Mercenaries (2011)

the audience applauded

Charming and brutal

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Dreadful Film! OK, many people have already referred to the fact that this is such a dreadful film already. The biggest problem is that if you combine terrible acting with a terrible script then the only sure fire thing you are going to get is a terrible film. It's all just so implausible that a group of amateurs who clearly have not bothered to get any military adviser on board start running round someone's back garden to convince the viewer that they are on some kind of clandestine rescue mission. Mr Fuccilla is clearly no leading man and is unable to carry a gun properly, never mind a movie. His dialog is simply risible.Does the movie have any redeeming features? Critics, even the hard- nosed ones, will try and find at least one redeeming factor but alas, in this case, it seems to be impossible. It seems that the key to this movie lies in its funding. If you read the PR suicide article on Mr Fuccilla in the Guardian you can see that this is another vanity project. The Merchant Banker might do better spending the money on acting lessons.In the end, the poster tells it all: on IMDb we see Fuccilla face on in big close up. By the time the movie is released we see the DVD cover with everyone with their backs to us. If the Merchant Banker at the head of the vanity project turns his back on his own film - it's time for the viewer to do the same!

"No Andy...they are wrong." After a military coup occurs in the Balkins the U.S. ambassador is in trouble. An ex S.A.S. serviceman is picked by Colonel Tourida (Zane) to lead a rescue mission. I have to admit that I like war movies, but like the new batch of western movies lately they seem to be either really good or really bad. It seems that some people assume that if you put a guy in cameo with a gun in a movie people will flock to it regardless of plot. I am not one of those people. To me just because it's a war movie doesn't automatically make it good. This one was very slow and didn't seem to have a point. I lost interest quickly and started to forget what I saw. By the end I was just glad it was over. But on the other hand not everyone thinks like me and many will like this. I just couldn't get into it. Overall, compared to the recent war movies like "Beneath Hill 60" and "Age Of Heroes" this is not nearly as good. I give it a C-.

I think the people above watched a different film than I did!!! I found it thrilling, exciting, & full of non stop action. I don't agree with some of the others comments, about the direction & acting being bad, for me, although this was a low budget film, i still think it is a solid movie. I loved the outdoor shots, the colours & surroundings were beautiful, as for the indoor shots, they were exactly that!!!! As a female, its not the kind of film I would usually watch, but I loved every minute of it. Especially all the gorgeous men....Ahem!!! Who wouldn't want to see the likes of Billy Zane, etc in full combat gear...yummy. A big thumbs up from me.

After having had a sneak-preview of Mercenaries, i must admit it just wasn't very good, even for a Balkaneze guy like me. The plot seems rushed, the actors are mediocre at best, and there just isn't any substance to get you hooked on the story. The only character you can sympathize a little with, is Andy Marlow(played by Robert Fucilla). Along with Kirsty Mitchell, they did a decent job acting.But having watched it, i was like "was that it?", and i started wondering if it was worth the time in the first place.I hope somebody out there enjoys it... because i didn't.