The Objective (2008) User Reviews

Ambitious movie that is Interesting despite flaws,,,

[Siamois · 5/10 · 3 September 2008]

The Objective is, in many ways, reminiscent of science-fiction movies of old, particularly the 70s. But whether it was intentional of Daniel Myrick or it simply is a coincidence, I wouldn't know. One thing is for sure, the real magic and strength of older science-fiction classics is not fully conjured here.

This small-budget movie's premise is simple but opens many possibilities. An elite military commando is sent on a mission in the tensed, war-torn present-day Afghanistan. They are led by a mysterious government operative. Their "Objective" is relatively unclear but considering the risks taken, the stakes must be high. As the story unfolds, the mystery remains and the plot thickens but we are still left with a sour taste as the development and tension doesn't pay off much.

There's a mish-mash of elements here that have been a success in other works and movies. Shades of The Andromeda Strain. Shades of Aliens. Shades of Space Odyssey, of Altered States and of old Bermuda Triangle Movies. More than anything, with just a little rework, this could have been a solid X-Files movie. CIA agent Ben Keynes could easily become FBI agents Mulder and Scully, which would have made things much more dynamic.

One of the biggest problem The Objective suffers from is an underdeveloped protagonist and cardboard peripheral characters. One of the secrets to the success of Aliens is that James Cameron, in a much busier storyline, was able to present his space marines as more than mere Alien-hamburgers. In just a few lines, or a few silent frames, we are exposed to colorful personalities and the various interactions between them. In The Objective, not only are the special force members absolutely bland, but they don't even interact in interesting ways with the plot or the main character. When a film-maker introduces characters that are obvious plot tools, I call this weak film-making. But when such characters aren't even effective tools, I call this awful film-making. And that's unfortunately the case here.

As for the actual plot... suffice it to say it is intriguing. A few hints are given here and there in the movie that might help figure out what the shocking resolution means. We are firmly in speculative science-fiction at times, much like old sci-fi. This makes this flawed movie a valid entry for fans of the genre but others would be better off passing.

This is still a solid effort by Daniel Myrick and commendable on an $8,000,0000 budget. But it seems a less ambitious, more tightly knit plot would have been preferable over too large a scope.

Good first half, disastrous last part

[rishi_is_here-1 · 6/10 · 9 August 2008]

I just didn't get it, it started so promising. It has created all the supernatural sensations during the first half, added with very good acting and pretty good cinematography. But then it loses. Mainly because nobody would understand what is the objective of the soldiers who are following a horror trail in middle of nowhere. I would say its a perfect example of very bad story telling where you created all the attention and then just don't deliver it. The end is so disappointing, what did it mean? Is the guy still living and in a trauma center or he died. What is it that they were following in the entire movie? Well it may be shrouded with mystery and director may keep it for the audience to think on , but then at least give something to think on.It will get marks only for its low budget but good direction except the end, good acting , tight conversation and creating the tension.

A Big Question Mark

[tuxlie · 5/10 · 14 August 2008]

After watching this movie I came straight back on IMDb to see if I could make sense of what I had just watched. But after reading all the comments so far, I am none the wiser. It definitely did remind me of 'Blair Witch In The Desert' (with an Apocalypse Now style narration throughout) albeit without the hand camera so at least you don't feel queasy at the end, just a tad confused

Having said that, it did command my attention until the end, and I did enjoy it. After about 1/2 an hour its pretty obvious that the ending isn't going to be neatly wrapped up so it shouldn't leave you too disappointed

Not bad, not good. It's watchable.

[Jobbe9 · 17 August 2011]

Should we follow these brave men on their objective, or should we go on the subjective and fail their mission?

The film is set in Afghanistan (don't know where it's actually filmed, though) and thus creates a believable atmosphere and setting. The story does not deviate from what we have come to expect in Military-Sci/Fi-things as of late, but still manages to set itself apart from the paranoia and suspicion evolving the CIA. The story is told through the main-character, on his journey to uncover the truth about some abnormal readings in a remote area of Afghanistan.

The main-character is, however, also my main problem. He is dry, he is extremely dry. Not showing emotions or even just humane reactions, he becomes a shadowy figure and, sadly, falls into the stereotypical role of an agent on a secret mission. His voice is monotonous and overall he lacks charisma. The other characters are as believable as they come. They actually seem like real people you would meet on the streets. Just that these guys are soldiers and not regular people.

The story is slow to evolve but as their sightings grow in both number and essence you'll find yourself wanting to know more. Only a few times does the film seem boring but as a whole, it's worth the wait to let it unfold. The story is not original, mind you, but what is these days?

Technically the film is sound. Nothing particular about it, really. It's mediocre and it's seems happy to be just that.

Anywho, give it a go if you want to kill off an hour and a half and not making it feel like a complete waste of time, but don't expect a film that'll save your day.

" I suppose it's my attempt to die with Dignity "

[thinker1691 · 5/10 · 22 May 2010]

Every country in the world has a collected storehouse of stories involving Ghosts, Goblins and things which go bump in the night. In the far East, from the tall rugged mountains of Afghanistan, comes this legendary tale of violent death which re-surfaced in the 21st century. The movie is called " Objective " and tentatively based on the legendary incident, concerning one Dr. William Brydon otherwise known as 'The Massacre at Khourd Caboul.' writer/Director Daniel Myrick tells the story of a C.I.A. operative, Benjamin Keynes (Jonas Ball) who is given a covert assignment to venture into the mountains of Afganistan and find a mystic leader named Mohammad Aban who possess special information concerning the area. Accompanying him will be an elite military team, led by Chief Warrant Officer Wally Hamer (Matt Anderson) and a local guide named Abdul (Chems Zinoune). What begins as a routine reckon mission to find and deliver a mystic leader, develops into a mysterious search, destroy and survive encounter with an ancient, but very powerful stellar phenomenon. The movie endeavors to enthrall an audience with crude scenes imitating 'Close Encounters and Predator. With a stiff narration and a poor story-line, the cast tries its best but fails on several levels. Still, it is an interesting movie, if one doesn't expect too much. I would have thought the original story of the British Massacre would have been a better investment. ***

Interesting sci-fi/horror/war story

[Shattered_Wake · 7/10 · 16 August 2008]

One of the directors of The Blair Witch Project teams up with the son of former United States Army General Wesley Clark to bring us this sci-fi war thriller about Special Ops soldiers in Afghanistan who come across a mysterious sect of Taliban members with a supernatural weapon of 'unimaginable powers.'

The horror of war is something that the world faces constantly; but, ironically, there have not been many great horror films set in a war. This, while not technically a war film, has more than its fair share of guerrilla combat set in the desert of Afghanistan. The locations are fantastic and Morocco was a good replacement for what would obviously be a pretty difficult place to film a movie. So, the film automatically had the good looks going for it. Myrick did a good job of capturing the mountainous terrain and utilizing the various elements of the setting. The acting is pretty good and, more importantly, believable. That's saying more than a bit seeing as the script leaves a lot to be desired. I've known my fair share of military personnel over the years, and the soldiers did fit the roles well. Also, unlike many low-budget horror films with the military. . . they actually knew how to hold weapons and follow proper war protocol. It was refreshing to say the least. While on the characters, I will note one problem with them: There was almost no bond among the characters as a whole and very little development of the characters individually. As far as horror goes, there are some creepy scenes among the action of the battle sequences. One scene in particular involving some smokelike creatures seen through thermal scopes was fairly chilling. Unfortunately, as happens with many sci-fi films. . . the ending was pretty strange and confusing. It seemed thrown in so that they didn't have to give an explanation. I like open-ended conclusions often. . . but that doesn't mean they don't have to make sense. I enjoyed much of the rest of the film, however. Fans of Altered and similar sci-fi horrors should check this one out.

Final verdict: 6.5/10.

Great Build-up, Big Letdown

[jessicaFTM87 · 5/10 · 3 May 2008]

I saw the Tribeca screening in NYC last week. I was entranced and enthralled, and found the first 2/3 of the movie to be excellent. But the end was a huge letdown for me. My boyfriend felt the same. There is no resolution. We had all sorts of questions that were left unanswered: were the "bad guys" ghosts? ETs? The CIA? Why was Keynes floating at the end? How did he get back to the West? Who were the people watching him through the glass? Yes, all sorts of strange, unearthly things were happening to the soldiers... but WHY -- and WHO was doing this to them? We never get a satisfactory answer as to WHO and WHY. This could have been a GREAT movie... if only things weren't left up in the air (like Keynes) at the end. The producers should re-think the ending with Myrick and re-shoot the end -- or audiences are going to stay away, in my opinion.

Off beat Sci-fi weirdness

[mail-1030 · 7/10 · 21 August 2008]

This a smart Sci-fi/horror/ War Movie in a similar vein to R-Point or Outpost, a bit of popular myth (this time on a Erik von Dankin tip)... set against the backdrop of the most modern of wars.

It's low budget and fairly obscure, punching above its weight with superbly haunting location shots (Atlas Mountains Morocco) and tight audio FX / Soundtrack. The Special forces soldiers are believable too, kudos to the military adviser, and the acting's not bad too.

The best think about 'The Objective'is the brooding pacing, It never scared me, more just left of field enough to make you think - this is and a bit different, that's a bit odd, this ain't Hollywood etc... and all the better for it... not surprising then to learn its from one of the directors from Blair Witch...

On the flip side the heavy narration gives it a TV movie feel and though it kind of works in the end hmmmm, I dunno there was still a bit much. Narrative's a bit al over thae place, and whilst some might shout "rubbish" or IMDb fav "worst movie ever" I'll go for "fun for what it is" and that is on a par with an extended version of your fav X-file's/Outer limits episode.... Absolutely Recommended I thoroughly enjoyed 'The Objective'

I'm never getting that time back....

[chris-609-584560 · 2/10 · 16 December 2009]

There's a bit of a spoiler in here... Great start that appeared to be building to something. Must have missed it, or the tagline that said "It'll all make sense once you have seen the next movie". What a letdown! As the credits rolled up I was left with the feeling of "Eh?" and that was about it... Some are going to like it, but I feel that a storyteller's job is to tell the story. If the writer/Director is good enough, then questions can be great! Not this movie, though... I can't get the thoughts out of my head that it could have been a good movie. The use of landscape was great, the good guys could get killed and didn't always shoot straight and the beginning was intriguing. Sorry - I've come back full-circle - "Eh?"

A good movie with serious flaws

[pmdawn · 6/10 · 28 August 2008]

"The Objective" is a really cool movie. You have a CIA agent working with military men in Afghanisthan, and weird, paranormal stuff happens. There's a sense of realism - which was probably Myrick's objective - that is very well done here. You feel like you're there with the guys, in that immense, isolated, mysterious space.

It's this sense of immersion and the suspense that propells me to give this movie a 6/10, purely because I really enjoyed it. But that's not to say it is without flaws; au contraire, the story is like a mechanical swiss cheese, with obvious, unavoidable and perhaps intentional plot holes - the problem is that some of them nearly ruined the film for me, and will certainly ruin it for the casual science-fiction fan.

So there you have it - I liked this movie and I'd recommend it - but I feel this movie could have been so much better if not for some serious flaws.

The painfully obvious first one is the narration, done by the main actor. Actually, there are two problems here - the protagonist seems miscast, or at least the actor seems to have a speech impediment problem. I'm not joking, he doesn't narrate, he... mumbles. I hope this was not intentional.

One complaint that I've seen in other reviews, but for me would be nit-picking, are about some of the visual effects. Not the FX themselves, but rather the use of them. Like many I feel some things are best left to our imaginations, and this movie is a nice example of getting this sort of thing wrong.

There's a fantastic scene in the middle of the movie that involves binoculars. In this scene, the "leave it to the imagination" part is incredibly scary. Here, it works. Later on, not so much.

I will only further comment on the ending, and I don't have many words to describe my reaction. In a way, it's a genius ending, and in another, you feel like you've been made a fool of. It's usually good to be left with a mystery, but sometimes it pisses people off, and sadly, this is the case with me and "The Objective".

I know I'll watch it again, though.

6/10

The Blair Witch goes to Afghanistan and stumbles miserably

[Tygalilly · 1/10 · 26 April 2008]

Terrible. That about sums it up. I, too, was at the world premiere screening at the Tribeca Film Festival and was sitting two rows behind the director. If I didn't get a free ticket to this screening, I might have had the nerve to ask him for my $15 back. The plot was unconvincing, the acting was beyond sub-par, and it felt like it was taking forever to get to the point of their "Objective". I must have checked my watch at least five times throughout the movie. There was only ONE scene in the entire movie that compelled me to feel invested in some of the characters. But, on the whole, this was lazy film-making at its laziest. Voiceovers that uttered cliché after cliché, over and over again just made me want rip my ears off. To wit, the relative monotone voice of lead Jonas Ball was perhaps supposed to represent the team's logic and authority in this mission, but all it did was make me roll my eyes when he spoke, reminding me that, yes, this movie has an absolutely horrible script and its laughable examples of insightful dialogue are insulting to anyone with mostly functioning senses.

And the ending! My GOD, the ending was head-scratching and completely useless. USELESS! This director shouldn't make any more films. Ever.

Do NOT see this movie. You'll thank me for warning you, I promise.

The Objective - Plot About Djinn

[nineveh-4 · 8/10 · 15 August 2008]

Many people don't get what the supernatural events were about in this movie. It is normal because it contains elements of common themes of ghosts and ufo. However, it deals with neither. Many of the events of the film makes sense if you understand occult lore of the Middle East surrounding creatures known as the Djinn.

Forget about the Aladdin version of the Djinn. Mythological and occult lore of the Djinn is entirely different. Djinn are said to be of fire that doesn't burn. That is an ancient reference to electricity or magnetism. The word jinn in Arabic has the linguistic meaning of 'invisible' and it also shares the same linguistic root as the word 'mad'.

Let's take a closer look at the movie...

1) The man in the cave is actually a sorcerer. The beings he was communicating with are the djinn. They are invisible to the naked eye, but they registered on the solider's equipment. He provided them water that turned into sand. Djinn in ancient lore are able to materialize things ranging from food to gemstones. However, they eventually turn to dust.

2) Evil tribes of the djinn such as the Beni Ghilan (followers of al-Ghoul) are believed to consume dead human flesh.

3) Ancient records detailing djinn materialization talk about strange sounds like 'buzzing bees' before they appear. In this movie, it is the buzzing sound of a chopper.

4) Magnetic phenomena....there is a little known Arabic text called the Green Island dating back to medieval morocco. This book talks about a man who was kidnapped by the djinn and taken to a magical island. He was returned to his village many years later. He left behind a make-shift map trying to point out where this magical island was. Modern researchers of the story tried to correlate the map with modern geographic data. They discovered that the instructions placed it somewhere in the middle of the Bermuda triangle. The mountain range appears to be another secret home of the djinn and thus seem to reflect strange magnetic phenomena.

5) Weird lights...the same old occult texts when discussing djinn manifestation refer to lights that suddenly appear and shine upon the sorcerer from which emerge strange figures (the djinn).

6) Ending....djinn are reported to have strong telepathic abilities and to be very secretive of their reality. The film's ending is about a man whose brain was scrambled by the djinn after being touched on the forehead by one of them. He got too close and he was neutralized and left behind as an example...

I don't claim to know exactly what the script writer intended with all of those references. I am making an educated guess here based on the similarities (coincidental or intended) between the events of the movie and the ancient mythological narrative.

Check out books such 'Book of Deadly Names' for more info on the djinn.

Interesting rehash of Blair Witch Project that ultimately fails.

[krachtm · 6/10 · 2 August 2011]

I was drawn in by the concept, though I think that people expecting a traditional ghost story may be a bit disappointed by the lack of exposition, plus the lack of a tidy conclusion that draws everything together. Much like The Blair Witch Project, the ending is ambiguous, leaving you to draw your own conclusion as to what just happened. If you happen to be familiar with Middle Eastern occultism and mythology, you'll probably recognize a lot of themes and concepts, but if your knowledge is limited to Disney's Aladdin, I think you'll be completely lost, due to the lack of exposition or explanation. The most interesting aspect to this movie, that draws it away from being your normal ghost story, is that the supernatural events are couched in terms of UFO lore. Are the antagonists insurgents? Ghosts? Interdimensional travelers? UFO aliens? Djinn? Who knows. In the end, it's not really all that important. It is the melding of these two similar yet disparate themes (contemporary UFO conspiracy theories and traditional mythology) that make this movie more interesting than if it had just gone one way or the other. The problem is that this is basically a rehash of The Blair Witch Project, with people descending into mutinous fist-fights, getting lost in areas that defy both maps and local knowledge (with the requisite compass going haywire), and straaaange symbols that seem to be part warning and part curse. In fact, I felt like I was watching a strange mix of The Blair Witch Project (which I disliked quite a lot) and Apocalypse Now (which I really enjoyed), with elements of Close Encounters mixed in, near the climax. I think this works better than BWP (partly because the acting was so horrible in BWP), but it still ultimately fails, because, like BWP, it's basically just a bunch of guys walking around, seeing increasingly spooky stuff, with no real payoff at the end. In that sense, maybe it's more of an "experience" than it is storytelling, and how much you enjoy this movie will probably hinge on whether you're looking for an interesting experience or conventional storytelling.

"Find your own meaning"/meaningless thriller with few actual thrills

[dimas777 · 5/10 · 25 April 2008]

The only original idea in this movie is to unapologetically use an actual, on-going and bloody war as a superficial backdrop to a pointless and hackneyed plot. The crew seemed like a good bunch of guys, and I'm sure they had a ton of fun in Morocco filming this. Too bad nobody has done the hard work of coming up with a coherent vision, purpose and narrative; of aligning location, characters and story; of coming up with a meaning or a graceful way of avoiding imposing a meaning; or, at the very least, of making an engaging thriller.

Stephanie Martin's cinematography, however, did make the movie much more bearable. Well-done and beautiful. Even stunning at times.

The score was quite good as well, I thought.

Much Ado about Nothing

[jrchaff · 1/10 · 27 October 2009]

Movie is a disappointment, sort of like Stargate: Starts good, ultimately a big letdown - no real insight or resolution - just the confusion of a director not really sure where his own plot is going. In Stargate, the letdown was the arrival at a typical cartoon ending for a cartoon generation. The letdown happens because, as with 'Objective', the movie starts strong and engages the watcher(s), especially those with no knowledge of astrophysics (Stargate), or of real military operations and real military SF folks, or normal adult behavior under stress, for that matter (Objective).

The so-called 'military adviser' to the movie producers (his military qualifications apparently restricted to a bald haircut simulating some tough-guy) has quite obviously never been in a military organization - certainly not Special Forces. The extreme letdown begins soon in the movie, with the SF team nearly all acting out the temper tantrums and continual foul-language of teenagers. This is not real, folks. The real SF people are far more mature, far less ruled by such childish rebellion. As are the vast majority of military troops - especially those with any real combat experience. The viewpoints expressed, rapid-fire and with no attempt at cool analysis, are those of street goofs having a shouting match about drugs, not real soldiers in the zone.

In contrast to some above comments, I have to say that the 'acting' here was atrocious, the military 'adviser' was completely uninformed, and the attempt at 'mystery' was about as challenging as a 3rd grade reader. Today's youngsters in the military - those that pay attention - should recognize this as a kiddie story, poorly acted, poorly advised, poorly directed, and poorly presented. I changed my vote from 3 to 1. It's not some 'fresh idea' people; it's just a low-budget loser.

But of course, this kind of arrogant mischaracterization of the U.S. military is about all Hollywood really knows how to do. Most of the playwrights, directors, and actors are clueless about the military or its real people - and about America and its history - as certainly shows in this movie. Oh, did I mention the complete lack of individual and small-unit tactical skills by these overgrown spoiled children/characters pretending (badly) to be 'soldiers' ?

From there on, the movie goes on a downward spiral of unexplained nonsense, with little or no real explanations - just the mental gyrations of a plot with no direction, and no real conclusion.

A frustrating experience - I would avoid it unless your mental appreciation for reality is sadly lacking or nonexistent - which unfortunately describes most of today's 'moviegoers'.

Great Idea That Doesn't Work As Well As It Could Have

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 21 February 2014]

Afghanistan November 2001 and the Taliban who have ruled the country under a jackboot for several years have been ousted . A CIA operative is embedded with an American special forces team and leads them on a secret mission in the South of the country . After a fire fight with the Taliban where several insurgents are killed the SF team are puzzled in finding the bodies of the dead have disappeared , almost as if they'd never existed

I've got to put my hand up and say I knew this was a cross genre movie before I watched it . If you're expecting a straight laced action thriller set in the 'Stan then you might be surprised as to where this is heading . Director Daniel Myrick does play up to the film being set in a very real time and place , giving the movie an almost documentary look with hand-held cameras and cinema verite style but this isn't how the film progresses

Foreshadowing is a difficult thing . Play your hand too soon and the audience might be one step ahead of the characters and boredom sets in , play it too late and the audience will feel cheated so the writers deserve some credit in keeping the audience intrigued . I did have a rough idea where everything was heading and was still interested , though wasn't entirely gripped . Some credit too for bringing in a little bit of past history to Afghanistan involving Alexander The Great's ill fated expedition to the country and the reference of the British retreat from Kabul in the 19th Century . A graveyard of empires indeed

Everything's chugging along nicely and THE OBJECTIVE is a engaging little horror/war film with some good locations and a small non star cast . The problem lies in the last five minutes which I had difficulty in understanding . Again it's not down too much or too little foreshadowing but the fact it remains unexplained which diluted my enjoyment of the film slightly which I was enjoying up to this point

A good Afghanistan evil tale.

[searchanddestroy-1 · 27 March 2011]

I was very surprised by this feature. I first waited for a film like RED SANDS or DEVIL'S TOMB, and many others as we see in DVD stores - rental or not. Afghanistan every where with "lost patrols" wiped out by evil spirits. Dozends of them. With many special effects and pyrotechnics, characters we already know before watching them...In resume, films all the same.

In this one, of course we also have the lost platoon in the middle of nowhere, in the deep of Afghanistan, but this movie is strangely - how can I say...SIMPLE. Yes, simple. Temperate, sparing of useless words, the characters are interesting and we dare hold our attention for them. At first, we can see it as a sort of documentary, with an off voice. We don't see it as a horror feature. And, of course, it is. With demons and so on. But really, I repeat, it's different from the others.

The "inside" is the same, but not the "outside". And I think this is very important.

Get it.

I hate to be mean, but it was actually laughable

[automicblomme · 4/10 · 16 September 2008]

I'm sorry, but I just watched this at the Atlantic film festival, and it is a horribly written, acted, and directed film.

A - It's Blair Witch...AGAIN..literally B - It's Blair Witch again..overlay-ed with a rip off Charlie Sheen (in voice AND copy...well, bad copy) from Apocalypse Now

The performances were laughable, the characters were shallow and poorly developed, the audio is TERRIBLE, the cinematography is poor, and the editing is awful.

I hope we are not to expect another film that is put together this poorly? Build on what you did RIGHT last time, not what you did wrong.

This is uninspired, unpleasant, and unoriginal

under rated

[jimmyiowa · 7/10 · 25 June 2011]

I am surprised at the relatively low rating. This was an engaging and intriguing movie. Much superior to the general ghost movie or slasher thriller set on a teenage campsite or "unexplored island". The narration format worked well, in my opinion. The location and acting were convincing. I definitely wasn't bored at any point in the movie. Subtly creepy and slow suspense build. I was always kept wondering what comes next. Unlike most movies I would be eager to watch the next installment – okay so tell me, what happens now? This was much better than Blair Witch, which was silly, non-scary and unbelievable, and which for some reason has a higher IMDb rating.

I want the time I wasted watching this movie back!!!

[ryan-devlin17 · 1/10 · 8 July 2010]

When I saw this film in the rental shop I thought it looked like a decent war film, it had the name "the objective" very military name if you ask me. It had the location, set in Afghanistan, a war torn country. it had the promise, following a group of soldiers on a journey across Afghanistan. It looked and sounded like a proper, worth a watch war film. This, however, was not the case. It seemed pretty normal for the first 50 minutes or so, then it took a turn for the bizarre. the soldiers were encountered by what seemed to be a light which just turned whoever shot at it into dust. later in the film we are told that the soldiers are looking for transparent, prisms that fly and emit "unimmaginable power" and the end is just downright awful. Avoid at all costs, I know I should have!!

A novelty in the realm of film, not without its flaws

[siderite · 7/10 · 21 June 2012]

I am torn between a good mark and a bad grade, but this is certainly not an average film. It is low budget, but well played and executed. Its story is captivating and the atmosphere really spooky, but not explaining anything. It is basically a mood film, something that enters your bones and doesn't let go until the weird ending that just makes you feel you are still in the movie, making it originally effective.

That being said, you can't enjoy this film if you read any spoilers, so stop reading reviews and watch the film. Its main strength is its main flaw as well: all sense is left to the imagination of the viewer, while the technical details are provided by the film makers. Basically, this film is what you want it to be. I would go for sci-fi thriller, but then that would be my favourite genre. I can tell you for sure it is not a romance, but that's as far as I can go :) Try watching it at night with the lights off and enjoy the feel of it.

Like falling down a high slope slowly going down

[ebobrow · 5/10 · 24 April 2008]

I just got back from the World Premiere at the Tribeca film festival and this film was just all over the place. It starts off really good with tension between the characters as they try to connect a little. They basically start off on a journey through Afghanistan to find a person the locals consider holy and god like. They travel and travel until they reach a spot where an RPG is fired by the enemy at their direction. A small and quick fire fight leads to a death and the death of a lot of the enemy, strangely, the bodies cannot be found. I will stop with the spoilers there because that one is only minor and slightly affects the story.

Next, our characters continue to try to find this mysterious person but soon, one by one, they discover something that should have never been found.

The film did get a few jumps that I saw especially in this scene where during night time they are watching headlines on a road, suddenly, they split up and fly into the night sky. Fricken weird.

At around the half way point, the film started to get worse and worse. The dialog sounded bad and forced like they weren't even trying. I know, working on a schedule of 24 days is tough but they should have practiced more.

Next, the film keeps transitioning from night time to day time, like, every scene which is really annoying after the 10th time.

Next, there are so many fricken plot holes that I just can't list them all. They leave out very important parts of the 1 hour and 30 minute film that really could've helped.

It was slow. Plain and simple. The last half made the movie feel like it was a 2 hour film when it was only 1 hour and 30 minutes. It took its time which made it kinda worse.

The gore is very minimal BTW. Only one really bad scene showed in the trailer.

The enemy is -well- not scary. Not at all. Kinda weird more so. The don't explain its origins. They don't explain why it doing what it is. It does does what he wants.

The characters are literally the dumbest characters I have ever seen with times where they would miss crucial moments or just not care. Like in a fight scene we see two guys fighting. Then a shot of a character looking on, not doing anything. Then fighting again and that guy is breaking the fight up. And there is a huge part in the end that is really big that made me say "You should have looked!!" Finally, the huge problem. The ending. The director didn't know how to end this film. He even said it himself after it was over. It was strange, confusing, and so messed up that I left the theater with a big "WTF just happened?!" look.

Also, the trailer shows just about every good part of the movie so don't be surprised when you think you should be.

I have it a 5 because it had some good parts (beginning) but a lot of somewhat bad parts too

So, What's Up With The Ending? - Explained

[bezoris2 · 8/10 · 20 March 2014]

Friends ask me this question fairly frequently - especially now that the movie's been back on Netflix. I thought I'd post my analysis, which, for what it's worth, has satisfied most of them... (My background is in Eastern philosophy and mythology, which this movie is primarily about and why I'm asked this question.)

(1) The Background (2) The Analysis

First question is usually, "What are those balls of fire? Ufos, ghosts, souls?" Short answer is: none of the above. Or at least, not specifically. In order to answer this question, it's necessary to understand what "a Vimana" is and how they function in Indian religion and mythology.

(1)

Vimanas are, in short, "chariots of the gods." They are typically depicted as peaked royal palanquins or stupas (peaked temples), hence their visual representation as triangles. But they are also occasionally birds, as in the case of Vishnu's mount Garuda, or winged structures.

In Hindu mythology, existence consists of seven higher and seven lower heavens or planes of existence. When Indra, leader of the Devas (a group of lesser gods) wants to visit earth he - you guessed it - jumps in to his Vimana and shoots down to our plane of existence. Running through all planes of existence is an endless pillar of fire, lingodbhava-murti, the primal form of Shiva, the creator (that later also includes Vishnu at the bottom and, generally, Brahma at the top).

While the pillar is endless in Hinduism, in Buddhism the top of the pillar ends at Brahma until Buddha (or anyone) achieves enlightenment, at which point it becomes endless. The top of the "Brahma pillar" is a triangular structure with Brahma's three faces representing dominion, or arbitration, over the past, present and future (he looks in to or "sees" all-time). The lingodbhava-murti, then, is both endless (spaceless) and timeless or "out of time."

But what does all of this have to do with the movie?

(2)

So, Keynes and his team are off searching for Vimanas in the desert. And they find them: the arrival of Vimanas signified by helicopter sounds ("birds" - see above), triangular structures, and the small metal airplane (a chariot with wings). But why is the metal airplane first discarded in the dirt by the oasis and later clutched in Keynes' hand at the end?

Specifically, Keynes achieves a form of enlightenment as indicated by the touch on his forehead at his third eye (a common association), his levitation (another common trope), his "open eyes" in the medical suite, and his entrance into - or acceptance by - the Vimana. At this point he has moved outside of our specific plane and is traveling throughout existence. He too "sees all."

There are also, I believe, references to quantum mechanics and string or multiverse theory at this point - specifically with regards to the flares. Waveform collapse, in quantum mechanics, refers to when an infinite number of possibilities, or potentialities, collapse (mathematically) in to a decision point or "singularity." (Interestingly, both waveforms and strings are often described as "vibrating" and waves - after all - DO vibrate; another sly association, I think, with his vibrating hand.)

In certain forms of multiverse theory these decision points do not cancel out other potentialities (as in QM) but birth additional universes in which they did occur: a universe in which you went left instead of right, called your mother back instead of ignored her, liked peanut butter instead of hating it, etc, ad infinitum.

The flares, then, are all from Keynes. As Keynes begins to "enter" the Vimana and transcend - or move out of - fixed existence he/we begin to see his entire waveform - if you will - or his mutiverse of singularities. We see flares that he might have sent up or did in another space/time-line... past, present and future. Simultaneously. There are also reasons to believe that his wife is actually dead during the timeline we observe in the film (from earlier dialogue, his weeping over his wife's picture, references to why he took the mission in the first place knowing it was suicidal (nothing to live for)). Yet she's alive at the end credits giving an interview? And the plane is both in his hand and back at the oasis... Notice, too, that the final ascentional montage contains formulas from Einstein's relativity theorem (on Space-Time) and what appears to be the head of Brahma, among other symbology. Neat!

Finally, why is Keynes apparently "saved" or "enlightened" when everyone else gets blown away? On somewhat shaky ground here, but I think, possibly, that he is meant to be seen as at least seeking enlightenment, attempting to "see farther," while the rest of the group do not. This evidenced, mainly, by his camera... Of the large, monocular variety, as you recall: literally "a third eye." The only other group member to individually see the other "travelers" dies after having seen them through his BINOCULAR night vision goggles (and killing the guardian/ascetic/enlightened old guy).

As far as production goes, I agree with most other reviewers: it certainly could have benefited from a larger budget. But it worked for me and I'm a fan of deliberate, well-done low-budget sci-fi (as well as the other kind).

If you'd like more of this, I recommend Shane Carruth's two fantastic movies: "Primer" and "Upstream Color." Also can't say enough about "Valhalla Rising," another great "film of ideas." Bone up on your Dante, Apocrypha (Dismas/The Harrowing of Hell) and Norse mythology to enjoy that one though... But if you do, it's fantastic.

For what it's worth, I have no connection whatsoever to anyone involved in the production of these films...

Best, Chris.

Slightly better than average - good authenticity

[thomasbhunter · 6/10 · 16 August 2008]

They had a good special ops military adviser for this one. Authenticity is much better than most B-movies. The actors on the SF A-Team were equipped with realistic gear and weapons. So, kudos to whoever the adviser was. Hopefully he will get hired on to consult on other films so that we are not subjected to the abysmal attempts to dress up actors as soldiers. It never ceases to amaze me the money that some directors and producers will spend on a film, only to gloss poorly over the basic military elements. The only element they misses was in painting the weapons in desert camouflage scheme. No A-Team would deploy without painting their weapons. Just doesn't happen.

The photography is good, as well, with none of the Blair Witch shaky cam video shots that are so prevalent in low budget horror these days. Good, too, are the sets and locations. Bonus points to the site locater/scout.

On the downside, one thing that was difficult to get past was the director's choice of the guy playing the lead character (Ben). In the video he (Ben) sounds like he is maybe 20 years old. So when he states, in the opening voice-over, that he'd been in Afghanistan 10 years earlier as an operative (which wouldn't even take into account college, or a prior military career, and his training time in CIA before being allowed into the field), this really strains credulity and makes it very difficult to suspend disbelief. They should have chosen a more seasoned actor, older, with a deeper and more mature voice. The actor playing Ben was simply miscast.

All in all this is a solid b-movie, of cable TV's SciFi Channel quality, that is worth watching once if you're just chillin and relaxing on a lazy weekend afternoon, or on a rainy day. I'd recommend it as perfect for those kinds of days.

Not a bad set up, but it goes nowhere

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 21 August 2015]

THE OBJECTIVE is an intriguing little picture from Daniel Myrick, one of the directors behind THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, and it's going for the same sort of vibe, albeit with a completely different setting and set-up. The storyline follows a squad of soldiers on a special mission behind enemy lines in Afghanistan, searching for something mysterious in a god-forgotten desert landscape.

The Moroccan locations look fantastic and there's quite a bit of suspense built up along the way, along with one or two decent action scenes. However, the film suffers from a lack of characterisation; the characters are all one-dimensional stereotypes, from the superstitious Arab who acts as their guide to the tough sergeant and usual foul-mouth military types. There's nobody to root for here, with the protagonist being an antihero of types, so it's hard to care about what happens.

Unfortunately, the poor CGI effects in this film are a big detraction. I understand that they were going for a sci-fi vibe in this, but there's no real pay-off, just a cheat ending...