mydukky Every line is poorly acted and worst than that, EVERY LINE OF DIALOGUE IS ON THE NOSE. As if the writer/director had no concept of dynamic story telling. Your characters do not do and say what they mean all the time. People in life do not say or do what they mean. If acting is supposed to be reacting in the moment, how can you react when the source material gives you nothing but meaningless words. That's why the performances are flat. A character is angry. Dialogue reads: "Man, I'm so angry at you right now". Actor plays angry in the scene because he has no other way to build up the emotion. For f**k sake. I really hate it when producers produce movies just to act in. Pick one and learn the craft before you try and be both. Terrible film.

joelshiver The best I can figure is the first two commenters must have seen the graphic, read the title, and were very disappointed when neither Rambo nor Chuck Norris showed up. However, I rate this a very credible job of story telling. It held my interest, which is something no Rambo, Chuck Norris, or Jackie Chan movie has ever done. There was certainly a cogent plot, and, the movie being something of a mystery, the details aren't pulled together until the end. I mean, what's a mystery if the first thing you do is reveal the mystery? The acting was entirely credible, the characters well developed, and each was well defined. The shots were interesting - some innovative. The camera work worked well to frame the story-telling style. Was it "Atonement?" No. But it certainly was not a waste of my time, either. Indeed, my favorite movies are those which compel me to replay scenes in my mind long after I've seen the movie to try to figure out every nuance. And I can still recall the feelings I had when watching some of the scenes.

bob_hamer2004 Five soldiers in northern Italy, one of them female, are on a training mission for the day. One of the soldiers is shot by an unknown assailant. The film meanders in it's almost sleepwalking slowness until another soldier gets hit. This is a straight to video movie, but that is no excuse for the utterly terrible acting and back-yard, with daddies camcorder, type filming. The whole seventy-odd minutes seems to have been shot in a patch of woodland. The scenery never changes, neither did my wish that it would hurry up and end while I watched it. The lead actor has a permanently ludicrous smile on his face, and the rest of the cast would be overshadowed by five kids in high school with a camera and a spare lunch break. I love military movies, so please don't be fooled by the IMDb category. To compliment this ridiculous attempt at movie-making, There is a scene where a plastic skull complete with a nose is found, along with a plastic hand grenade. Iv'e seen better props in kid's joke shops. Don't waste your eye time on this boring, nothing ever happens, nonsense.

John Taylor I would rather watch paint dry. Worst film I have seen in years, absolute rubbish. Must have cost at least $300 to make. The acting if you can call it that was wooden stilted and mostly unintelligible. Camera work was shoddy and was covered in sun reflections for most scenes. Story line was non existent childish and downright stupid. Background music repetitive and did not fit the scenes. A right old rip-off. I would not recommend it to anyone with half a brain. How this type of film is funded and actually made remains a mystery to me. All I can imagine is that it is some sort of tax avoidance scheme. There is no way this rubbish could have got made otherwise.