This movie is bad. You discover just how bad it is pretty soon, I realised when the general tells the soldier he was chosen to go save the other army because his brother is in it. Worse, the soldier doesn't have to go far at all, I could have run it in 3 or 4 hours. But he needs water, food, a friend to take with? Really? Contrived and unbelievable, and so was the rest of the movie.

Cinematography? Unfortunately no one told me before I watched it that it was made with some special technique that is really hard to do, so I thought the cinematography was nothing special. In fact, check out the part where the soldier is at night in a town more or less in a war zone, and tell me that that is not really bad cinematography. It doesn't look real. And nor do most of the scenes. Other war movies are much more real. Now go read that review by a "war veteran". If he really is a war vet, he must have a very bad memory. So much for the fancy filming technique, I'm pretty sure no one will try that again. At least I hope not.

But how is it possible that such a movie could get rave reviews from so many? I discovered the answer by speaking to someone who raved about it. In fact, it was on his advice I wasted my time watching it. Apparently he didn't notice any of the many, many contrived and totally unbelievable events and scenes. If you think about it, the movie loses all meaning, and a person stops enjoying it, only after they notice the weird stuff going on. After that, you just want to leave, as I did.

So how did the majority of the people who watched this movie, and all the critics, not notice any of these weird happenings, most of which have been described by the few bad reviews here?

I don't know. I know I'm in good company, just read the bad reviews vs the good. I will resolve this conundrum by concluding that most people are idiots.