Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Verity Robins Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

hrkepler Renny Harlin used to be the sort of director who managed to turn sub-bar screenplays into entertaining and quite thrilling films. '5 Days of War' is not one of them. I don't care much about how much propaganda one movie contains (Sergei Eisenstein? Anyone?) as the real truth usally lies beneath somewhere. My biggest probleem with that movie was that it lacked any sort of direction. The scenes were badly bound together, the story was all over the place. THe characters lacked any depth, and the actors mostly just walked through the scenes (especially Val Kilmer who is usually very capable actor). Saw that film first time when it was released, second time was couple of weeks ago, and I couldn't even finish it. So, my question is - did they even try? I mean this conflict surely deserves much better depiction on the screen than it got from '5 Days of War'.

Garfunkel Right from the get-go the main focus of this movie was to make the US-supported Georgia look like angels while the Russians and Ossetians were basically "blood-thirsty beasts". We obviously know Georgia was the one who blasted BM-21 rockets into South Ossetia and killed thousands of people, and then launched them into Russian Peacekeeper areas in North-South Ossetia and killed a few Russian Peacekeepers which triggered Russia to respond against Georgia. BUT NO!!! Since this is a Western propaganda film, let's switch the truth into bullcrap propaganda to "make our ally looked like they were pounced on by the evil Russkies for no apparent reason to make everyone think, 'Damn those Russians just never get their head out of the Cold War era!!!'" when really it is America that should be doing that.Pros - This movie does have good CGI to best display the cruelty of war.Cons - As I stated above, this movie points the finger from Georgia to Russia as the aggressors. From "on purpose airstrikes on weddings" to random scenes about the Russian Army, or should I say Russian militia gang as they appear to be in the movie, killing innocent civilians for no apparent reason. For example, in one scene these Russian "soldiers" gather a whole village up while our main characters watch these Russians demand for the mayor and someone else of the village and in the process shooting an elder. In the end of this scene, the mayor and the other person get executed and then all-of-a-sudden the Russian "soldiers" let all the villagers go run wild like animals so the Russians can call in Mi-24s to start shooting at the village and the villagers themselves. Also, when a main character is talking with a Russian officer the officer tells him that the army is going to blow up all the Georgian churches; this basically tries to re-validate the old Soviet practice of being godless and suppressing religion; I kept thinking "are these supposed to be Russian forces, or Soviet?" but then again I remembered it was all a propaganda film to show Russia was somehow still having a Soviet Union-era mentality and being evil. In the end when the conflict just "ends" Saakashvili attends to a crowd waving Georgian and NATO-member flags all cheering and being happy, and showing Georgia as if it were all-innocent (sure the Georgian people were but politically we know Georgia started the conflict).If you want a summary: This movie shows Georgia as the US-like defenders of Democracy and freedom, and Russia as the blood-thirsty beasts from the Cold War era out to stop democracy and freedom.

Valentiuss Prior to the review, I ask readers to forgive my meager knowledge of English. I write to you from Russia. I was amused and annoyed by the concept, with which your writers (writers of film - I do not know how to write English is right) presented the Russian reality. Represent Russian murderers, thieves, maniacs, mentally handicapped is fundamentally not correct. It's the same thing as to present Germans as Nazis, Americans as fat, the French as a frog-eaters, the Italians as mobsters. We call it cranberry - a not real picture of Russia. I hope it is clear why I decided to name as your resume - Hello, Mr. Popcorn? Such a film can be viewed only by eating popcorn! Your government is out of ordinary Americans make zombies - and the film is likely to custom, to incite ethnic hatred between the Americans and Russian. You can easily see that I'm right - вы to visit Russia. You will not find the thugs, murderers, thieves, rapists, the snow (at least 7-9 months of the year there is no snow in Moscow!), Bears, accordion and balalaika, bears, hats ushanok, soldiers' uniforms to the ground, the red stars on the head and red flag. In 2008, Russia stood up for Ossetia, which does not want to be part of Georgia, along the lines of Quebec in Canada. The only difference is that Canada did not send troops to Quebec, to suppress the natural rights of nations to self- determination and sovereignty. Because Canada is a civilized country, in Georgia ruled by a dictator. This is pure politics, the United States maintains some dictators, Russia others. In this win-wrong and the U.S. and Russia, but we do not make movies about Gaddafi, do not make heroes of the tyrants. Wealthy Americans to visit in Ossetia is very easy, for 2-3 days. Ask themselves Ossetians - who is to blame for the war. Do not believe the lies. And think logically - Russian in the film is being shot from helicopters captured the village, but it is not logical! This is just one of hundreds of examples to prove the falsity of this film. PS: I ask, who knows English to correct written. I hope that one day the truth will prevail!

Steve Pulaski 5 Days of War is a film not out to give an accurate depiction of the 2008 Russo-Georgia War, but to gloss over any implications and make its own biased, fictitious version of it. War is a touchy subject to conduct a film on, but thankfully, many war films have been exceptionally well done and stellar in quality. This is the first one I've come across that is poor in quality.It's so rare to see a war film robbed of all character development, emotional elements, plot, coherency, and facts. Yet, 5 Days of War shows us that it is possible and that when done in such poor quality it can further cement an event into a sea of puzzlement. The United States of America wasn't up to date come time of the Russo-Georgia War in August of 2008, and Bush had decided to leave the country out of it. A smart move if you ask me. The US was already starting to get hit with one of the most deadly recessions of all time and, already fighting two wars, it was a good plan to let two other countries just settle out the differences by themselves. So, to release a film in America about the war was actually not a bad idea. The problem? Because our knowledge on it is so limited we could easily be persuaded the wrong way. And that is what 5 Days of War appears to be doing. Persuading people the wrong way.Georgia and Russia both committed several atrocities in the time of the war. The film makes it look like Georgia was minding its own business and the big, bad Russians just decided to blow the hell out of everything Georgian. Georgia actually helped to trigger the Russians into fighting back in the war. That part is almost wholly absent.The film revolves around Thomas Anders (Friend), a reporter who was rescued upon visiting Iraq with colleagues after being gunned down in their car. A year later, he gets word that conflict is brewing in Georgia, so heads out to cover the story. Anders meets a young Georgia woman named Tatia (Chriqui) and another reporter named Sebastian (Coyle) where they must learn to survive during the war.It seems 5 Days of War is less concerned with actuality and being an informative piece of work, and instead tries to be a gritty action film. Going into this expecting a nice, expansive retelling of events leading up to the war, I was presented with typical war schlock with loud, unnecessary gunfire and over-exaggerated acting all around. This is also one of the first war films I've ever seen that was void of all things emotional. It was moot in the field of playing with your tear-ducts, mainly because you don't know the characters well enough to form any sort of opinion about them. There is a scene where one of the main characters is shot off of the back of a moving truck. Her friends and companions are clearly shocked and sobbing uncontrollably. We as audience members are staring blankly wishing a tear or two would form. Alas, nothing but utter silence followed by increasing restlessness and dreariness.At the very end, the film goes sentimental and right before the end credits we see many people who've lost relatives in the five day war between the feuding countries holding pictures of their loved ones and honoring them respectably. Even in this field emotion doesn't ring, but we do feel sort of uneasy. Think about it; you watch an empty, mundane war film that is absent of emotional elements only to be tested for tears one more time before the credits role showing people who have lost their loved ones in the same event. The whole act sounds contrived and almost unforgivable.Starring: Andy García, Val Kilmer, Richard Coyle, Emmanuelle Chriqui, Rupert Friend, Johnathon Schaech, Dean Cain, Rade Šerbedžija, Antje Traue, and Heather Graham. Directed by: Renny Harlin.