Stop-Loss (2008) Reviews

• A Noble Effort

  Lechuguilla2008-08-04

  Well intentioned, this film tells the fictional story of Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe), an American soldier who, after successfully completing a heroic but horrendous tour of duty in Iraq, is notified that, despite his wishes, he must return to Iraq for yet more combat duty, a real-life contingency called "stop-loss". It's a fate that neither King, nor real-life soldiers, want or deserve, but which the U.S. government justifies in lieu of a wartime draft. The film's first few minutes provide a montage of images and scenes showing King, and his men, in Iraq, as they bond together as protective buddies, and as they endure a violent urban ambush, during which several buddies get killed or seriously wounded. Back home in Texas, King and a couple of his men briefly celebrate their hero status. But life for them quickly deteriorates, as their wartime trauma leaves both physical and mental scars. And then, King gets his "stop-loss" notice. This sets up the rest of the film's plot. The theme here is obvious. The brave soldier, having endured more than enough danger and trauma, is still just a powerless individual. As such, he or she is caught between having to resubmit to the horrors of war, or submit to a perilous and life-altering AWOL status in the U.S., or elsewhere, forever on the run from an overpowering American political system. It's a timely and worthy subject for a film. That much effort and care went into the creation of the film, from background research to attention to detail in costumes, production design, and military protocol is obvious. And the film's color cinematography also is quite good. There are lots of close-ups, to get a feel for what the characters are going through. Many scenes feature natural lighting, used in clever ways. At times, the film has an almost documentary look and feel. Acting is overall credible. I especially liked the performances of Linda Emond, as King's mom, and Abbie Cornish, as a young woman who tries to help King. The major problem is the script. Characters are rather stereotyped and two-dimensional. The plot is fairly predictable. And the story and its attendant theme are a tad too direct. I could have wished for a little more depth, and a plot twist or two. The film's ending is not very satisfying. Yet, "Stop-Loss" is a noble effort to document the brutality not only of war but also of an American government that uses, then basically throws away, people, to ensure the preservation of an American war industry and continued power of faceless bureaucrats and corrupt politicians.

• Not a balanced portrayal.

  countvonbarron2008-08-17

  I'm a sergeant in the army and have served 2 tours in Iraq and am preparing to go a third time in December. This film was irresponsible and not balanced in it's portrayal. First off every single soldier has an 8 year commitment. However long your initial enlistment is (3,4 years etc) you then serve the remainder of your time as part of the IRR (indivdual ready reserve). Moreover every single soldier knows about stop loss. It wouldn't have been portrayed the way it was in the movie. He would have known about it ahead of time. They don't tell you the day you get out and make it a surprise. Especially as an E6 a staff sergeant. The combat scene was not realistic. Soldiers guarding a checkpoint WOULD NEVER leave it to chase a vehicle. That is general order no 1 every soldier is taught that from day 1 of basic training. Furthermore the portrayal of PTSD was not wholly accurate. The army has programs in place to treat it. The character played by Joseph Gordon Levitt would not have gotten a bad conduct discharge for breaking a window. He would have received punishment under the uniform code of military justice. For a bad conduct discharge there would have to be a pattern of behavior over a period of time and then every effort would be made to rehabilitate that soldier. The discharge would only come after that had occurred. Finally the scenes of the authorities chasing Ryan Phillipe is BS. The army does not pursue you if you go AWOl. For short awols the soldiers usually receive punishment under UCMJ. For long awols over 30 days the army drops them from the rolls and stops their pay and benefits. If you attempt to get a federal job your name is entered into a database as a deserter. Lastly the final scene is total nonsense. Assuming he was awol less than 30 days he would have been demoted at least 1 grade. He would not have kept his current rank. The soldier was portrayed as a coward. Bottom line. I know personally soldiers in my unit 1 in my squad who have been stop lossed and although they may complain EVERY one of them will do their duty honorably. This movie claims to be pro soldier but it does not portray our soldiers in an honest way and that is dishonoring the memory of all of our soldiers both alive and dead who have served and are still serving over there. Also in response to adx2-1's comment he is right about the policy. 90 days before deployment and 90 days after the unit returns to home station. And under the current dwell time policy it would have been at least a year before he returned. Although it is never stated how long it is suggested that it is less than a year.

• stop-loss

  kairingler2009-09-17

  i thought that this was a very compelling movie.. lot's of good character development, ryan phillipe was great in this, he really knocked it out of the park with this one, he plays a staff seargeant who comes home a "hero" from Iraq, there is a parade , the whole town comes out , the senator is there and tells him anything you need son, come look me up. so him and his buddies spend a few days at home over the weekend catching up with their wives girlfriends,, and what not, things get rowdy and lot's of drinking happens, usual stuff. so on Monday morning our hero goes back to the office to get his official discharge papers,, well to his chagrin, he is sent back to iraq for another tour of duty, this little known "trick" in the military is in the fine print,, basically it says , the president can extened you're military term in time of war.. well in this particular case the war was already declared over years ago,, there you can see our hero's dilemma should he suck it up and go back or fight the system. he decides to fight the system going AWOL.. that's absent without leave.. first he tries canada then d.c. then Mexico.. and were not to the end yet. very compelling movie, it's grips you to the core, and makes you wanna get up and do something about getting our boys back in one piece from Iraq which we have no business being there in the first place.

• Okay, but...

  adx2-12008-04-13

  When I saw the preview, I thought it would be an accurate portrayal on how stop-loss affects soldiers. Unfortunately, it was a little off the wall in how it showed Brandon getting stop-lossed. In reality, stop-loss takes place 90 days prior to deployment and stays in effect until 90 days after the soldier returns. Each unit is given one year of "dwell time" in the US, which means they won't deploy during that period. The film's portrayal of Brandon getting stop-lossed only a week after he returned from Iraq to go to Iraq again for another tour a few weeks later was as realistic as shooting 100 rounds from an M4 without changing the magazine once. Also, with his actions after he was stop-lossed (saying f*** the President, going AWOL, etc...) he wouldn't have just went back to Iraq still a Staff Sergeant like he did at the end of the movie. He probably would have gotten a court-martial instead. Other than those things, it isn't a bad movie. Just inaccurate. I served three tours in Iraq already and I was stop-lossed for my second one. I knew I was stop-lossed over three months before I left, they didn't wait until two weeks before it was time to go to tell me I was stop-lossed. I made the decision to reenlist later on instead of getting out at the end of my second tour.

• Stops short of being great; but still worth seeing

  paul2001sw-12011-06-12

  'Stop-Loss' deals with the problems soldiers have in getting out of the army; both through the technical procedure of "Stop-Loss", whereby a solider is sent back for a second consecutive tour of duty, but also through the difficulties of adjusting to civilian life after time on the front line. Many dramas set after the Vietnam war explored the idea that the sense of a victory well won (absent then, as now) might be critical to enabling a soldier to make the transition from combat animal back to member of civic society. The film is well made, powerfully acted, and doesn't pretend that it's characters are angels (although it justly acknowledges their bravery). But it doesn't really go very far beyond its premise, and the ending is given a slightly more upbeat (but inconclusive) spin than could have been applied. The final credits remind us of the startling high number of American troops to have fought in Afghanistan or Iraq in the 21st century; wars that are fought (for good or bad) while the rest of us get on with our lives in an altogether easier place.