5 Days of War (2011) User Reviews

Tasteless.

[inc-10 · 6/10 · 15 June 2011]

Well, all kinds of things went wrong with this movie.

For starters, the opening sequence is awesome. One thing this movie really had was best camera crew ever. Everything feels very intense all the times, very close to the real war footage. Also, all the props, vehicles, uniforms, even explosions look very real. This is the good part.

The mediocre part is main story. It's a mix of Hotel Rwanda and Tears of the Sun, but feels like a bootleg version, a cheap knockoff of those.

And then there's the bad part. Just after awesome intro, you get "treated" with shots of Tbilisi, with landmarks, people smiling, and god forbid, trancey music in the background. It looked like a commercial for some travel agency, with only "Visit Georgia" message missing from the scene and was most tasteless thing I've ever seen in a film. I live in similar post-soviet country and I do understand the mentality in desperate desire to explain your culture to the world to get less looked as some remote hellhole, but this is outright tasteless and maybe Georgia hasn't come to this yet.

The script had generally no direction. Awesome war scene here, some corpses there, cameramen and photography director knew what to do... But director didn't. First, that simple shot with church and bloody river from 'Tears of the Sun' gives 10 times stronger emotion than whole pile of bodies shown in '5 days of August'. Even though latter tries sooo hard to portray Russians as savages.

Second, despite awesome camera and props, fighting had no point in this movie. You see soldiers shooting stuff and each other, but it's unclear why or what's their plan. I don't think any people who had any idea about how soldiers and military works were on the set. Mi-24 choppers shooting random buildings with rockets? And here I thought that every pilot is given orders and targets to waste expensive munitions on... Also, MI-24 sports a deadly cannon, but it's used only once, missing everything, and soldiers act as chopper had blind men for pilot and gunner, not taking cover. Tanks constantly missing targets and not using machine guns? Taking down a chopper with a single LAW rocket? SU-bombers taking down a restaurant residing in basically nowhere? This all felt very bizarre and pointless.

I could go on, but there's no need. Let's just say that this movie is very average, has some good moments, lots of unmemorable moments, and some outright stupid ones. So pick it up from bargain bin, but don't expect too much.

6 stars I give are for 2 reasons: Awesome camera work (it felt like live action at places) and the fact that despite being incredibly dumb, this movie IS entertaining... and that's good, even if it's for all wrong reasons.

...as for amount of propaganda, this movie is 100% okay, considering what comes from Moscow. Sure it's all bloated and overrated but this is how we rock in those former USSR satellite countries. Even 50 of such movies can't counter a single evening news show from random Russian TV-channel. For westerners, you just have to accept that rules are different, but watching all those Normandy landings in every Hollywood movie and video game, maybe not as much as you might think.

An Entertaining Propaganda Piece

[deltagreen-2 · 5/10 · 25 July 2011]

This film is certainly an enigma. Do you rate it for its acting and action sequences, or for the historical accuracy of the conflict it pertains to? Covering the former, the acting here is fairly top-notch by all involved, and the action scenes are where this film excels. Since individuals involved with the Georgian government assisted in bankrolling the film, they also got full backing from the Georgian Army, so if you are an eclectic "tread-head" you will be pleased to see the actual equipment used by both sides in the conflict, including Mi-24D Hind's, Su-25 Frogfoot's, T-72's w/ERA of various makes, BTR-60's & 70's, BMP-2's, you name it. This does much to lend an air of credibility when viewing. For the normal viewer this may not matter much, but the action scenes are well (sometimes too well) choreographed.

Now as for the film's handling of its source material (the 2008 Georgia- Russia war over South Ossetia and Abkhazia), make no mistake about it, this is a textbook example of propaganda film. The Russian and South Ossetian militia are portrayed as savage and merciless killers executing and gunning down everyone in sight, while the brave Georgian soldiers are Hollywood Navy SEALS incarnate. Some of the more obvious propaganda shots do tend to take away from the film a bit (people getting gunned down in classic slow motion), but all in all, if you realize what you are watching....

So, take it for what it is, a very loose patriotic Georgian "interpretation" of the 2008 war. If you are decidedly pro-Russian, the film will likely make you fume. If you are decidedly pro-Georgian, it will likely elicit a few cheers. If like me you are simply aware of the historical facts of the conflict but have no dog in the fight, you can just sit back and enjoy a fairly good film covering subject matter mainstream Hollywood would never bother with. Just do yourself a favor, read up on the conflict before or after viewing so you at least have a balanced view....

So this was propaganda...

[dierregi · 6/10 · 6 June 2022]

It's kind of unsettling reading some indignant reviews written in 2011 by people who described this movie as "shameful anti-Russian propaganda".

Fast forward to this wretched June 2022, after over 100 days of Russians waging war against Ukraine and you know that the Russians did everything showed in the movie and some more.

Apart from showing the aggressive, merciless attitude of the Russian and the tragic results, especially tragic when you hear the people interviewed at the end, the plot must necessarily focus on a small story, otherwise it would have been a documentary.

Rupert Friend is Thomas, the tough and silent war reporter caught in the Georgian-Russian conflict with his operator Sebastian and some locals, among which a pretty young girls named Tatia. Those who watched Homeland probably remember the attack launched by mistake against a group reunited for a wedding and here we have a re-run along the same lines that sets the plot in motion, which is perhaps not too wise.

Other defects of the script are the silly chess game between Thomas and a Russian commander and the usual evil and brutal antagonist bent on his personal revenge, which in the chaotic scenario of the movie seems very far fetched.

Apart from some over sentimental touch, the movie is more than ever a chilly reminder of disaster that may strike at any moment. Perhaps not the best war movie but realistic enough.

Overall a good picture!

[vintagevalor-2 · 7/10 · 26 March 2013]

Having read some of the previous reviews blasting this picture as "Un-Authentic" and therefore a terrible picture, I have to say that the naysayers are wrong from my point of view. I know of NO WAR FILM that is factual in every detail. Some label this as propaganda....so what? Most of the War Films coming out of the US during WWII were propaganda. ALL Germans were Nazis and ALL Japanese were bloodthirsty little savages.

I found this picture to be a rather good action film, very authentic from the "War" point of view. Having spent 10 years in the TV News Biz as a field cameraman, I was in agreement with all their actions as reporters. I thought the plot was very plausible, though some what predictable, but again, so what? I was entertained and unlike some of the reviewers I was moved in places by the actions of the characters. And to lambaste actors for "Overacting" in a war film is like saying down hill skiers go to fast. I was a good picture and overall I liked it!

Serious Hollywood film versus real life Bradley Manning Video

[Pro Jury · 7/10 · 2 March 2013]

This contains spoilers.

A centerpiece of 5 DAYS OF WAR is that authentic video footage of a clear and brutal war crime is powerful evidence able to make change -- in and of itself.

In 5 DAYS OF WAR, the conflict involves some Georgians and the Russians with roots in old Soviet politics. Whatever blatant and harsh oppression is at the center of the complaint, it is distant to American film audiences. Other people living in far away lands may, or may not, have a tradition to respect the rules of war.

This is all to say that 5 DAYS OF WAR is deeply flawed because it is not grounded in reality. In real life, American film audiences are more closely familiar with American traditions. George Washington commanding a very humanitarian "rules of war" code placing virtue with the Americans, in sharp contrast with the poor ethics of the British military. The good guys (we Americans) act good. We act good. We are good. It gave Americans deep pride to be American.

The flaw in 5 DAYS OF WAR is most obvious today as we all know of the Bradley Manning "brutal bloodlust video" released to the media and general public showing U.S. military gleeful war crimes on civilian targets. Authentic video footage that changed... nothing. It changed nothing because in the real world of today, the side that tortures and murders with robot drones is good, and the side that uses bare hands to farm green beans and onions is bad. Today, in the real world, we all share the ideas our leaders tell us.

Life is easier now the happily cowed media and we regular people because none us ever need to think for ourselves; we have a leader who will do all of the thinking for us. This is real life. 5 DAYS OF WAR has too much fantasy.

Good Idea, Terrible Execution

[dkane180 · 3/10 · 14 June 2011]

My hopes were high for this movie. The War between Georgia and South Ossetia/Russia in August of 2008 would seem to be a great background to a well-plotted, carefully crafted film that captures all the intrigue of the Caucasus. Since the Caucasus have always been a nest of ethnic divisions, political double-dealing and vicious banditry I would think any decent screenwriter and director could piece together a fairly intense thriller, I was so wrong. 5 Days of War is a twisted train wreck of special effects laden action and blatant propaganda with a parade of terrible acting. This film was disappointing on many levels. About 40 minutes into the film I realized I was watching a $20,000,000 piece of pro-Georgian anti-Russian propaganda. If anyone does a little research on this war they will clearly see that both sides committed illegal acts under international law. Georgia is actually blamed for triggering the war by using heavy artillery on a city unprovoked which killed civilians, Russian Peacekeepers and damaged large tracts of the city. Once the war began some Ossetia militias fighting with the Russians committed acts of ethnic cleansing and were not stopped by the Russian Military or Government. Shame on them and shame on Georgia for bombarding a city. I do not have a dog in this fight, I think that the problems of that part of the world should be answered by the countries and governments of that region. It is obvious that the filmmakers feel that we should clearly be supporting Georgia with their charismatic leader Mikheil Saakashvili played by Andy Garcia who is portrayed as a Georgian Thomas Jefferson or JFK. Why the hell did they use Andy Garcia anyway? This movie does nothing to help the outsider with the complexities of the actual situation. I want to know what the target audience was for the filmmakers. I was insulted by this film. Why would they take such a complex and historical subject and simplify it down to this? Westerners are natural allies of the peace-loving, compassionate Georgians therefore the obvious "Bad Guys" are the Russians and South Ossetians who bring murder, terror and misery upon the progressive Georgians. The world isn't so black and white and even us dimwitted moviegoers can appreciate the intricacies of politics in the Caucasus. The protagonist of this wreck is an unlikeable American journalist (Rupert Friend in a career ending role) who jumps head first into danger because of his troubled past. He is surrounded by a cadre of American/British journalists (Val Kilmer, Kenneth Cranham who are both wasted as ridiculous caricatures) who drink hard, take big risks and are always crying about how nobody cares about what is going on in the world. At all times they are protected and working directly on behalf of a group of saintly Georgian soldiers. They do not even pretend to be impartial and objective. The contrived role of Tatia (Emmanuelle Chriqui) is another low point in a film filled with an excruciating level of inaccuracies, clichés and thoughtless dialogue. Special effects are strong, location looks beautiful but the storyline and fact every major character is played by an American or British actor and not native Georgians/Russians is thoughtless and insulting (insulted again). ONLY WASTE YOUR TIME ON THIS FILM IF YOU HAVE TIME TO WASTE AND REALLY WANT TO HAVE YOUR INTELLIGENCE QUESTIONED. A TRAVESTY.

Entertaining and informing

[buiger · 7/10 · 13 September 2020]

I enjoyed this movie, and here is finally a motion picture that realistically depicts the true face of the Putin regime, with all that followed in Crimea, Ukraine, and yes, Georgia. Finally a motion picture that tells the truth, without trying to be politically correct. Great cinematography and sound. If I am to find a fault in this film, it is overly dramatizing the story with the memory cards, the unnecessary love story, the 'special forces rescue' and some other 'over the top' moments. Otherwise, well done!

Bring back Rambo!

[i-sivukha · 1/10 · 14 June 2011]

Cold war movie era is back!

The movie has got no relation to the actual events of 08.08.08 and as such must be classed as a propaganda.

But cold war was over 20 years ago and the skills required to make a raunchy propaganda blockbuster sadly have gone away. While watching it I kept on a lookout for Rambo to jump out and start downing Ruski's choppers. And this is my main problem with movie; there was no Rambo! Every propaganda movie should have a Rambo! There was everything but Rambo, e.g. evil Russians killing indiscriminately, angelic good guys, no attempt to give human-like features to the enemy, lame storyline and cheesy acting. There was also no main evil Russian guy with cool one-liners and a strong accent...

Dont mind the 1star reviews from Russians.

[medalice · 6/10 · 10 September 2020]

Its not propaganda, its sad that russians hate themselfs that much that they give 1 star to the truth, like chernobyl. 1 Stars becouse they bealive that russian propaganda.

A movie that "Joseph Goebbels" would have like

[spin666 · 3/10 · 14 June 2011]

As a movie about a war that just happen,it of course very interesting. As you can see at many the review and forum comments,the movie's topic a flaming one. The maker of the movie made it sound like a movie base on mainly facts. That was the reason I choose to see this movie.

As I'm nor Russian or Georgian(nor one of their allies), and I live quite far for all this mess,I consider my self quite neutral in this issue.

Sadly,this movie is far from facts,and it's so full of propaganda movie that I couldn't even enjoy it's entertainment value.

'5 Days of August' is suppose to tell us a story about the Russian-Georgian war in 2008,from TV-crews eyes. The conflict it's self isn't that sudden,because the area had a long history full of madness,politics and fighting. Which this movie did try to explorer,but quite poorly. Mainly because it only tell the story on the side of Georgians(view of the war from Georgians side). Russians was made to be the main and the only bad guys(which in some context,they of course were at fault,as they act just like US in Irak. Anyway the main problem been Georgians was not as pure and guiltless as it showed). As story came down to a purelly propaganda movie(Georgian been the true Freedom fighters,and not mass murders of their own peoples or South Ossetians. Which depend on your view on South Ossetians independents)that would have made Goebbels proud of this one. As a history and Document fan,I find this movie as bad as it can be. American's propaganda aren't usually this direct, only the Nazi and communist did this type over the top propaganda junks.

As a simple movie, this one has nothing special. Special effect are poor. Garcia and Kilmer made me want to cry! This two's acting is not at the same level as they should be. As b-level Director goes, Renny Harlin did an OK job. He been a Finn must had something to do with why he was in this movie,because even he is overqualified for this movie. Anyhow Winter war and this one aren't the same. Finland wan't the one starting the war,nor did they bomb their own people as part of their plan to "free" them.

Worst thing about this movie,is that some lazy people might actually believe this movie is about facts.

People with open mind and have the mind to study up on the issue of South Ossetia war/history should see this movie(as a joke about Hollywood style of facts), or Movie students. This is 2011 propaganda movie, that use the same style as Nazi's and communist did.

propaganda? Seriously?

[luka_jmuxa · 10/10 · 11 February 2017]

I'm not very good at English and sorry for many grammar mistakes. WEll, some people saying that this movie is propaganda and captured by anti-Russian federation but, I'm from Georgia from that little country. first of all south Osettia was Georgian territory until Russians took it. this movie is based on a true story u want how i know that? because i was there. i saw how they was killing our just normal people putting bombs in villages and killing people without any reason. and as u think Andy Garcia is not playing his role well. because Mikhail Saakashvili(ex.president of Georgia) was not that good he ordered and sent our boys to start the war he lied them that Russians attacked first and we started war but we didn't knew that. it was very hard moment for every Georgian people Russians started putting bombs into city Gori. and they reporters said in TV that they was arriving in Tbilisi. as u know Tbilisi is capital of Georgia. and other France and other country's helped us they're presidents came to Georgia and Russia stopped the war. it was longest 5 days of my life. and this movie is based on true story. that reporter is real too i met him in Gori and every details are correct. this movie is not anti-Russian or propaganda. if u want to see movie about war on based true story watch this and i think 5.6 is lower IMDb rating for this movie . :)

Entertaining action thriller drama.

[paulclaassen · 6/10 · 22 October 2021]

Based on fact, I'm not familiar with the actual events, and therefore cannot comment on the film's accuracy on the matter.

Regardless, despite mostly negative reviews from critics, I enjoyed '5 Days of War'. I found it very exciting from an entertainment perspective. The film's action sequences are visually stunning. To add to this, the cinematography and photography are also really good.

Rupert Friend stars as a reporter, who lost his girlfriend on a previous mission. Moving on, he is once again on a mission to find the perfect story. Val Kilmer stars as his informant, Dutchman. Along for the ride is his friend and cameraman, Sebastian (Richard Coyle). There's a hint at a love interest here in the form of Tatia (Emmanuelle Chriqui), which - fortunately - never develops. The result is a film that is fast-paced, concentrating only on the events around the war.

I didn't find Andy Garcia believable as President Mikheil Saakashvili - not his accent, nor his performance. I think this was the only element about the movie I didn't like. The film illustrates the danger reporters face for the sake of a story, and also shows the horrors and brutalities of war. There are a few disturbing scenes. Considering the actual war in Georgia on which the movie is based, its unbelievable to think only five days caused so much death, destruction and mayhem...

I've watched '5 Days of War' a few times already and enjoy it every time.

Would I watch it again? Yes.

Disappointing

[alfred-pakenham · 4/10 · 23 June 2011]

Got this on DVD and was very excited, expecting to see a movie that would shine some light on the complex situation that has developed between Russia and Georgia. The writers had very rich material to work with, the cast and the cover looked absolutely amazing, so one would expect a good flick.

The movie begins with a scene in Iraq which introduces us to the main character. We see Heather Graham, but unfortunately her appearance is surprisingly short (it's actually the thing with this movie, all good actors get very little screen time.) That scene is perhaps the only thing that impressed me in the whole movie, and perhaps the only part I will remember for a long time. Great effects, and cinematography. Unfortunately it goes downhill from that in a blink.

After that brief introduction to the main character we see him going to Georgia (because Val Kilmer in a bathtub told him, duh.) The dialogs are absolutely awful, especially the scene in a pub where the journalists assemble and discuss how to wipe your ass in Tajikistan (or some such), that dialog has contributed nothing to the movie and only made me dislike the characters. Then we see our journalists visiting a wedding, which naturally gets bombed. That episode, no doubt, was inspired by the Afghan wedding that was mistakenly bombed by US number of years back, it made me wonder why the writers decided to use events from Afghanistan in this movie... but much later, my first surprise was that the episode showed four planes firing a rocket on a restaurant in the middle of nowhere. That made no sense whatsoever, completely destroying suspension of disbelief. The movie goes on like this for quite some time with number of events and characters' actions that make little sense, but then the really bizarre episodes begin.

A very interesting moment in the movie is when the Russians are shown for the first time marching forward. Russians are basically portrayed as Orcs, raping and pillaging like there's no tomorrow. While I'm sure there were atrocities committed by both sides (as in any war) such portrayal of one side as plain evil made me wonder whether the movie is just another part of the informational war that has been going on ever since the actual war ended.

I have to say that I barely made it till the end, the movie had plenty of absurd moments past "the Orcs invasion." There's plenty of action, and visual effects, but with ridiculous story to glue them it's not a pleasant thing to watch.

Overall I found this movie disappointing, insulting to my intelligence, and badly written. I would recommend this movie only if you actually like one of the actors, otherwise don't waste you time.

Could have been so much better

[sixbells99 · 6 August 2011]

The open sequence is gut wrenchingly brilliant and raw, leaving you genuinely shocked. But as this scene fades into the next it appears the film changed director to one who watched to much A team and any 1960's World war II film.

For a film that purports to be a vision of real life events the director could not have got it more wrong. We are left with ridiculous battle scenes that are in fact an insult to the real horror of war on civilians. Hind gun ships firing bending missiles, the director loves this and we see these Hinds firing their bendy missiles all through out the film. Andy Garcia does his best Borat impression while the most shocking element of all is how much Val Kilmer has let himself go.

If you want to watch a brutal, raw and realistic film on the horrors of war, watch the first scene and then turn your TV off. If you want to watch some comic book propaganda film then keep on watching. A bad film that at the start hinted on how good it could have been!!

This movie has a huge potential.

[Evanoil · 6/10 · 19 December 2015]

Overall i would recommend this movie to everyone .It has true historian events in the foundations of its plot. One thing that i didn't like in this movie is the usage of unreal scenarios (holywood heroism , cliché action thriller stuff).I believe that if you as a writer and director using a true story as a basis to you movie you need to make the movie as real as possible.I liked that the scenes were shot very well ,the fights and (almost) all thats happening was shot very good for my taste. I also like when the story of a film is something that we can actually learn from ,needless to say that these "minor" sorties that nobody heard about or did but two days later forgot about it , are stories worth mentioning.

realistic

[VitalityPattern · 6/10 · 10 December 2012]

I'm writing to respond to the many reviews that have labeled this movie as propaganda. The movie is about events as they unfolded on the ground and what it is actually like to be on the ground during an invasion. Not the most well scripted movie I've seen, but the action was riveting and the feel of a war zone was authentic.

Apparently some of the reviewers believe that if they were on the ground watching their community being destroyed they would be much more calm and fair in dispensing blame. I'm going to guess that they are all Americans because they think that war is a battle of good vs. evil and that there are legitimate reasons to drop bombs on civilian population centers!!! (BTW- I'm an American too) DROPPING BOMBS ON CIVILIANS IS A WAR CRIME!!! Not only do people die, but communities are destroyed, children are orphaned and in these conditions hatred breeds like wildfire. The men in aircrafts dropping bombs on a foreign population of civilians are ALWAYS the bad guys.

None of the reviews that I read discussed the cause of the conflict in any meaningful way. I myself have not researched the origins of the conflict in depth, but I can tell several things right off the bat. First of all I don't doubt that some Georgians were violent towards Russians. When you consider the fact that the Soviet Union imposed a police state on the Georgians for over 50 years its not surprizing that the Georgians would want to chase the heartless foreigners from their country. Have you ever heard first hand accounts of what it was like to live under the police state of the Soviet Union. It was brutal. The terrorism was constant for over 50 years. They had informants in every aspect of the society that they were occupying (from Estonia to Hungary to Georgia) and they monitored peoples' political leanings and dissent was not tolerated. People disappeared on a regular basis. Terrorism. Try to imagine what it was like to live under that kind of blatant and brutal oppression for more than 2 generations before you comment judge the Georgians for whatever crimes they committed against Russians citizens in Ossentia. Its not surprizing to me that the Georgian people would want to kill the men who once managed the police state and probably got rich doing it.

As an example that even an American may understand, lets consider the last time that our country was invaded by foreign troops - late 18th century. Did you know that the minutemen of Massachusetts were brutal in their treatment of the sympathizers of the British crown - known as Tories? It became commonplace for the minutemen to publicly tar-and- feather a supporter of the British crown and then to burn their house down. Not to mention the corporate vandalism that destroyed great chunks of British corporate wealth ... most notably, the Boston Tea Party. Given that fact (and that many Tories were murdered outright) does anyone today feel that the British were justified in invading a foreign land of people who had decided to claim independence? If the British had the kind of air support that the Russians have, we'd very likely still be a British colony today. The idea that the Russians had the right to use overwhelming military force defend the safety of Russian citizens in a foreign country is blatantly fascist.

Another thing that I can tell you is that the Georgians have significant oil deposits and they were in the process of opening their oil to western markets ... if you want to discern the true reason for any war one should follow the economic implications and most of the time that will lead you straight to the actual cause of the war.

In summary, "5 days War" may not be an in depth and balanced account of all of the factors that led to the conflict but it will serve to humanize the true cost of war. And the use of foreign journalists to tell the story is the most logical way to tell such a story because in the real world that is the only way we can ever understand what is actually happening in such a conflict. Military officials coldly refer to their mass murder as "collateral damage" and any modern military WILL always underestimate their numbers which is why we should pay attention to what journalists tell us about such brutal crimes against humanity.

Propaganda? Yeah that fits.

[MJohnathen · 1/10 · 2 April 2012]

I could spend an hour writing a detailed play by play of the movie, but it's easier to say that yes... This is in fact a propaganda movie, so much so it uses the actual Georgian Army as "actors" for this film and using only Georgians as sources for the script.

But with that aside, can it be considered a good movie regardless of it's fictional re-writing of history? Sadly this is also no, it has direct to DVD written all over it, If it hadn't been filmed in Georgia, using Georgian soldiers giving it a authentic look it would have nothing standing this movie up.

I'll end this on a quote from Anna Neistat who works for "amnesty international" "This film portrays Russians and Ossetians as barbaric beasts and Georgians as peace angels." I couldn't sum it up any better Anna.

Their only weapon is the truth

[gradyharp · 7/10 · 25 December 2011]

5 DAYS OF WAR is a disturbing film on many levels; it takes us into the bowels of an active war zone sharing the bloody ravenous hunger of war and the effects on the citizens of the invaded country, it is raw in its depiction of what happens to non-combatant journalists who are embedded to document the truth, and it is embarrassing how little the outside world knew of this brief but devastating war between Russia and Georgia in 2008 a war concomitant with the Olympic Games in Beijing, China so hungrily observed by the media. It tests our priorities of information intake and in doing so puts a quite different perspective on world events. The story is based on true facts and is well paced by writers Mikko Alanne and David Battle and directed with unrelenting intensity by Renny Harlin.

The film opens with three journalists and photographers - Thomas Anders (Rupert Friend), Sebastian Ganz (Richard Coyle), and Miriam (Heather Graham) - riding in a jeep in apparently placid countryside when they are struck by a bomb killing Miriam and leaving both Thomas and Sebastian injured. It soon becomes obvious that Georgia is being attacked by the Russians who (we are told) fear that Georgia is becoming too attached to the West! Flashes back and forth between comment from the reluctant President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia (Andy Garcia) who demands a cease fire and clips of Putin and his representative Col. Alexandr Demidov (Rade Serbedzija) who increase the bombing bring the tension to the breaking point. Innocent people are killed, the journalists find refuge in a Georgian wedding where Thomas and Sebastian meet Tatia (Emmanuelle Chriqui) who then joins them in carrying out their mission: the journalists have captured on film footage of the Russians slaughtering civilians and are determined to get the memory card of that incident of truth to authorities who will stop the Russian attack. How the action proceeds during the brief 5 days is riveting to watch and enlightening to know.

Along the way there are others who support the journalists insistence on securing the truth memory card, fine cameo roles for Johnathan Schech, Val Kilmer, Dean Cain, Ken Cranham, Antje Traue and a host of Georgian actors. For some this may seem like just another war film, but for others it will turn on a light to an all but forgotten (if even known) incident of brutality that should alert everyone to the possibilities of similar events that are in progress around the globe.

Grady Harp

The 8 minute movie

[jalexoid · 2/10 · 16 June 2011]

The ideas behind the story and the movie seem very noble - to bring to attention the horrors of war. For that we have story, eyewitnesses, victims, high press coverage and it all happened in recent history. However, something that was an ideal setting for a humanist drama is corrupted by many flaws.

Cinematography is frankly very bad. It's on par with home movies. There is little feel to the pictures you see and they do not deliver the feelings that are behind the script. Unless you lived though that particular horror, this movie will not spark any passionate feelings. It's literally like watching a documentary of wildlife. In short, the picture lacks any feel to it.

Direction was ordinary at best. A few emotion filled moments were apparent, yet the cinematography failures just wiped it off the face of the picture.

Quite a lot of CG, yet it's not an action movie. It just kills any underlying messages. Though the CG was very good by itself.

The story is over-politicized. Though I don't think that there is anything wrong to portray a single side of a conflict, I do have a lot of issues when that side is very political. It has very clear tendencies, that result in some strange plot "twists". Some make sense, some don't. Like in all stories the politics just covers up the human side. It's no wonder that the story has tendencies, since quite a lot of Georgians worked on the movie. Sometimes such composition of crew results in a highly emotional and expressive movie. Yet this time those personal connections are lost along the way, giving way to the political aspect of the story.

The Georgians that were close to the conflict will feel emotional towards the movie and will relate in some way. People that were far away will not see through the political veil and fail to relate to hardships and suffering of ordinary people.

Worth a watch despite the bad reviews

[phd_travel · 7/10 · 22 September 2012]

I found this movie well worth a watch. There are some faults but I think they aren't that major.

The good points: Good on location feel. The battles and atrocities are quite well filmed. It's exciting and you feel part of the action. Shows the hard job faced by war correspondents. This is a war many don't know about or vaguely remember. So it's interesting to see a movie about a conflict that took place so recently in 2008.

Interesting casting with most cast members playing nationalities they are not. Two Americans as Georgians: Andy Garcia as the Georgian President and Jonathan Schaech as a soldier. Rupert Friend, a British actor as an American journalist. Val Kilmer as a Dutch journalist. Emanuelle Chriqrui, a Canadian Morrocan as a Georgian lady the reporters befriend and who is trying to rescue her family. At least she looks her part.

The faults: Some criticise that it was one sided showing the Russians as the sole perpetrators of atrocities. I guess it's up to the viewer to look more into what happened themselves. But don't most WWII movies focus on one side's point of view as well? So I think that criticism is a bit unfair.

Another fault is there are some parts of the story that have a Rambo like action quality and unbelievability. It was a bit ridiculous at times during the rescue and scenes with the villains. This hurts the film but they had to make a story to entertain so I don't think it's that bad a fault.

The movie wasn't successful financially and had bad reviews. Despite that I think it was entertaining and still worth a watch. It highlights a conflict not many people know about. For those who want action in a film might as well learn something about a little known war at the same time instead of just mindless action.

It could be a nice flick

[zipacna-72-709838 · 5/10 · 15 June 2011]

but a primitive story is too much of one-sided pro-Georgian propaganda.

Good Georgians, bad Russians and nothing in the middle.

Well, AFAIK Georgian government sponsored production so it wasn't for free.

Don't try to learn the history of the conflict after that.

Cold War is back. Seems like Rembo from the 80s but lacks Silvester to save the day.

On the other hand it doesn't look like a typical B-movie it could be considering it's screenplay.

Director's work is good, acting is not too bad. Special effects is nice too excluding cheap gasoline explosions.

Worth watching anyway.

A terrifying account of modern Europe.

[kennbren · 8/10 · 23 March 2022]

I tried to watch this movie a few years ago and turned off after half an hour. The story was ok, the acting was mediocre and the "made for tv" feel just didn't do anything for me.

Jump forward to present day and the movie popped up on my suggested titles. I decided to give it another go considering what is happening in Ukraine at the moment and holy c#@p did this movie take on a whole new look. Yes, the story is still sketchy and the acting is alright, but the premise and background suddenly become incredibly real. More so my own ignorance of the background of the movie but it is so close to what's happening right now that I couldn't NOT watch the film. I would like to say it mirrors modern times but this movie is 11 years old !! The attacking army scene at 40 mins was genuinely uncomfortable to watch and although I wish it was based on fiction the sick feeling in my stomach would lead me to believe that it lies very close to the truth.

The ending with the real life interviews of people who survived the Russian invasion of Georgia is absolutely heartbreaking and only increases my sympathy for the people of Ukraine and what they are suffering right now.

It's not the best movie ever made, but for the times that we are living in...it certainly needs to watched.

Good grief. What is a movie for?

[mickjo · 7/10 · 8 December 2012]

Good grief. What is a movie for? Entertainment, or education? Scores of American and British war films are educationally deficient, but marvellous entertainment. Frankly, I didn't know much about the Georgian conflict, but I didn't watch in order to be educated.

It may be biased, but as a piece of entertainment, well, it worked for me. The cinematography and special effects were very good, the story engaging, and the acting, just fine. It drew me in and I genuinely enjoyed it. I might equally enjoy a film biased towards the Russian side, just as I've enjoyed films about Vietnam biased towards the American side (which most are).

I don't understand why so many reviewers here have got on their high horses. If the film had been about some conflict between fictional countries, would they have been less critical? Would they have been able to concentrate on the story, the essence of which could be applied to many wars, including ones in which Americans or Brits have been involved and carried the lion's share of the blame?

Good action in some places. Horrible idea. Overall: WASTED TIME!

[belydym · 2/10 · 21 August 2011]

Liked the action in some parts, quite realistic.

However, the whole idea of the movie is too plain "Georgians are good, and Russians are bad"... Smells like cheaply paid propaganda movie. Nowdays only mind limited folks can think that Russia started the war. Whatever they say... Georgian president gave the order to slaughter "his own people" on the night before Olympic games started:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8281990.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war

Watch the classics "Saving Private Ryan", "Tears of the sun", "We were soldiers"...

P.S.: the scene with wedding is well described here http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/02/afghanistan.lukeharding

Old circus horse can not be taught new tricks.

[levelclearer · 13 August 2011]

The author made a try to persuade us of the documentary nature of his movie while he failed even to abide by the rules of the political thriller genre. Old circus horse can not be taught new tricks. When you go to film a "based on comics" flick don't say you have produced a documentary. When you watch the picture you feel it almost physically how a Rambo mold invisibly haunts the movie and you want to exclaim: "Stop that trash, release the Rambo, and let us at least have some fun.". Still fun is enclosed: war time love story is intervowen with the plot which will give food for an excellent computer game. This movie really rocks sending authentic messages which however unfortunately have nothing to deal with the things the author tries to show on the screen. The first one is - money is everything. The second one - we want to see it this way no matter what it really was. The third one - action motion pictures with bad and good guys are candies which are much sweeter than real life. Just imagine an army consisting of sadists. An army of sadists. Every soldier in this army is a sadist. A sadist army is opposed by the army of saints. This is how the Russian and Georgian armies are portrayed in "5 days of august". OK. We will try hard not to remember about the US soldiers deeds in Abu-Graib prison in Iraq. We will try hard to erase from our memory Vietnamese villages burnt out with napalm, forests defoliated with agent orange, children without skin, tortured Vietnamese partisans, etc. Even if Senator McCain will try not to let us forget it very quickly. Sure we will forget about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Forever. And of course we will not make any generalizations from a single case. Agreed we understand that any army can have a number of people with hidden sadistic inclinations, which remain sleeping until they break out in crucial war situations. But that normally is a sad, tragic exclusion rather than a rule that characterizes the entire army. The movie authors so sincerely neglect this simple truth that the movie therefore lacks only one thing - those comics style "Pow" and "Bang" subtitles when Russian rockets hit a Georgian wedding. BTW, it's a very strange way of living out a guilt complex. Actually it was an Afghani wedding and an American helicopter, and the country was Afghanistan, not Georgia. US chopper crew took Afghani wedding for Al-Kaeda warriors. Sad. But it's war, it's people's factor. The answer is given in the titles before the movie - there stands in black and white: Based on the actual events. On the actual events torn from time, place, and nationality and dressed up in the Russian army uniform. The American helicopter cracking down on Afghani wedding transforms into Russian helicopter destroying Georgian wedding. Dr. Goebbels smokes nervously in the corner. Violating the primary human right for objective information this cinematic work becomes highly cynical with regard to real life. I think it would be a deed of honesty if movie producers openly classify their work as "fairy tale" or "sci-fi", recognizing that they have honestly fulfilled Georgian government order for creating of a national myth, a legend, which has nothing to do with reality and truth. Russians say "Fairy tale is a lie, but there is a hint in it, a lesson for a good guy". OK, let Georgian good guys learn to hate Russia from Hollywood made fairy-tales, and let's see whether these lessons will do them good in a historical perspective. As always Hollywood shows very nice and expensive visual effects. Especially when you realize that they were made for Georgian money and every blast of propane gas is paid from the pocket of the Georgian tax payer. Still visual effects is the best investment of money in all this work. I'm not surprised that Hollywood produces something like "5 days of august". They have a hand in it. There are people who would pay for such kind of music. They say we were here when it happened and we know well how it happened and what really happened here we know very well too, but we hope that Hollywood stars would help the Georgian point of view on the conflict to become dominant in the world. Why not ? But. Politicians may play games, but people are getting brainwashed, left living in the illusionary world where many things that take place in the real world simply don't exist. For example, you will never know about Orthodox Church temple where people of Tskhinval were hiding from Georgian raid burnt with all who were inside. Burnt by Georgian soldiers. You will never know about Georgian soldier yelling "yoo-hoo" and filming with his mobile phone camera as he worked his machine gun over the civilian houses. You will never know about a pregnant woman who was running for the Temple and was shot halfway by Georgian soldiers. You will never know about 80 year old eminent Georgian film maker, a live classic of Georgian cinema, who had to escape to Russia from Saakashvili's prosecution, just because he is too eminent and he doesn't agree with all russophobia of Georgian regime. You will never know that Russian troops and fleet started moving only when Georgians shelled and rocketed civilians of Tskhinval. You will never know about demolition of the monument to Russian and Georgian soldiers fighting shoulder to shoulder against Hitler. All this was left outside the camera still in order not to deviate from the emotional tune. Emotions ! Message ! Pathos ! The three whales of this tale. The most gruesome thing about this movie is that author violates even the basic rules of the political thriller and overwrites the history. What makes him do this, I do not know, may be he watched too many early Nazi movies. "Divide it by 16" as Russians say.