Mark Wahlberg's new movie is creating political controversy as it conquers the US box office, writes Tim Robey.
Blood. Broken bones. Bullets hailing all around. That's just the critical debate over Lone Survivor, the heart-pumping account of a disastrous Navy Seals mission on an Afghan mountaintop in 2005. Fashioned as an endurance tale with Mark Wahlberg as Marcus Luttrell, the lone survivor of a skirmish with the Taliban, it has shattered expectations in the US, making US$93.9 million (NZ$115 million) just two weeks after wide release.
Hollywood films about the US military often lead to hyperbolised reviews on either side of the political spectrum, but this particular firefight has gone ballistic.
"A jingoistic snuff film," the LA Weekly critic Amy Nicholson wrote in horror, arguing the film valorised death in disturbing, near-pornographic ways. In response, talk-radio pundit Glenn Beck called Nicholson a "vile, repugnant and ignorant liar", and offered to fly her to his studio to see if she "had the balls" to read her review to Luttrell's face.
Lone Survivor, directed by Peter Berg, is based on Luttrell's 2007 book about Operation Red Wings, an attempt to take out a key Taliban leader hat backfired horribly when four Seals were ambushed. The gung-ho tone of Berg's film wasn't hard to predict. There was a strong ingredient of hoo-rah in his 2007 Saudi-set action film The Kingdom, which impressed Luttrell and led to this collaboration. Universal wouldn't give Berg Lone Survivor until he'd made Battleship (2012) - a film so deafeningly in love with military hardware it makes Top Gun look like Bo Peep.