and by that time it wouldn't matter.

Likely would have died from exposure/animals (forgot where I read that one).

Also armchairing, how about throwing them off a cliff? Plausible deniability.

Those goats are like gold. I think someone would have come looking for the goats if nothing else.

[Peregrine]

From the book: "We didn't have rope to bind them. Tying them up to give us more time to establish a new position wasn't an option."

[samsamsam]

I saw the movie a few weeks ago and tried to avoid posting anything about it until after it came out.

But, I just feel like the movie made some moves to heighten the action and things that were untrue.

I lent the book to my relative, so I can't check, but I am not sure if those Apaches were re-directed or if it was a Hollywood move. Maybe someone who knows can clarify.

After reading the book, I was really looking forward to seeing it. But I felt much of the essence didn't show in the movie. Just my opinion. I didn't feel the tight brotherhood that was demonstrated in the book.

I get there are time limitations, etc to manage in making a movie.

Much respect to those who serve or have served.

[Duke Castile]

I think I saw in the 60 minutes piece that admiral mentioned the Apaches. I'm not sure if it's in the book either.

[cool]

After Luttrell recovered from his injuries in Op Red Wings, he redeployed to Iraq, specifically Ramadi. If I recall correctly, it was around 2006 at the height of the fighting. He got his knees blown out there and was forced to retire.

[Libertas]

Just finished the book yesterday. There is a lot of masculine wisdom that can be gleaned from its pages and I really highly recommend it. I'd like to do an ROK post highlighting some passages that I found insightful.

[sandman972]

Havent read the book yet, but I definately had some man tears in the movie.I watch the opening scene of Lone Survivor daily. It gives me motivation to obtain what you want in life. Puts things into perspective.

" What ever you have to do, just FIND an excuse to win, KEEP going". This quote hits home for me. Whenever I find myself making excuses for things, Im too tired to go to the gym, the girls at this bar are lame, none of them are DTF, that quote jumps into my head and puts me back on track.

[Hedonistic Traveler]

I thought it was an amazing film but they would have been better off labeling it fiction. They changed so many major details that to call it non-fiction just serves to turn it into a massive propaganda piece, a lot like what happened to Zero Dark Thirty.

The amount of Taliban went up every time the story was told, from 8-10, to 20-30, to 30-40, to 50, and then to upwards of 200 in the book. It went back down to 50+ for the movie, and you could argue that Luttrell had the numbers wrong in the beginning for whatever reason, but I saw it as an excuse to show just how badass American soldiers were compared to the Taliban; showing the good side win despite a massive disadvantage.

The scene in the village was completely fabricated to show that the locals were ready to die fighting to protect Americans. The Taliban were there but they never tried to behead Luttrell, but that was thrown in to show just how badass and unafraid he was.

The guy did crawl 7 miles though after fucking up his legs, which I guess wouldn't have fit in the movie. He never flatlined on the way to the hospital, they actually stopped for tea on the way home because he was in such stable condition.

Despite all that it was a fantastic movie, just a horrible message. Foster and Kitsch were both amazing in their roles, Wahlberg and Hirsch were solid too. The filming was some of the best I've ever seen, I felt like you really got the immensity of the Hindu Kush range. If it wasn't pretending to be non-fiction I'd think it was one of the greatest war films I've ever seen.

[samsamsam]

^^I remember intentionally not seeing it until I read the book. Great book. The movie got dressed up for Hollywood. Ill admit I was a bit disappointed in the movie.

[samsamsam]

Anyone who wants to learn more about Murphy can check out this documentary. It is on Starz, but I am sure you can find it elsewhere.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1790825/

[Paracelsus]

An alternative, contrarian take on the film from John T. Reed: http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s...ivor-movie

Trigger warning: if you are a semper fi type who thinks the military can do no wrong, this will be an abrasive read.

[samsamsam]

(12-05-2015 08:24 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

An alternative, contrarian take on the film from John T. Reed: http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s...ivor-movie

Trigger warning: if you are a semper fi type who thinks the military can do no wrong, this will be an abrasive read.

Pretty comprehensive article. I can agree with many of his points. Military does plenty wrong but I still respect those that choose to serve.

The goat sheepherder scene always troubled me. I would have taken them with me, kidnapped them whatever you want to call it. Until they got to a point far enough away to buy enough time to get out. Sure there are logistics with moving with hostages. Other option would be to just tie them up. Just not sure if they would have gotten far enough away before the sheepherder was found.