User reviews

The lack of any effort to have a military consultant chime in and just fix the basic stuff around military customs and courtesy, or rank structure would have given this movie an additional 3 stars from me.

• Captains do not give orders to Lt. Colonels.

• Junior Non-Commissioned Officers do not command 50 guys at a forward operating base.

• Superiors do not address their juniors as sir. It is a courtesy shown to the higher rank.

Any recently discharged servicemember could have been hired for peanuts, probably just a movie credit alone, as a consultant to this movie, and it wouldn't have pissed off a generation of veterans, and would have improved the script.

I hope Aaron Eckhart was paid well for the half day of work he did on one set. At least, fortunately for him, this film will be quickly forgotten. And it's sad to see Jonathan Rhys Meyers' career reduced to signing on to dreck like this.

The plot is simple enough.

Vietnam. 1966. A remote American firebase is attacked and the Viet-Cong, though driven back, somehow manage to get their hands on a binder that would compromise South Vietnamese agents. A small force is dispatched from the firebase to track and find the VC in order to retrieve or destroy the binder.

The basic outline for this plot could have made for a decent action movie in the hands of competent film makers. Unfortunately, none were available.

It is clear that the film makers did no research. I began to wonder if they could even spot Vietnam on a map.

Sometimes a film with a low budget will get the look wrong because they can't afford to build realistic looking sets or props... in this case, it seemed they simply didn't care about getting anything right

Production and costumes: None of the characters were wearing the right uniforms or patches. You can literally order bulk surplus jungle fatigues online... this was not a budget issue... they simply got all the uniforms wrong. Every single one.

This was also glaringly obvious with the weapons. The overwhelming majority of the soldiers in this film are seen using M16A2 or A3 rifles... rifles which were not available until 20 years later. One soldier who has a beard for some reason was actually carrying an M16A4 with a rail system, a gun that wan not available until more than 30 years later.

Clearly the production had the budget for an armorer who could provide expensive rifles... just the wrong ones... all of them.

While most laymen may not notice the difference, anyone who ever served in the military in the last fifty years will and this is just indicative of the indifference or laziness of the film makers.

The location set for the firebase was laughably bad, on a par with a high school play's stage scenery. This was not a budget issue.. this was not caring or bothering. Sandbags don't cost a lot. A single later of sandbags on only one side of a machine gun position is decorative but useless. It wouldn't have taken more that a minute to google images to see how sandbags are used and maybe an extra hour to fill a whole bunch of bags.

The script: Every cliche imaginable... and the writer clearly has no understanding of how the military works of how human beings talk to each other... and of course there are many pieces of dialog that are out of place... like one soldier complaining about eating MRE's even though it would be twenty more years before the Army switched over to eating MRES from canned C-rations. Corporals run bases and give orders to sergeants. Captains scream at everything all the time because the writer associates screaming with Army movies. And colonels lead patrols. The script is rife with every cliche imaginable "they died for nothing!" and when someone talks about how they're about to finish their tour and go home, you know he's about to die

The action is why I gave this film two stars instead of one... because I actually laughed at how bad it was. There were lots of bad CGI muzzle flash and explosion effects. The Viet Cong seem to love just standing in the open and firing instead of maybe shooting from behind a tree... and there were multiple scenes were actors were shooting each other in the back (fortunately with blanks) because the director didn't bother to tell them to not point their rifles at each other when running around firing. It's actually quite comical and I challenge viewers to count how many times they see actors shooting at each other. There was a stuntman falling from a tower too early before an explosion went off at the base of it that the director left in. As CGI mortar strike explosions in several scenes and in one scene, a stuntman throws himself flailing as if blasted by an explosion ...but they forgot to add that CGI explosion so the scene is just him flailing as he leaps sideways reacting to... nothing.

I guess the best way to sum up this movie is to look at the title... "Ambush" There is no Ambush.

After the firebase is attacked, a captain is on the radio with a general talking about the attack and they both keep referring to it as an ambush. The attack on the base is referred to as an ambush several more times.

But an assault or raid on a base is not an ambush.

That the film makers titled their film "Ambush" and don't even know what that means really says it all.

The show starts with a place and date, 1966. In the background, an F-111. That didn't even enter service until a year later and didn't come to Vietnam until 1968.

There then follows a sequence of macho macho man orders and posturing. So lame, it's beyond parody.

The Special Forces captain flies to a base to receive a special secret package. Why he can fly in and not fly back out again using the same helicopter (or even any helicopter) having collected the famous package is never explained.

Upon arrival there is more screaming authoritarianism - clearly the script writers haven't ever been on a military base. Laughably, the OC for this base is a corporal. Whose mean keep calling him "Sir". His demeanour is that of an earnest but ridiculous one pip wonder, but even so, the "Special Forces" captain does nothing but belittle him and scream at him. Whilst also addressing him as if he is in command of a 50 man detachment...

Next, a guy manning a machine gun and whizzing the iron sights around spots two US Special Forces snipers in full ghillie suits about 200M out from his position and challenges them.

They stand up and assert that they have "the package", a book marker "Secret" inside a plastic map case. When asked if the enemy (who knew that the Vietnamese marked secret documents in English?) knew that they had this document, the snipers earnestly responded that there were 8 of them, implying that 6 comrades had died (or been captured). Having not answered a straight question with a straight answer, the hitherto highly strung SF captain says he needs to arrange some "R&R" for the newly arrived hero's.

Whereupon someone (another trembling nerd engineer) accidentally discharges his weapon, causing the SF captain to drop the "Secret" documents in the mud so he can regain his title of the most screamy man in Vietnam. Another trembling nerd (for this is what combat engineers are according to this film, or perhaps are reduced to by the overwhelming machismo of the SF presence) picks it up and has a gun out in his face by one of the "sniper" team.

As the captain resumes screaming at the other corporal (one of whom discharged the gun and is made out to be far more junior in rank than the other who is again made out to be the detachment OC), I decide that the 20 minutes lost to date is more than enough.

Read this and save yourself the 18 minutes of ridiculous rubbish.

Don't know who they hired as military advisor on this movie or if they even had one. Uniforms were wrong, ranks were wrong, military courtesies were wrong, weapons were wrong for the time period. Acting was bad which I did not expect with actors like Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Thomas Janes in the cast. I know it's a movie and for entertainment but as a retired Marine with over twenty three years of active service as well as a history buff I was greatly disappointed in the film it had just too many errors to be enjoyed. I can't believe that I paid $15 for this movie that I will probably never watch again.

What the actual F@#@.

Probably the worst film ever, Eckhart and Meyers must be desperate. Joke of a film.

Uniforms, props and storyline, it's like a ten year old write the script. The people involved in creating this film should be embarrassed and banned from making anymore. Udo Keir makes better movies.

The cast will likely never be offered any other roles ever again. I literally cannot stress how bad this film is and anyone dho marked it more than 1 star must be very easily pleased or have no clue about the military. If I could have given this movie a minus I would have, the director needs to be arrested for assaulting my senses.

The film begins in the middle of the action and the events building up to it are narrated to the audience over the course of a single dialogue exchange between the general and the captain. 10-15min invested on that through visuals would have definitely helped.

Though the core plot of tunnel warfare is nothing new, the story nonetheless is not gripping. The screenplay is also equally lacking and at places especially toward the end, it falls apart failing to keep viewers on the edge. Even the editing at the end becomes wayward with unnecessary cuts that's immediately obvious. Acting is decent and its only the likes of Eckhart that impede this movie from becoming another forgettable B-Grade school project.

Why was Lt Col Miller showing the rank of a full bird col? Why were they calling a corporal Sir & how did he get command of a firebase? It was a shocking movie . Terrible script & pretty bad acting. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone .. rating 0 star. I myself am a Vietnam Veteran Australian army 1971 - 72 & found the movie bland & unmatchable. I'm finding it hard to submit the required number of characters so I can submit this review. All I can say is don't waste your time watching this movie. I can't see how anyone could submit the required characters .. my main question is the Lt Col showing rank full bird Col?

As in war, not every aspect of the film Ambush probably goes as it was strategically intended in pre-production, but its heart, politics, and key performances fight hard to make a difference and by the end of its hour and 40 minute running time can claim victory.

The year is 1966. The setting is a small firebase in Quan Tri erected and secured by a corp of young inexperienced engineers with next to no bona fides in combat. The platoon is commanded by Cpl. Ackerman (Connor Paolo) - who is educated and savvy but trepidatious because he knows what he does not know... and his men know it too. The titular ambush takes place above ground - the enemy appearing out of nowhere in the midst of the camp's secured perimeter - during which they manage to steal an important dossier before being repelled. The remainder of the film mostly takes place underground as Ackerman and his team are tasked with the mission of mapping the Vietcong's 'subway system', the labyrinth of tunnels they have constructed in the area that allow them free and unseen movement in their battles against the Americans.

Once in the tunnels, the film takes on more of an effective horror film vibe with booby traps, silence, claustrophobia, sudden attacks and a John Carpenteresque 80's soundtrack. But the film never lets the viewer forget that the real horror is the lethal mix of the politics of war and the caste system of the armed forces. To this end, the film's finale is particularly forceful.

Aaron Eckhart as General Drummond, remotely directing the operation, does his steely best, but his performance, literally over the phone, is detached in a multitude of ways. Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Special Forces operative Miller, who is knowledgeable about the tunnels but stays above ground, provides an understanding and a Zen-like calmness to the endeavor, a welcome counterbalance to the barking of the other higher-ups. But the real pulse of the story and heart of the film is Connor Paolo's portrayal of Ackerman who's journey from trying hard to conceal his fears about protecting his men above ground to revealing his deep care, compassion and responsibility for them underground is truly moving.

For a low budget war film with what appeared to be an extremely short shooting schedule, Ambush tells a story about the politics of war well worth seeing. The fact that it eschews back stories of both the larger and the smaller life forms benefits it theme: that at the end of the chess game, all the pieces - kings, queens, bishops, knights and pawns - go back in the same box.

No pun intended obviously. If you are here for Aaron Eckhart, well let me tell you he is more in an advisor role, so you won't be seeing too much of him. That said, the other actors are more than fine enough. But the movie scores with something else entirely: a lot of blood and a lot of violence. When it gets down, it also gets dirty ... a lot.

I guess there are also passages (pun anyone?), that may feel claustrophobic to some. The story is quite simple, the conclusion may be a bit ... well it may not be a satisfying one. But is life always satisfying? I'd argue it is not - and while I suppose the movie is not really based on one particular story, it probably took a lot of little stories and made it into this bigger one ... well if you can call it that. This shows the downside of war - especially the senselessness of it all ...

When I sat down to watch "Ambush", I figured that chances were that it would prove a good movie since it had the likes of Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Aaron Eckhart on the cast list.

However, prior to sitting down and watching this movie from director Mark Burman, I hadn't even heard about it. So I wasn't sure what I was in for here, aside from it being a Vietnam War movie of sorts.

Writers Mark Burman, Johnny Lozano, Michael McClung and Dillon Slack put together a fair enough script for the storyline here. And while "Ambush" certainly was interesting enough, the movie was ultimately sort of nondistinctive, and it sort of feels like a movie that snuck in under the radar and will just as quietly fade into oblivion. The movie didn't leave a particularly lasting impression with me. While "Ambush" was watchable, it should be noted that there are far, far better Vietnam War-based movies out there.

The acting in the movie was good, but I feel a little bit cheated out of something, as neither Jonathan Rhys Meyers or Aaron Eckhart weren't playing all that big roles in the movie. Meyers did, however, have a bit more on-screen time than Eckhart, but they weren't leading performers. I guess they were top billed solely to lure in the audience.

"Ambush" was filmed in a good manner, because it felt like the audience were right there alongside the US soldiers as they ventured into unknown territory as they realized that the Viet Cong troops were using subterranean tunnels in their warfare. There was a particular sense of intense tension and claustrophobia throughout the course of the 104 minutes that the movie ran for, and that definitely helped carry the movie.

For a war movie then director Mark Burman delivered a watchable movie, albeit not a particularly outstanding movie. This is the type of movie that you watch once, then shelf it and forget about it.

My rating of "Ambush" lands on a five out of ten stars.

It's a shame three things spoilt what could have been a reasonably good film. Firstly, Aaron Eckhart is a great actor so I hope they paid him well for the day it took to shoot his scenes on a the one set. He was shoehorned into the movie so they could use his name. Secondly, who builds a camp in hostile territory with no walls or lookouts? An open playground would have had more protection from the rain of enemy bullets. And lastly, the dog. Let's not forget the dog. For a tracker dog that is supposed to lead the way while straining on it's leash, the damn thing had to be dragged everywhere. Where did the production company get it? The local pound? The actors were good, the concept was good, the cinematography was good. Just a damn shame the production was lacking.

Had the convoluted, disjointed, unremarkable and tedious screenplay from the three writers been cut down to about 80 mins, this may have been more enjoyable. Certainly more enjoyable than having to listen to cliched tropes and long dragged out and repetitive scenes of dead end turns in an underground maze. I get that this was a low-mid budget B film, and although I have seen much worse, this film actually could've been more enjoyable with better directing and major script cuts and edits. The cinematography was decent, and surprisingly for a B film, the score was on point. Even much of the acting was better than I expected. Nice idea, but sadly, terrible execution.

I got a couple minutes into it and just knew that it was gonna be awful.

Ie. Would a Full Bird Col. Salute and address a Capt. As sir?

Would a Capt. Address a Corporal as sir?

I think not.

I picked up on quite a few things in the script that didn't fit the time period... ie. A scene where they were eating chow and they referred to MRE's.... They didn't come out until the mid 80's.

Being a Marine Corps Veteran, it was easy to pick up on the mistakes in regards to terminology and military customs.

Well, I can't get that 1 hour and 44 minutes of my life back :( I wish that I could go less than the 1 star.

This is the most amateurish piece of work I've ever seen. Wrong weapons, wrong uniforms, wrong rank insignias (dozens of them), wrong rations. There is no way, NO WAY, they had any US Army consultant, or even any input from an Army veteran.

In one scene, the nutritional value of MREs (Meals Ready to Eat) is discussed. The problem is that MREs were first distributed in 1981. The basic combat meals in Vietnam were the good old C Rations. C-Rats. C's. Etc.

As to uniforms . . . What a mess! This was FUBAR from the get-go. Stripes being worn like shoulder insignia. Officers with shiny rank, not subdued, and rank but no branch. Most actors have no idea how to properly wear a beret, but this cast takes it to a new level of hilarity. A French chef might be impressed, but certainly not a soldier. They just look simply ridiculous.

So, spare yourself the pain of watching bad acting and a pointless plot performed by people apparently dressed up for Trick-or Treat. Just double time right on past this one.

IN A NUTSHELL: The thrilling, true story of a U. S Military suicide mission through miles of enemy, Vietcong infested tunnels. American forces are trapped on the edge of no-mans-land, facing danger amid a maze of tunnels as they pursue the Vietcong far below ground before a deadly secret can be exposed.

The film was written and directed by Mark Burman with additional writing help by Johnny Lozano and Michael McClung.

It's a perfect example of how critics hate a movie, yet audiences love it.

THINGS I LIKED: I've always loved Aaron Eckhart. He has the eyes of one of my sons! Unfortunately, he's not in the movie very much. Easy paycheck.

Jonathan Rhys Meyers can always be counted on to kick butt and give it 100%.

Connor Paolo did a great job in his role. His frightened character was believable and instantly made you root for him.

I love war movies, especially ones based on a true story because there is so much heroism.

Lots of action, shooting, and tense moments.

Great sound effects.

The timing of this film should remind the USA that we should think very carefully before jumping into another country's war.

THINGS I DIDN'T LIKE: The timing of this film should remind the USA that we should think very carefully before jumping into another country's war. I'm looking at you, Ukraine.

Another problem with war movies is all of the military acronyms. I often have no idea what the characters are saying.

Some of the special effects, like explosions, don't look very real. In that regard, the movie looks like the low-budget movie it is.

After losing several of their Special Forces team members who swore to protect a Top Secret binder, it's hard to believe the two remaining men let it easily slip out of their hands during an ambush, right?

If our American soldiers freak out over bugs, our country is toast.

Unfortunately, a lot of the dialogue wasn't good.

So much yelling.

The pacing races, stalls, and races again.

TIPS FOR PARENTS: This movie is not appropriate for children.

Profanity, including many F-bombs We see a lot of soldiers get shot and killed. The camera zooms in way too long on a few kills to show us the blood and gore. Not necessary.

We see men catch on fire.

Tons of violence with a variety of weapons, as well as hand-to-hand combat.

!

Really really bad. I know actors need to work, but Aaron Eckhart must be regretting having his name associated with this dross. Battle Los Angeles it most definitely is not!

Quite a good plot but destroyed through terrible dialogue, ridiculous characters and stupid scenarios...such as using a flame thrower whilst inside a narrow tunnel (Alien lol)...no spoiler but I fell off my seat laughing when I saw how that turned out.

The tunnel scenes take up the majority of this movie and that just adds to the overall pain being experienced by the viewer.

Don't waste your time on this rubbish - do something more satisfying and entertaining...like watching a tree grow.

Now I'm not ex military but even I know enough about military history, vehicles, equipment and uniforms to tell that this film was going to be awful right from the start. Camouflaged soldiers with full gilly suits on trying to blend in in a jungle using bright orange wire cutters?? Really?!

The dialogue was appalling and the acting was wooden to say the least.

Why don't the producers of these movies do some proper research regarding weapons, uniform and history before they start filming?

Could have helped a lot and I might have watched more of it.

I lasted 15-20 mins and turned it off.

Don't waste your time.