Horrid, stereotypical war movie about Marines against Isis. Beyond the fact taht the acting is poor, dialogues mechanical, plot weak, also worse than the previous chapter, there's the superficial and moralistic representation both of american soldiers and Isis. The psychology of the characters isn't deepened and the sociological or political reasons of terrorism are treated as familiar revenges or personal madness. As in Jarhead 2, all the (bad) story is resolved in a moralistic final speech of individual welfare. The first "Jarhead" movie is the only good to watch, the others are poor commercial products: I'm scared by the imminent arriving of the fourth chapter.
37 Reviews
The usual shooting gallery with corny bravado and odd found footage gimmick
quincytheodore9 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
It's originally a delight to see B-movie with more emphasis on realism of marine life than merely blasting guns. Scott Adkins looks better in acting department too as he plays the high rank officer and there's good effort to develop intense scene from military part. However, it soon crumbles with poor Jason Bourne imitation for shady opt, uncomfortable missed machismo and a particularly strange silly man of supporting character.
The first misfit comes in the form of Blake, the documentary guy. He sticks out like a sore thumb in every scene, throwing needless jokes and ruining the high octane sequence. If there is a need for comic relief, then it has to be done with more finesse and less unsavory method. The film gives almost half of its runtime to create a sense of dread, yet this nagging character singlehandedly ruins it, even more so when the other actors trying to deliver a more serious performance.
Scott Adkins is more comfortable here, he has good mentor-student relationship with Albright (Charlie Weber), the protagonist. The rest of the squad are decent as well. Then, it suddenly introduces a tough female character who may or may not be a spy, in Top Gun-esque bantering. There's also mandatory nationalism angle, which is not entirely bad, but seems shoehorned in as emotional bait.
After halfway point the movie pushes the shooting to the maximum volume, gunning for most bullets shot per minute. It's the usual gunslinger military stuff, which is admittedly expected. Nothing too grand, although there are some oddities like people running away from covers and even though Scott Adkins is here, this is not martial art movie, so those expecting intricate hand-to-hand combat might be disappointed.
"Jarhead 3" is the expected cinematic rendition of soldiers filled with testosterone and gunpowder, and also unfortunately a few out-of-elements ridiculous antics.
The first misfit comes in the form of Blake, the documentary guy. He sticks out like a sore thumb in every scene, throwing needless jokes and ruining the high octane sequence. If there is a need for comic relief, then it has to be done with more finesse and less unsavory method. The film gives almost half of its runtime to create a sense of dread, yet this nagging character singlehandedly ruins it, even more so when the other actors trying to deliver a more serious performance.
Scott Adkins is more comfortable here, he has good mentor-student relationship with Albright (Charlie Weber), the protagonist. The rest of the squad are decent as well. Then, it suddenly introduces a tough female character who may or may not be a spy, in Top Gun-esque bantering. There's also mandatory nationalism angle, which is not entirely bad, but seems shoehorned in as emotional bait.
After halfway point the movie pushes the shooting to the maximum volume, gunning for most bullets shot per minute. It's the usual gunslinger military stuff, which is admittedly expected. Nothing too grand, although there are some oddities like people running away from covers and even though Scott Adkins is here, this is not martial art movie, so those expecting intricate hand-to-hand combat might be disappointed.
"Jarhead 3" is the expected cinematic rendition of soldiers filled with testosterone and gunpowder, and also unfortunately a few out-of-elements ridiculous antics.
Worth watching and is pretty entertaining. A low budget 13 Hours that is worth your time.
cosmo_tiger4 June 2016
"Sometimes being a good Marine means coming in last." Evan Albright (Weber) has just arrived for his new assignment guarding an American Embassy located in the Kingdom. His ego and attitude don't endear him to his fellow soldiers or commanders. When someone comes into the building he is guarding and things erupt outside everything changes. Now, him and the little group of guards must not only protect those inside the building, but the entire Embassy itself. This is a movie that tried so hard to be like 13 Hours, and actually wasn't terrible. Considering the budget restraints this movie had this was actually pretty decent and worth watching. It never became overly cheesy or laughable even though it came close a few times. This is becoming one of the best B action movie series' and it didn't try to do too much, which actually helped the movie. This is nothing comparable to 13 Hours, but for what it was it was entertaining and very watchable. Overall, worth watching and is pretty entertaining. A low budget 13 Hours that is worth your time. I give this a B.
Movie makers need to learn
pandalarve8 May 2016
This movie was bad on so many levels.
1. unrealistic, the "freedom fighters standing in mid open places, with 5 guns pointing and hooting at them and they don't get hit, after like 100 bullets go past them, and if they had missed at least they would hit the people behind with how center clustered they stood. as well as standing in the middle of a hallway, no cover. not hit once, not before you give the "guy we don't trust" a gun to prove himself, then they drop like flies.
2. When the movie uses the name jar head 3... claiming to be a sort of sequel down the genre.. At least follow the premise from the other movies. Jarhead 1, damn good movie, you follow the protagonist, you get to experience what he feels and how he perceived things, you are in the story, good job! Jarhead 2. Little worse than the first but stile decent enough for entertainment, it follows somewhat the lines of the original.. then you got this thing.... Just going thru all the action movie stereotypes, just as if the director had a list in front of him that he had to check every box on as he made the movie... At least the two first movies tried to be realistic, opposed to just pure classical action movie setup, that no one wants anymore.
3. The comic relief, the douche bag, and the black hype up guy, and the annoying guy who are useless... WHY ALL THESE STEREOTYPES? seems like the director, just check every box again...
4. The literal second the last guys die... the rescue comes in, nonchalantly, not even trying to secure the area in case more enemies comes in... I mean, if the rescuers, were so close, that the second the propane tank had exploded and the dust settled, they could walk in... then one would expect they were within firring range to help shoot right? or at least lob a grenade.... So poorly made, in terms of realism.
5.the plot was weak...
1. unrealistic, the "freedom fighters standing in mid open places, with 5 guns pointing and hooting at them and they don't get hit, after like 100 bullets go past them, and if they had missed at least they would hit the people behind with how center clustered they stood. as well as standing in the middle of a hallway, no cover. not hit once, not before you give the "guy we don't trust" a gun to prove himself, then they drop like flies.
2. When the movie uses the name jar head 3... claiming to be a sort of sequel down the genre.. At least follow the premise from the other movies. Jarhead 1, damn good movie, you follow the protagonist, you get to experience what he feels and how he perceived things, you are in the story, good job! Jarhead 2. Little worse than the first but stile decent enough for entertainment, it follows somewhat the lines of the original.. then you got this thing.... Just going thru all the action movie stereotypes, just as if the director had a list in front of him that he had to check every box on as he made the movie... At least the two first movies tried to be realistic, opposed to just pure classical action movie setup, that no one wants anymore.
3. The comic relief, the douche bag, and the black hype up guy, and the annoying guy who are useless... WHY ALL THESE STEREOTYPES? seems like the director, just check every box again...
4. The literal second the last guys die... the rescue comes in, nonchalantly, not even trying to secure the area in case more enemies comes in... I mean, if the rescuers, were so close, that the second the propane tank had exploded and the dust settled, they could walk in... then one would expect they were within firring range to help shoot right? or at least lob a grenade.... So poorly made, in terms of realism.
5.the plot was weak...
A million bullets fired, never a wall got hit.
m_veldhuisen18 November 2021
so, so bad.
barabasoffice18 November 2021
Imagine a war movie without one single hand grenade. Unreal? Yep, Jarhead 3 is this movie. Boring characters, cliché story, zero creativity. I would have never imagined that I would say 'I prefer any Michael Bay movie instead of this' but here it is, I am saying it.
Nothing like Jarhead the original.
daerday18 June 2016
So pretty much this movie was nothing but action... I forced myself to watch Jarhead 3... First Jarhead movie was great, well written funny yet serious. The second one was too serious and stole lines from movies like V for Vendetta. The 3rd one they just said screw it to a story and just had non stop fighting for 2 hours straight. Made me think of wanting to make a movie and title is the third installment then make it just after the intro nothing but action to confused the people and end the movie with the hero saying some sly line like "Your logic is flawed murdering innocent people. You are not a hero to your people but a murder." then the villain saying "I see my error of my ways I surrender." right in the middle of a tense action scene.
The guns seemed to have unlimited ammo, and I realized the blonde girl was most likely CIA since she knew how to shoot right from the get go.
I would never consider this movie to anyone I know to save them 2 hours of their life... Sad part is I watched Jarhead 2 and 3 which had nothing to do with the original plot of Jarhead which was actually written by a man who spent time in Iraq during desert storm/desert shield.
The guns seemed to have unlimited ammo, and I realized the blonde girl was most likely CIA since she knew how to shoot right from the get go.
I would never consider this movie to anyone I know to save them 2 hours of their life... Sad part is I watched Jarhead 2 and 3 which had nothing to do with the original plot of Jarhead which was actually written by a man who spent time in Iraq during desert storm/desert shield.
Ignore the haters! Worth your time.
thomahal18 April 2019
Like the title on my review.
This is a good action flick.
Don't compare it with 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, or the first Jarhead.
Yes. There are some never ending magazines, you know those 30 rounds containing a 100 or more. I would guess a few Marines would coment on a lot going on here.
But. To knock of some time, watching decent action movie it's worth it.
The acting is decent i would say.
It's worth watching, is all i'm saying.
Siege with heads
kosmasp30 December 2021
Or is it Jars? No wait that is not what they mean right? Either you are as cluelesss about war in general like I pretend to be or you may find my joke distasteful. Hopefully you can forgive me. The movie itself that has nothing much in common with the original Jarhead movie (which I have to rewatch, but I remember liking a lot), is closer to the 13 hours movie. For better or worse.
But I do like Scott Adkins and if you are here for some action (shooting, war scenario and whatnot), you could do worse. The stunts and the action are decently done to say the least. Not much story, not much in character development - but I don't think anyone expected anything in that department! No pun intended ... solid overall, if you have low expectations.
But I do like Scott Adkins and if you are here for some action (shooting, war scenario and whatnot), you could do worse. The stunts and the action are decently done to say the least. Not much story, not much in character development - but I don't think anyone expected anything in that department! No pun intended ... solid overall, if you have low expectations.
Horrid
mikek-6499030 August 2018
It's not often I turn a movie off and don't finish it, but I did with this one. How do you make a military movie, but have absolutely no military guidance in the acting? At about 20 minutes in when they do the training scenario, they fly past every room without clearing them. Then Albright head shots the terrorist holding the HVT without having his weapon shouldered properly or even looking through the optics. That was enough to know this movie was all Hollywood and no military accuracy.
Don't waste your time
Don't waste your time
Solid action, good cast and acting, decent story.
alfredlodoardi22 May 2020
I like action movies with little to no cgi, lots of rounds and explosions, believable characters, and a good plot- this 'flick' delivered it all to me. Scott Adkins drew me in, if there were more hand to hand, a little more tech, it could have rated higher. For we, it was gripping from end to end.
Really Good ACTION movie. Ignore haters!
WatchAndSmile3 February 2017
I really enjoyed it. I wanted action with some back up story and acceptable acting. I got that and more. Acting was pretty good, with some good actors. A ton of nonstop action and a good story and kept me on the edge. I think some wanna-be soldiers expected absolute perfection and that just does not exist.
Action 10/10. Directing: 7/10. Acting: 7/10. Script: 7:10.
Would like to watch more movies like this.
--- I got nothing else to add. Just watch the movie! Never understood all the amateurs whose reviews consist of "trailer" type scenario. Why?! If I wanted to know more about the movie, I can watch the trailer and not read it!
Action 10/10. Directing: 7/10. Acting: 7/10. Script: 7:10.
Would like to watch more movies like this.
--- I got nothing else to add. Just watch the movie! Never understood all the amateurs whose reviews consist of "trailer" type scenario. Why?! If I wanted to know more about the movie, I can watch the trailer and not read it!
Propaganda 101
damianphelps24 January 2021
This movie is awful!!!
The acting is atrocious. The chick playing the 'office girl' is one of the worst actors I have ever seen!
If you are watching this for Adkins...don't, no fights.
The last 10 minutes are literally a recruitment video for the dumb.
You would have to be drunk on red white and blue to think this movie was any good.
The acting is atrocious. The chick playing the 'office girl' is one of the worst actors I have ever seen!
If you are watching this for Adkins...don't, no fights.
The last 10 minutes are literally a recruitment video for the dumb.
You would have to be drunk on red white and blue to think this movie was any good.
An Okay serious movie ruined by a clown!!
MovieIQTest29 January 2016
I often wondered why some actually not bad or even serious movies would insert a totally unnecessary cast, a comic-relief like jerk in the screenplays to completely ridicule and ruin them. The worst outcome is putting such clown figures in an action movie. We had seen Bruce Lee's martial art Kung-Fu movies stupidly arranged such totally unnecessary and inappropriate role and degenerated those supposedly suspenseful action movies into not quite serious enough ones. This "Jarhed 3" was another victim by such stupid arrangement in its screenplay, allowing a totally unnecessary character, Blake, played by the annoying Filipino American, Dante Basco, to mess up with and almost ruined it soon as this jerk-like guy holding a camcorder, appeared on the screen.
I am not so sure about the connections between the screenplay writer(s), the director, or even the executive producer(s) with Dante Basco, but one thing I could definitely assure is this sore-thumb like character completely torpedoed this, by general standard, not too bad, albeit quite serious action TV movie. Of course, there are many flaws and loopholes inherited from the screenplay's scenario and plot, but except this jerk-like stand-alone Blake character, all the other players did their jobs quite seriously. The clown character in a serious U.S. Embassy is not just possible but unthinkable, that stupid arrangement simply and totally ruined the believability of this movie, even there were many settings, furniture, bullet-proof windows and glasses were so vividly and realistically destroyed.
The Chinese got an old saying to describe such inappropriate careless arrangement that doomed the outcome: "A whole well-prepared pot of porridge is ruin by just one piece of small rat dropping", Blake/Dante Basco, is indeed that piece of rat dropping.
I am not so sure about the connections between the screenplay writer(s), the director, or even the executive producer(s) with Dante Basco, but one thing I could definitely assure is this sore-thumb like character completely torpedoed this, by general standard, not too bad, albeit quite serious action TV movie. Of course, there are many flaws and loopholes inherited from the screenplay's scenario and plot, but except this jerk-like stand-alone Blake character, all the other players did their jobs quite seriously. The clown character in a serious U.S. Embassy is not just possible but unthinkable, that stupid arrangement simply and totally ruined the believability of this movie, even there were many settings, furniture, bullet-proof windows and glasses were so vividly and realistically destroyed.
The Chinese got an old saying to describe such inappropriate careless arrangement that doomed the outcome: "A whole well-prepared pot of porridge is ruin by just one piece of small rat dropping", Blake/Dante Basco, is indeed that piece of rat dropping.
Action, period.
crahar6 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
If you're looking for an action movie with a "13 Hours" story line, decent acting, a whole lot of gunfire, and almost no realism, this could be your movie.
Thousands of rounds fired and the only person I ever saw change a magazine was the female (CIA?). The main character must have had one of those new "endless magazines" because he fired hundreds of rounds and never had to reload. The terrorists reminded me of Storm Troopers, maybe that's where the Empire has been recruiting. They couldn't hit the side of a building from 10 feet away. Meanwhile, the good guys took out a bad guy or two, every time they came out of cover, stood in the middle of the doorway or street, and returned fire.
And I'm not even going to talk about the annoying funny man that all the other reviews have already shamed.
Ludicrously Bad
cleishpark17 November 2021
No wonder that, in a recent war games exercise, the US forces had to call a halt after being comprehensively beaten time and time again by the British Royal Marine Commandos. If Jarhead3 portrays how badly US embassies are protected by US Marines then there's no hope for any of them! 😃
Scott Adkins fans prepare to be (mostly) disappointed.
ivanaaaaaaaaa1 March 2020
Are you here for Scott Adkins? Prepare to be disappointed. This isn't his usual bad, B movie with a payoff in the shape of some glorious ass whupping. There are zero kicks or punches thrown by Scott in this movie - those with a keen eye for detail should know something is off as soon as he shows up wearing well-fitted jeans (which do, ahem, fit him very well). Also, Scott is not the main character, so don't expect too much screen time with him.
The obnoxious, pretentious, cliche, 18 year old douchebag dialogue is terrible. The Reese Witherspoon lookalike with a hairdo that seems to be held together by an entire can of hairspray is annoying and just plain awful. (Her IMDB bio boasts of the famous acting coaches she's worked with ((I stopped reading after the first few rows)) - I hope she kept the receipts cause she should go get her money back.) And the camcorder guy? Don't even get me started on him.
As for all the firefights.. Pretty unrealistic scenarios made worse by details like the sound of shooting still going even after the person visibly stopped shooting.
Other than a few minutes of SA in tight jeans and the soothing voice of the AllState guy (also a side character), this movie is pretty awful. (It's really a 2/10, I gave an extra star for the former.) If you're a completionist, give it a watch. If you're looking for a good B movie, this isn't it - go watch something like Avengement instead. <3
The obnoxious, pretentious, cliche, 18 year old douchebag dialogue is terrible. The Reese Witherspoon lookalike with a hairdo that seems to be held together by an entire can of hairspray is annoying and just plain awful. (Her IMDB bio boasts of the famous acting coaches she's worked with ((I stopped reading after the first few rows)) - I hope she kept the receipts cause she should go get her money back.) And the camcorder guy? Don't even get me started on him.
As for all the firefights.. Pretty unrealistic scenarios made worse by details like the sound of shooting still going even after the person visibly stopped shooting.
Other than a few minutes of SA in tight jeans and the soothing voice of the AllState guy (also a side character), this movie is pretty awful. (It's really a 2/10, I gave an extra star for the former.) If you're a completionist, give it a watch. If you're looking for a good B movie, this isn't it - go watch something like Avengement instead. <3
Good military action movie
phanthinga21 September 2017
You don't have to be a fan of Jarhead series to enjoy Jarhead 3: The Siege.Directed by William Kaufman a good but underrated action movie director starring Charlie Weber as the lead role and Scott Adkins as the supporting role but still awesome nonetheless.The acting is fine for the most part but when it come to action scene if you familiar with William works you know how good it is.The gun fight is so intense and bloody that guarantee keep you on the edge of your seat.
Worse than Call of Duty.
E73VEN13 April 2022
This movie is a pain to watch. Totally unrealistic weapons and gun fights. Poor cinematography. I have seen better acting in a pantomime. Do something better with your time! Play Call of Duty! It is more realistic than this movie!
Entertaining low budget action movie, but don't expect a lot of Adkins
destroyerwod8 December 2020
I never saw the first 2 Jarhead movies. I watched this one because Scott Adkins was in it. Turn out he has more than just a cameo but he ain't the star of it, and if you expect to see usual Adkins martial arts, you may be disapointed. That said, the movie is pretty entertaining. There is plenty of action and i was in it for the whole time.
Sure we seen this story before, i remember a Van Damme movie that was very similar, so there is nothing really original but its low budget action movies done right. Grab a few beers, some pop corn, enjoy the fun.
Sure we seen this story before, i remember a Van Damme movie that was very similar, so there is nothing really original but its low budget action movies done right. Grab a few beers, some pop corn, enjoy the fun.
If you like 40 minute gun battles this film is for you
latinfineart9 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I do not know where to start to explain how poor this film was. They did have a few good actors in it and it could have been a halfway decent film had the director had any idea what he was doing. Or had it been supplied with a good script. Or had the gun battle not been so incredibly long and nonstop. There basically no story here, it was just 90,000 bullets. If you like that, then I recommend this film, if not take a pass
NEW FRIENDSHIPS ARE BETTER THAN NEW SHOES
nogodnomasters4 May 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This film doesn't seem to be connected to the other two and I don't believe they even used the disparaging term "Jarhead." Evan Albright (Charlie Weber) a lone wolf hero type, is assigned a gravy job at a US embassy in an unnamed Middle East country that has ISIS up north. In the first 30 minutes Albright (what's in a name) learns there is no "I" in team, the blond security agent (Sasha Jackson) that comes on to him, doesn't date marines; the ambassador (Stephen Hogan) doesn't have a personality; and his boss Gunny Raines (Scott Adkins) is a stickler to the chain of command. Albright believes an attack is imminent and no one believes him. At about 30 minutes into the film, it hits the fan and the gun fire doesn't let up until the end of the film.
This was a fairly formula film with limited unimportant twists. Dennis Haysbert plays a major in this film, a demotion from his normal general or colonel rank. The film takes time to let us know the characters before the over blown shoot out occurs. The film also tosses in some preachy lines of "us vs them" that were a bit corny, but has appeal to those attracted to this type of action film. Albright messes up in one scene and does his Richard Gere " An Officer and a Gentleman " breakdown impersonation, repeating much of the same lines... "I got no where else to go." Groan. Seriously Chad? Those were the best lines you could come up with?
However looking beyond the film's short comings, it was a high action, heart pumping thriller with characters.
Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity.
This was a fairly formula film with limited unimportant twists. Dennis Haysbert plays a major in this film, a demotion from his normal general or colonel rank. The film takes time to let us know the characters before the over blown shoot out occurs. The film also tosses in some preachy lines of "us vs them" that were a bit corny, but has appeal to those attracted to this type of action film. Albright messes up in one scene and does his Richard Gere " An Officer and a Gentleman " breakdown impersonation, repeating much of the same lines... "I got no where else to go." Groan. Seriously Chad? Those were the best lines you could come up with?
However looking beyond the film's short comings, it was a high action, heart pumping thriller with characters.
Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity.
It started so well
gam317 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
It could have been so good, but then it descended into banality.
I was so happy at the first 1/3 of this movie and then it just feel apart.
To have an interesting look at Marines stationed at a small embassy could have been such a fabulous story, but no we can't have that, this must become just another banal action movie.
I must say that I did like that part that the girl spook played, but most of the action was just a yawn.
I was so happy at the first 1/3 of this movie and then it just feel apart.
To have an interesting look at Marines stationed at a small embassy could have been such a fabulous story, but no we can't have that, this must become just another banal action movie.
I must say that I did like that part that the girl spook played, but most of the action was just a yawn.
Missed the point of Jarhead.
sinningsquid4 February 2022
Full disclosure.. I missed Jarhead 2, so can't compare it to that, but revisited Jarhead yesterday. This film *completely* misses the point of Jarhead. The ridiculousness of military life, how it's not all about explosions and U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A.. A lot of the time it's boring, it's stupid, and you're just a very small cog in a very large machine. Everything Jarhead went out if it's way to leave out is all this film is. Guns, unlikely firefights, explosions, the flag waving hero, the thought provoking speeches before the slow motion climactic ending. If you liked Jarhead and understood what it was about, you won't like this. It's entertaining, I guess, but like any fantasy hero soldier film. They took the easy route. This film won't be remembered 50 years from now.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
