Behind Enemy Lines II: Axis of Evil (2006 Video) User Reviews

Unrealistic thriller based on real world tension

[sinsro · 4/10 · 20 October 2006]

North Korea has developed a nuclear long range missile that can reach America. It's almost ready for launch, and the American president has few other options but ordering a military strike to remove the threat.

A navy seal team is put together and sent to the missile site to go undercover and destroy the facility, making it seem like an accident thus preventing provoking North Korea into retileration, which could quickly blow up into a full scale war causing millions of lives lost.

A very real world scenario, and it's a good background for a thrilling movie. However, with all this realism you would want more realism from the plot. There are so many holes in the plot, if the movie was a bucket, it would have water pour straight through the bottom.

For example, why would a surgical strike with stealth bombers be more provokative than sending a team of trigger happy seals behind enemy lines, blasting everything sky high for everyone to see? Yet, the whole tension is about the navy seals finishing their mission in time before the surgical strike is the only option left, naturally with no communication abilities with HQ to report about progress, and the usual war hungry American military adviser pushing for the most dangerous options.

The movie is also way too political correct. There are no bad-guys, South Koreans work together with the Americans, and even the North Koreans are good guys who are secretly on the Americans side. Only one person is left as the bad guy, Kim jong Il, North Koreas dictator.

I was also surprised to see how poor the special effects were. Reminded me of something from the early 80's. Blood splatter from gunfire was clearly just painted on top of the movie during post processing, and having a poorly done 3D model of the nuclear missile rotate around on a screen in the presidents conference room just made it look comical.

All in all, messy, inaccurate and most of all, predictable and pretty boring stuff. The first behind enemy lines was just a million times better in all aspects.

weak movie -

[jdi_90025 · 3/10 · 21 October 2006]

Reviewer Ash from Victoria, Canada, said "I'm not normally one to gripe about movies, hell i even liked Waterworld, but this movie redefined the idea of rubbishy over exposed b-grade actors pretending at being SEALs."

and he took the words right out of my mouth.

Because of BEL 1, I rented this movie expecting to see a quality film, but I was thoroughly disappointed - So much so, that it prompted me to write my first review.

Poor - Script, Casting, Directing, Acting, Scene music selection, Camera shake (I hate that overused and inappropriate camera shake)

Script: Weak at best and unrealistic far to often. Simplistic dialog for such a serious subject.

Casting: Peter Coyote is totally unbelievable as President. No country would ever elect this man President. Some Koreans looked like Japanese, although I might be somewhat biased because I am surrounded by Koreans in K-town in Los Angeles.

Directing: In one scene, the actor playing the main Seal, gets a nail or spike driven through his hand, yet hours later he is behaving like it was simply a paper cut or something. Bruce McGill, who is a good actor, is a shadow of his ability. I can only blame the generally poor acting on the director. The entire film is totally void of any emotion.

Acting: Most of the actors in the administration and Whitehouse scenes sound like they are reading their lines. I got the feeling I was listening to the production meeting run through. Overall, they deliver their lines with no conviction.

Music: They seem to have no clue about what music to use where. An example would be when the Seals are sneaking up to the enemy at the missile site, where one might expect some quiet low key music. Instead they use the dramatic music like one would expect at the end of a film.

I'm probably being too hard on this movie, but i was expecting the production quality of the first Behind Enemy Lines. At best, this one is a bad made-for-TV movie.

Bad action editing/directing

[SnoopyStyle · 3/10 · 8 January 2014]

North Korea is about to test a missile capable of reaching all of the US. The President (Peter Coyote) decides to send in SEAL team 1 to sabotage the missile. New intel forces him to change his mind and launch a pre-emptive strike. Four SEALs are left behind enemy lines to sit and wait for extraction. However they are found by the North Koreans.

This is a B action movie. The story is well and good for the limited movie. The production value is limited. The biggest problem is the editing of the movie. There are all kinds of crazy cheesy effects at work here. They have slo-mo fast-forward echoing effects with ethereal operatic music. Shaky cam is fine, but they shook way too much. The bad action scenes sucked out any possible fun from this movie.

Pretty feeble stuff

[Wizard-8 · 30 October 2012]

I took a quick look at the other user comments for this movie before writing this, and I saw that no one from South Korea (or for that matter North Korea) has so far contributed their thoughts. But I am pretty sure that any South Korean who sees this movie will feel as badly about this movie as I do. This movie is really badly made. The director CONSTANTLY jiggles the camera during the action sequences, enough so that these sequences are very hard to follow. He also photographs the majority of movie in ways that give the basic look of the movie a bland feeling, with nothing to capture the eye. But the screenplay has plenty of problems too. Would the U.S. military really enact a mission to North Korea without consulting the South Korean military/government first? And without taking any Korean soldiers with them for translation and other local problems that might come up? I'm no expert on the Korean situation or military procedures, but all the same this movie really insulted my intelligence.

No Relation to Original Title / Dreadful Beyond Belief.

[vitaleralphlouis · 2/10 · 28 October 2006]

The 1998 titled Beyond Enemy Lines was a very good movie with excellent production standards, character development, story, and the patriotism appropriate to a military movie. B.E.L. Axis of Evil has none of this.

Director James Dodson is perhaps the poster boy for today's airhead directors, a heavy dose of LSD along with the morning Starbucks. The first 50 minutes jumps around like Access Hollywood in fast-motion, none of it amounting to anything. The story doesn't come into focus until the final 40 minutes, then being only meaningless drivel. Making matters worse is Dodson's senseless trick of filming sequences thru color filters, the first being an orange filter for the South Korea scenes. Hey, guess what? South Korea is no more orange than South Dakota, you dope! Other scenes are through red filters, blue, et cetera. Dodson must think these tricks cover over the simple fact that he has no clue as to how to make a movie.

In the introductory voice over, the movie absolutely trashes the thousands of American soldiers who served and lost their lives in the Korean War 50 years ago. I think this was not so much Media Spin as that the filmmakers attended public schools and might have been taught doctored-history. They seem unaware that America was fighting not so much North Korea but Red China and Russia, or that General MacArthur had pushed deep into North Korea before the war ended.

I confess to owning 200 shares of stock in 20th Century-Fox; hence my sky high and bloated vote of 2. A zero would be more honest.

A waste of film and unworthy of being pressed as a DVD.

[barnesclan · 1/10 · 2 March 2007]

This movie is worse than the first one. Both replaced real action with constantly jiggling camera work. The frames change faster than a commercial. Humans do not see the world that way. Apparently the makers of this movie also believe real color is bad. They filter scenes with various colors or make it gray-scale. The constant stuttering film style is dizzying and makes what might have been an OK B-movie flunk completely. I saw the original and made the mistake of buying it, not realizing the stupid photographic style. But it was entertaining. This one is a bore. Thank goodness a friend lent me their rental. I would have pulled my hair out if I made the mistake of buying it.

Cinematography

[namag · 1/10 · 5 January 2007]

excessive use of Cinematographic effects. its very distracting making it almost impossible to focus on the story line. not to be mean or anything but looks like this guy just came out of film school and wanted to try it all. this could have been a far much better movie. the cameras movie move around too much though out the film and the lighting is off in the Korean scenes give the viewer a sense of the time line being somewhere in the 70's or 80's like a flashback effect. seems the best scenes int this movie are the conversations between the U.S President and the Ambassador.if they used these effects to intensify moment and i wish they actually made use of a steady cam's capabilities not just have it shaking like a saltshaker. i loved the first movie and i was a little bit heart broken when i saw this.

Awful direction and script

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 11 July 2014]

Looks like some producers at Fox remembered they made a pretty good little military thriller a decade or so ago; that film was BEHIND ENEMY LINES, casting the unlikely Owen Wilson as a soldier stranded in a hostile country and forced to fight his way out with help from the reliable Gene Hackman.

BEHIND ENEMY LINES II: AXIS OF EVIL has absolutely NOTHING in common with that movie. Instead this is a dumb, offensive and blockheaded pseudo-thriller that manages to offend everybody it depicts, from the Asian stereotypes to the knuckle-dragging US military. The plot, in which a crack squad are sent behind enemy lines in North Korea to destroy a missile, is as dumb as it sounds and the film is loaded with errors, both factual and otherwise.

You know you're in trouble from the outset, with James Dodson's direction winning the difficult position of being the worst thing about the film (and when the script is this bad, that's an impressive achievement). Dodson appears to be on speed throughout, cutting like there's no tomorrow and going in for dodgy/crazy shaky-cam effects throughout. The result is a film that's very nearly unwatchable.

The acting is pitiful and you end up feeling sorry for the recognisable faces who've clearly fallen on hard times; among them are Keith David, Ben Cross and Peter Coyote, a trio of former stars who must be wondering what sins they committed in a past life in order for them to appear in this. The action scenes are among the worst I've seen and the whole patriotic flag-waving stuff is vomit-inducing indeed. Give it a miss!

Unwatchable

[kaiserjerry · 1/10 · 13 June 2008]

I have had to turn off only 2 movies midway through in my lifetime and this was one of them. The camera work made this movie completely unwatchable, I was almost ill watching the camera shake around wildly even when the characters were standing still in a failed attempt to add excitement. And all of the scene's were so jumpy that it was difficult to figure out what was actually going on. It sounded like an interesting story, I was interested to see how it was going to pan out, but the direction I'm afraid ruined it entirely. Within the first 15 minutes or so both me and my wife had to keep looking away from the screen because the constant shaking was driving us both nuts, we tried to hold out until the action scenes were done but finally we both deemed it wasn't worth sitting through the whole movie not even able to watch the screen. Do yourself a huge favor and pass on this one.

America saved the world again !! still not that bad

[landriau2 · 6/10 · 29 October 2006]

• expect nothing while renting it , you may enjoy it .

• Not the same story as the first one , the guy is not lost and alone this time .

• lot of already seen before cliché - camera light while in north Korea make you think this country is lifeless and evil , yet the mountain and image are spectacular . but nothing new .

• the camera shake way too much ( as most of DTV movies ) , and some unnecessary background , camera effect make the movie hard to follow sometimes .

• slowdown action ( dtv cliché again ) - the plot has a lot of whole but still enjoyable , base on the 2004 event in north Korea ( making the plot more realistic about what wouold have happen ) still not that bad . i must say i enjoy it . the filming location were great and despite that the camera light was to give north Korea a lifeless look ...... the sight and mountain are great throughout the movie .

• ill give it a 5 or 6 out of 10 . but don't expect something new , a mixe of sum of all the fears , behind enemy line ( visual effect ) , tears of the sun etc... and other America saved the world movie . classic Hollywood cliché .

-in 1995-1996 ... "america saved the world" movies were meant to be "america saved the world " , but now .... they are trying to disguise it while the headline is still the same . assume it at least .

Don't bother to view this - you WILL be disappointed

[William-of-Baskerville · 2/10 · 26 March 2009]

Not many movies are so bad, I stop watching them. This is one. I saw the first Behind Enemy Lines, and it was an OK action movie. Not too special, but quite enjoyable to watch. I expected something similar with this part II. Boy, was I wrong! For an action movie, first of all this film is s - l - o - o - o - w - w: only after about an hour the action starts. Second, if you are a bit sensitive, you will get motion sick by the totally unnecessary jerky camera movements. If it weren't that annoying, it would be laughable that the director tried to hide the lack of real tension or action by heavy shaking of the camera. Third, the reaction of the North Koreans is totally unbelievable. I mean, a prisoner who is liberated will commit suicide?? And a North Korean army officer will allow an American seal to blow up a rocket?? Already a shallow introduction to North Korean society will reveal how it functions and what role the army plays.

I couldn't take it any longer, I tried, but finally I HAD to stop watching. Don't bother watching this movie, it's a waste of time.

Really enjoyed this title.

[patrickmercie66 · 8/10 · 12 November 2007]

Thankfully I worked in film retail/rental and from there have developed the good sense of trusting nobody's opinion but my own as far as the quality of enjoyment to be got out of films is concerned. I rented three films today and as always checked them on IMDb before deciding which one to watch first. BEL 2 had the worst ratings but from the comments was the sort of film I was in the mood for. And guess what, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Not only was the acting professional, most of the special effects where OK and the mix between action and politics was balanced. This film was also definitely better than BEL 1 in nearly every aspect, especially the acceptability of military actions and casualties. I will probably watch this once more in a few years.

Better than expected

[blambert-3 · 6/10 · 10 April 2007]

You pick a DVD like this up off the 'discount rack' for 5.00 you don't expect much. But this was a surprisingly good little movie made on a shoestring budget that doesn't look it. I liked the original Behind the Lines well enough but this movie is just fine in its own right. The actors/soldiers are young and Hung-ho which you'd expect. The plot moves along and doesn't have every cliché you usually see coming a mile away. The action scenes with their jittery camera work are rapidly paced & well done in my view. The political side of the story looks professional and pretty believable. Having seen every great war movie there is many times over, I give this movie a solid thumbs up and definitely worth a look.

What the heck were they thinking?!

[ashchandlerpease · 1/10 · 15 October 2006]

I'm not normally one to gripe about movies, hell i even liked Waterworld, but this movie redefined the idea of rubbishy over exposed b-grade actors pretending at being SEALs.

First of all, (and a particularly annoying part in my opinion) was most, if not all, of the weapon flashes were added post-production. The gas and dust from the misses was a nice touch, though somewhat overdone considering these guys are supposed to be a professional fighting group and they hit nothing but air, trees and rocks.

Furthermore, any fun in the action that was to be had was immediately quashed by the absurdly wild camera angles. In some cases i had to pause the movie to stop myself from being ill! The colors in most of the scenes was off, so lacking in some scenes of action that it looked like i was watching a black and white student film.

So, if you loved BEL 1 and you expect BEL 2 to be anything like it? Don't even bother giving it a second look. It's a steaming waste of time.

Just...........bad bad bad

[jllfannin · 1/10 · 27 October 2014]

I wouldn't even know where to begin. Yes, it's that bad. The original "Behind Enemy Lines" was well written, acted and believable. Great movie, I've seen many times. This movie is anything but that. Told my wife it's like it was made for 15 year old gamers by a 17 year old writer/director. Cheap, cheesy and total nonsense. We were/are supposed to believe these guys are really Navy Seals? They use AK47's? (the hook was intended for the 15 year olds. AK47= cool!!), get caught after being on the ground for what?, 15 minutes? Have firefights that require absolutely no clip (ammo) changes, ever? Dumb movie, bad acting, ridiculous writing. If this is the only thing on, read a book........or grab an AK with unlimited ammo and put yourself out of you misery.

Cameraman with DT & slow Seals

[mike-4210 · 1/10 · 22 January 2007]

Some examples (can't be spoilers because you can't spoil a rotten movie): Camera was constantly shaken and double-imaged during any action scene. Keep a bag or bucket handy. Camera tricks and double images even were used when a truck is seen being driven down a dirt road - not even a chase.

Four very fit and trim Navy Seals can't catch a 9 year old undernourished Korean boy - how can that happen? And some of them are running in the empty forest with their M?? held up to their face.

They want to catch the kid so he won't report them to the village, but they chase him right into the village and into his mother's house. Did they suddenly get capes of invisibility? And they have seen the village before with binoculars so they had a general idea of the layout.

Four Seals "lose" a gun battle with North Korean troops that followed them to the forest in 4 VW vans, but 2 Seals and 3 or 4 South Korean infiltrators are able to fight a gun battle and escape from the middle of a small North Korean base - driving an apparently bullet-proof taxi. Maybe it was invisible during the 3 donuts it made in the center of the camp. Had to fast forward thru the last half of the movie to just to check if the camera settled down - it didn't.

Not that there is anything wrong with it, but the South Koreans come out as the intelligent and capable ones while the U.S. just bumbles thru.

An operation by a one or another special forces group gone sour is an old concept, attempted to be renewed by the filmmakers, not very successfully

[JaydoDre · 5/10 · 9 October 2006]

There's not too much to say about this movie, as there isn't much going on about it. Navy SEALs are prepared for a mission inside the North Korea to resolve a nuclear crisis that's appearing on the horizon. During the drop, the mission gets aborted and several SEALs get stuck in the enemy territory. Things turn sour quickly, but before you know it, the forlorn have to save the world. The idea itself is nowhere near original, and only a good execution can save a plot like this, as it can go both ways. Let's see if it does.

As we go deeper into the plot of the movie, it quickly becomes apparent that the movie was meant to attract as many viewers as possible with lots of gunfire and shocking moments. That in mind, it's not surprising to see many small ridiculous moments, where anyone who gives it some thought would be shocked, but not in a good way. For instance there's a moment when a SEAL gives a gun to a clueless and tired Korean slave-laborer so he can also take part in a highly important operation (where stealth was of high importance). The laborer shoots himself, so at least the movie doesn't go as far as turning a laborer into a Rambo. Thanks for that. Moreover, common are firefights where both sides are meters away from each other and neither side seems to be able to eliminate the other, even with the hundreds of rounds they seem to have in each 30-round clip.

The acting is average and the best players got the side roles, in particular the Koreans. The main hero could've been a better choice than Nicholas Gonzalez. Interesting thing to notice is that no real bad guy is present in this movie.

The camera work is one thing that's noticeably professional. The camera seems to move around in every way physically possible, with a wide zooming range, using tricks like multiple layers (when you see zoomed-in content on a zoomed-out background).

The sound has been given some thought and the music ranges from exciting symphonic trips to soul-scratching folk singing. It fits relatively well so there's not much to say about it.

The movie survives thanks mainly to camera work, some actors and perhaps a large budget. It's an average action flick that can entertain if you have nothing better to do, but I wouldn't make it a central movie at a big event.

huge disappointment

[ahadoff-1 · 2/10 · 22 April 2008]

This film has absolutely nothing to compare with BEL1. Very unrealistic acting and shooting scenes. Being a great fan of BEL1, I must admit that I didn't get nothing in that taste from this movie.. Please just watch the opening tittles of BEL1 once more, breathtaking from first second to last one.

(_______spoiler_______)

from it's first minute its very easy to guess that there will be no operation at all and there are just conversations.. that escape with taxi was way too funny. And there definitely had to be another way to get lost (or broken) wireless communication device rather than donkey scene) the only positive thing for this film is those "fast cut" edits and transitions, but even there they go to overkill. i'm sorry.. it's real crap!

Way better go watch original BEL once again instead.

This obscene exercise in flag waving pro US propaganda has one upside: no Owen Wilson

[adam_antichrist · 4/10 · 9 October 2006]

Pros: some really nice cinematography gave this film a hint of artistic credibility. Some OK action sequences. Performances aren't offensively bad, unlike the premise.

Cons: the TVesque use of sped up sequences and dodgy CGI are the downside to production. Only one female character. Typically ludicrous action film dialogue and overuse of flashbacks make this hard to watch while the plot is hard to stomach.

What more could you expect from US filmmakers during wartime than something to make you feel proud to be American and perhaps even join in the fight against fight evil? This time the evil doers are the North Koreans, who have developed an Intercontinental Ballistic missile (ICBM) which has the capability of delivering a WMD to American soil. And how dare they, when the US and her allies are the the only countries allowed to keep such weapons in the name of freedom! To remedy this a team of navy seals parachute into North Korea and then the film gets really tacky. The use of light filters in EVERY SINGLE SCENE in North Korea gives the country (and people) a colourless lifeless feel (because they are evil). The Nth Korean military are depicted first abusing civilians then committing war crimes. The seals are assisted by some South Korean soldiers sent to help them escape from 'behind enemy lines', who of course immediately begin taking orders from the yanks. All the while, back in the war room the president agonises over whether or not to drop a vast number of bombs on the Koreans because unlike them, he is not evil.

This movie was well enough put together to be enjoyable for anyone so brain dead they can swallow the whole flag waving god bless America rubbish without firing the odd neuron in protest. However if you prefer your war drama to be based on reality rather than fantasy, just re-screen a copy of The Thin Red Line and pretend they never made this film.

Bulgarian cheapie

[ctomvelu1 · 24 July 2011]

A very poor sequel to a very good thriller, BEHIND ENEMY LINES: AXIS OF EVIL is about a small group of Navy SEALS attempting to take out a missile site in North Korea. Naturally, everything that can go wrong, does. Shot on the cheap in Bulgaria, this STV is pretty much one continuous firefight, and the battles are so poorly executed that it is hard to tell what is going on a good part of the time. The acting is strictly of the cardboard variety. The film reminds me of a Chuck Norris flick from his days with Cannon, only those films were better. Some old timers pull duty here, including Keith David as a SEALS trainer and Peter Coyote as the president of the U.S. No suspense, no real interest in anything going on. Stick with the original.

Could be better

[ginger37 · 6/10 · 20 May 2007]

Being involved with the SAS, SBS and Royal Marines at various stages i know a bit about special ops. The plot to this movie is believe able and all the SEAL tactics seen are real however what lets this film down is the gun fights scenes. SEALS are some of the best shots in the world also they were using AK-47 assault riffles firing 5.56 ammo in 30 round mags. They never seemed to reload. Also the taxi just ruins the credibility completely however i felt had the film more budget and a director who had done some research it could have been a film on par with Black Hawk down and Jar Head. The plot was also slightly week and the links to Clinton at the start just confuse the audience.

Who gave the toddler the camera?

[nlulek · 1/10 · 25 June 2018]

This film is abhorrent at best. The filming is nausea inducing shaky cam garbage for the majority of the film. The dialog and character development is a joke. This film isn't even on par with B budget action films of the 1980's. Do yourself a favor and take a fervent pass on this flotsam.

Excellent cinematography, acting, and realism

[wsu-cougar · 10/10 · 4 November 2006]

As a movie buff I compared this movie against the first Behind Enemy Lines(BEL) as well as a few others. As a former Special Operations member I also compared this movie to my personal experiences in the military.

I have to say that compared to the first BEL the second was much more believable. The first BEL had a couple sweet matrix type moments, like the trip wire mines going off, but I would expect this with an operating budget of 40 million dollars. With BEL-2 having only 3 million dollars in operating expenses it did a pretty dang good job comparatively. Almost all of the computer generated scenes in BEL-2 are almost unnoticeable except for a few exaggerated blood splatters. The transition from computer to real-life is very professional. Basically I sometimes couldn't decide if it was real or computer generated during some of the action sequences. Ultimately I don't think Fox should have tagged this movie with BEL, it should have been a movie itself. The only reason they did was because I'm sure viewers wouldn't give it a glance at Blockbuster otherwise, due to the lack of big named stars.

Now take into consideration that two episodes of Alias, or approximately 96 minutes of runtime without commercials, costs an average of 4.6 million dollars, 2.3 million each episode. Compare this to BEL-2 and Alias looks like the B-rated movie, while BEL-2 saved 1.6 million dollars over Alias in the process.

As for acting I felt like everyone in that movie deserved an A+. I get the sense that some reviewers are biased against movies that don't have big named stars. Well the acting in this movie out performs a lot of blockbuster hits. If this movie received a larger budget than 3 million and had big named stars it would have been as good, if not better, than Bruce Willis's Tears of the Sun. Just for comparison, Tears of the Sun cost 70 million dollars, what a waste of money compared to BEL-2. They should have gone with BEL-2's director and computer animation group.

As a former Spec-Ops member I appreciate the realism of the tactics and fight scenes. I'm not implying that it is all real, but it is much more believable. Some scene's like the SEAL training scenes are buttered up a bit to give the audience a generality of their background but are not actual training procedures. It's a relief to go from Owen Wilson dodging a million bullets unscathed to BEL-2's real life consequences of a well placed shot by the enemy.

The political tactics in this movie are extremely realistic. A good portion of the movie revolves around the politics as well as the field action. In my opinion it best represents actual procedures that would occur in a real world situation. After all war, and the prevention of, is a significant amount of politics and not just Rambo shooting all the "bad guys". Don't worry though, the political encounters in my opinion help you feel more involved in the entire process of an actual real world situation.

BEL-2 also shows all sides of the parties involved, i.e. N. Korea, S. Korea, and the US. What I liked most about the movie was how they showed all sides as intelligent human beings. Unlike the first BEL in which the enemy was all evil and no good person existed on the opposite side of the US. BEL-2 shows the N. Korea's military leaders as intelligent and some of them compassionate people that care for their countrymen and also for the welfare of the earth's population, and they are aware of their leader's habits and exaggerated perceptions about himself.

I now have a great admiration for the director of this movie, Jame's Dodson. He took 3 million dollars and turned it into a movie that deserved the big screen. In my Opinion he turned 3 million into 40 million when compared to the first BEL. Taking this into account he should be making blockbuster hits with this kind of potential profit for investors. In the filming of BEL-2 Jame's Dodson took the Paul Greengrass approach, as in the Bourne Supremamcy. If you didn't see the Bourne Supremacy it involves close-ups and a bit more movement of the camera during action scenes to build realism and suspense. In the Bourne Supremacy if you thought to yourself "I remember the Bourne Supremacy and I felt like I was going to puke from the extreme camera movement" do not worry. James Dodson's approach is much more milder and more comfortable than Paul Greengrass's aggressive technique, while still keeping the intense effect.

I think the majority of people will enjoy this movie for its accuracy, action, and intelligence embedded in the plot. Its a movie worthy of the big screen and you can rent it for less than a movie ticket at the theaters. I know we all worry about renting straight-to-DVD release's and being overcome by cheesiness, but fear not peoples who love quality movies. Here is your chance to rent a movie and actually see an entertaining movie you haven't already seen on the big screen.

Not bad at all

[jim-hutchison-1 · 7/10 · 21 October 2006]

We're so spoiled by blockbuster movies in this genre, that movies like this don't get the recognition they should. The acting was great, and there was a good injection of seeing the human side of war. The only criticism is the production tries to look bigger than it was, so maybe a bigger budget would have made this a killer movie.

What was great as well was the surprises here and there that kept my attention; not that I'm ADD, but I appreciate a well-thought-out plot that isn't so cookie-cutter. Of course the good guys win, but hey - this is Hollywood.

Those are my thoughts, not yours...

Worst sh!t of a movie ever !!!

[customax-1 · 1/10 · 26 December 2006]

Don't waste your time downloading/buying this, how in the world did they get any1 to spend money on making this?? And those really annoying transitions and video effects, the use up all Adobe Premiers effects gallery every 4 minutes, this only to take you away from the bad acting and bad storyline.

I used 7 minutes to See the film only fast-forwarding !!!! watching paint dry would get an Oscar compared to this! BAD BAD BAD......

(1.time I ever bothered to write a comment, it was that bad :-)) _________________________________sorry for the following section, some rules they have for commenting.....

Well it seems to be too few words I have written to be able to inform the public, not a very good rule this that all comments has to be 10 line or more but not exceeding 1000 words. I mean the world already has enough BLOB-WARE eg. Office pack. It should be allowed not to spam when you need to make a point??