Marines (2003) Reviews

• It's just not quite that ...

  Sam19872003-09-14

  Hmmm ... as I see this page right now I see all sorta of low votes people gave to this movie and I have to agree with them. I don't think the movie had a high budget and you can sadly see that. It's just another war-movie and it brings nothing new to what we've seen before. I still like the special effects though (I think that's where all the money has gone to :P)... Still not worth seeing, sorry actors, you tried your very best

• Poor Military Quality

  Air America2005-04-22

  Early scenes depict the likelihood that no U.S. military adviser was used. No military Colonel would wear his rank brass sideways, and (this is an across-the-board condemnation of these costumers) no officer would wear overcoat brass, typically the largest piece made, on the collars or epaulets of his uniform. His brother officers would hasten to correct him in very short order. After all, "uniform" means just that. Since the Russian officer wore shoulderboards which are standard issue, it was not possible for the costumer to make a glaring error there. Congratulations.

• The Marines are primarily portrayed as lunkheads

  tarbosh220002010-12-17

  After 9/11, Nu-Image apparently decided to do their part and make some patriotic movies based on each branch of the military under the banner of the American Heroes Series - Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. At least we think that was the idea. Unfortunately, these films, while extremely well-intentioned, are without character development and thus you cannot care about what goes on. The exception that proves the rule is Special Forces, which is actually good. The movies are Submarines (2003), Marines, Air Strike and Special Forces. This time around, in Marines, it seems some, well...Marines are caught behind enemy lines in Chechnya. They must team up with some Russian soldiers to defeat the the enemy. But who can they really trust? Also there's a shipment of gold bars in the mix that are complicating matters for everybody. So out in the field, there's plenty of shooting, explosions, light gore, and gobbledygook dialogue but somehow they couldn't find twenty seconds for even some basic character development. Back at the base, Everett (Cotton - at least we think this is who this is, if we are wrong please tell us) is in some sort of struggle with Mr. Flanders (Hirsch) about protocol or something like that. It's really tough to decipher. What does Mr. Flanders have to hide, if anything? So once again we have a situation, like Submarines, where the actors look like other people, we don't really know their names or backstories, and so interest wanes fast. Speaking of names, when the end credits rolled we were informed there was a main character named "Hamburger" in the movie we just saw. We're pretty sure this was never said once in the movie. Maybe they were worried that would come off as funny. God forbid there would be even a modicum of humor in this overly-serious and unfun production. But yet they had no problem with a character named "Mr. Flanders", which Brant Cotton (we think) shouts over and over again. At least then you can make Simpsons-related jokes. It seems Marines took the movies Saving Private Ryan (1998), Savior (1998) and Behind Enemy Lines (2001) and mashed them all up and hoped for a good result. With a few slow motion sequences and some violence perhaps they were going for some sort of grit, but it takes more than just aping other movies for the audience to get behind what you're doing. If anything, this movie could be insulting to actual Marines because there are some technical errors with the uniforms and behaviors, and the Marines are primarily portrayed as lunkheads. The practical effect of all this is that Marines comes off as a neo-Vietnam movie, sort of a lost sequel to Eye of the Eagle (1986). Just imagine a Cirio Santiago movie - but not as good! With no real force or energy driving the plot forward, sadly Marines truly is another slog through the woods.

• Better than you think

  dmans-899-5108462018-08-21

  Despite a low budget, this is still a good movie. Just because a film doesn't have the big money, does not mean it is a poor film. These actors did a pretty good job with what they had. The special effects were actually really good - comparably just as well done as bigger budget films. Though the film might not have brought anything new to an audience, it still got you involved with the story, if you stuck with it. I really enjoyed this movie for what it did offer. I believe the viewer needs to give this film a chance, enjoy it for what it is & don't compare it to others which does it an injustice.

• Terrible B movie

  Wizard-82013-12-29

  Poor Lawrence Monoson. In the '80s he seemed to have a bright acting future ahead of him thanks to memorable and well acted roles in movies like "The Last American Virgin" and "Gaby". Two decades later, he plays a kind of minor supporting role the direct to video "Marines", a real comedown. It's a really cheap-looking movie, filled with obvious stock footage and little in the way of production values. The title figures are really weak characters, with practically nothing done to differentiate them from each other. What's worse is that they are pretty much portrayed as incompetents, with most of them getting killed on the battlefield by lowly rebels. As for action sequences, they are really sluggish and endless. In fact, the whole movie feels very slow and endless. Is there anything redeeming about this movie? No.