Hulkeasexo it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Seth_Rogue_One Starts out half-interesting but gets too caught up with it's own inability (or desire) to tell a straight story that it just becomes a jumbled mess.If I was to summarise it it would be that a group of soldiers have an objective to identify something mysterious in the desert of Afghanistan.There's not really any need for spoiler warnings or anything because there's really not a whole lot to spoil as there is not any clear answers to what this movie is about.Now of course as a viewer we are able to form our own picture to what it is about but there really aren't enough interesting characters or events to really warrant expecting the viewers to do that.Acting is fairly amateurish overall, I think the lead guy mainly got the role because he was American and knew how to speak Arabic tbh.Yeah nothing too exciting here, and in the end pretty pointless.

atinder his been on my watch list for time, I don't know what I expected but it wasn't this. I found first of half of the movie very dull, it moved to slow , I Just could not get in the whole shooting. The second half of the movie, where things start to happen, one or two strange things happen , they are not sure what going. Nor was I , I had not idea what going on, I wanted to wait until to end find out what was all about. Again it just get more confusing as the movie goes on, what was it? , what was last scenes about? . Felt a bit annoyed with movie, felt that it didn't tell the whole story another 4 out of 10

fedor8 Considering TO was made by the same putz (Myrick) who gave us "The Blair Witch Project" (which then started an crapalavalanche of awful hand-held-camera horror turds), it's miraculous that this movie is this solid. Never dull, in spite of its fairly slow pace, it offers an extremely vague ending which can be only called that – an "ending" – because it ends the movie, and not because it's any kind of viable conclusion of the story.Vague endings are a two-edged sword. On one hand, a vague ending can be thought-provoking hence interesting, something to muse over after the movie's finished. But for this to be the case, it has to be a QUALITY vague ending, not just any old run-of-the-mill vague ending, hitting the fine line between total confusion and blatant obviousness. (If you're getting sick of the word "vague", so am I. I will not use it anymore.) On the other hand, if an ending is too v****, it might be too frustrating, as it might not even hint at what the hell just went on. It is abundantly clear – especially given this director's track-record of setting up mysteries but having no clue how to end them – that if you asked Myrick to explain to you what the conclusion is really about, he wouldn't have any clue whatsoever. Hence, in a sense TO is a like a cheap magic trick. It looks good but there is nothing "deep" or "layered" behind it. It's a scam.One reviewer, who must be an incurable optimist, offers the ridiculous theory that the movie is about Djinns. The word "djinn" wasn't mentioned once, nor were lamp-derivated apparitions even hinted at, at any point in the movie, so this guy basically pulled that theory straight out of his behind. Yet he totally forgot to even mention – let alone explain – Keynes's last line, the movie's key line, "they will save us all", and how that could possibly relate to (the evil) Djinns. The Djinns will save us all? Don't they first have to ask Aladdin for permission? Perhaps Aladdin is Bin Laden; I can certainly see the similarity: Al-Laden, Bin-Laden. Myrick would be laughing, if he ever heard that theory. Besides, just picture the CIA HQ giving these orders to Keynes: "We are sending you on a top-secret mission to Afghanistan, where you will find out as much about Djinns as you can. Remember Aladdin's little friend? That's who we're looking for. And make sure to find Aladdin too. He might help us fight the Taliban, who knows what secret weapons he possesses. It would be AMAZING if we could wipe out entire armies by a simple rub of a lamp." "They will save us all". It's a neat little mega-mysterious, intriguing line to give the main character before the end-credits roll, but it means absolutely nothing. If these Djinns/aliens/leprechauns/whatever were around as far back as at the time of Alexander the Great, then why haven't they "saved us" by now? God knows a few thousand years should be more than enough for an advanced race of Djinns/aliens/leprechauns/whatevers to save anyone. And the mere notion that an advanced race of beings, good or evil, would actually decide to lounge around in the ugly, deserted, depressing rocky plains of Afghanistan for thousands of years, makes me snicker. Absurd. Wouldn't they rather settle in Florida or on the sandy beaches of Australia? "They will save us all" is sort of like Myrick's attempt to match "My God, it's full of stars", the last line uttered in Kubrick's "2001". In fact, the last few minutes of TO definitely evoke memories of that movie, and I am convinced that Myrick imitated it, whether consciously or not.Another reviewer here complains that the soldiers weren't nearly as interesting as those in "Aliens". Yes, I agree: Cameron's soldiers were action-movie buffoons, clowning around and behaving like little children half the time - hence "interesting". Myrick tried not to let this become yet another overly goofy representation of the military, tried to keep it half-way realistic, which is a good thing. Cameron can keep his silly soldiers, his stupid blue morons, and his ship-sinking lesbian love-stories (coz Di Caprio looks like a girl, see).The one thing that did annoy me greatly was Jonas Ball (Keynes) and his damn incessant mumbling. Perhaps he figured, if it worked for Brando it will work for me too. (God knows WHY it worked for Brando. More likely, Brando made it in spite of his mumbling, not because of it.) Worse yet, Myrick not only gave this chronic mumbler the main role, but narration duties too. Suffice it to say that I didn't understand whole chunks that this guy was spewing through his barely open mouth, especially during the narration, which meant I had to look at the subtitles, like some ESL schluck, in order to follow parts of the movie. His enunciation makes him come off as a tired slacker, too lazy to speak, not like a seasoned soldier working for the CIA. That isn't the voice or speaking manner of a determined, disciplined, and focused man; that's the voice of a wimp sheepishly describing why his socks are too tight.

siderite I am torn between a good mark and a bad grade, but this is certainly not an average film. It is low budget, but well played and executed. Its story is captivating and the atmosphere really spooky, but not explaining anything. It is basically a mood film, something that enters your bones and doesn't let go until the weird ending that just makes you feel you are still in the movie, making it originally effective.That being said, you can't enjoy this film if you read any spoilers, so stop reading reviews and watch the film. Its main strength is its main flaw as well: all sense is left to the imagination of the viewer, while the technical details are provided by the film makers. Basically, this film is what you want it to be. I would go for sci-fi thriller, but then that would be my favourite genre. I can tell you for sure it is not a romance, but that's as far as I can go :) Try watching it at night with the lights off and enjoy the feel of it.