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.

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?

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.

We will start with the fact this film was released in 2011 and running 113 minutes,about about a War in 2008.That makes it a first film for that war. Second its about a war few even know happened as it lasted but 5 days and was up against the Olympics in China for media attention.Yes thats true,look it up. Third its from a smaller film company that spent its budget on location shooting it seems. Forth,the war involves my ancestral home country of Russia. Five,it also involved another country with boots on the ground AT OUR SIDE in Iraq,GEORGIA. Six ,some real interesting casting. Seven,the story is based on facts. Eight,its also a story of those forgotten press who live and die to get a story out,literally. Nine,its combat scenes are as intensely realistic as any I've seen. Ten,the other 9 reasons make it the kinda gem of a film we live for. Now to the war itself,this film contributes little to the understanding of why the war happened at all,but,isn't that true in many cases? Really people,BE HONEST !!!!! The casting,well,I turned in to see Heather Graham and Andy Garcia and Val Kilmer with other unknowns to see how it would mix and i wasn't to optimistic.Damned if Heather isn't killed in the opening scene and Val is little seen till he's killed late in the film,BUT Andy is good as the Georgian President but not really needed as I said earlier,it's really about the press,not politics. Now the press, thats Rupert Friend playing Thomas Anders, the reporter the story is built around, and he really does grow on you as the film moves along.AH,but Johnathon Schaech as Cpt. Rezo Avaliani ,a Georgian who saved Thomas in Iraq and then in Georgia has some acting career ahead !!!! As to the war itself,don't look to this movie as truth,as it said itself at the very beginning,the first casualty of war IS the truth.No,this story is as stated before,a tribute to the people who cover it.If your looking for a war gem of a film,SEE IT.