The Hornet's Nest (2014) Reviews

• Less of a war documentary, more of a journalist documentary

  tmiller1632014-05-27

  Before starting, the movie was more-so a documentary on the journalist than it was the soldiers. It seemed the soldiers were sidelined the whole time and more of a side story for the journalists. Unlike Restrepo, the movie was pitched from the journalist's (Mike and Carlos Boetcher) point of view and mainly from Mike's point of view as the father. It isn't until the last 15 minutes of the movie that they seem to care at all about the soldiers, finally having interviews with them on their combat actions and their opinions, which even then seemed more like a 30 second piece than the reason for the movie. The first major thing watching the movie to bug me, however, was that they felt the need to add a vast amount of sound effects. From added gun noises, to yelling, to bullet sounds, they would frequently place these added effects over the combat footage as if that combat (real combat) wasn't exciting enough. Being an Afghan War Veteran myself, I felt this was kind of a jab, to say that the soldier's actual stories and actual combat was not worthy of Hollywood. After also watching movies such as Restrepo, I feel this was completely unnecessary. Those things aside, the movie wasn't awful. I do feel it should have been more about the actual soldiers and the war rather than Mike. I found it rather ironic as well that with him taking so much of the movie to direct to himself and his son, and take away from the soldiers, that he later goes on to say that he was trying to tell their stories. Overall, for a civilian the movie will hopefully paint a slightly better picture on the war, and it was still done quite well. I just have my feelings on the side due to my past experiences.

  More

• Disconnected by the use of fake sound effects and cheap thrills

  asiller03082014-11-28

  I would have to wholeheartedly agree with the most popular reviews here such as "tmiller163" and "jmcfrancis." The entire story feels very contrived and almost like I am watching those ubiquitous reality TV shows most Americans can't get enough of. Being an avid combat-footage junkie, I would say I have a pretty good idea of what to expect when it comes to watching an authentic firefight. I know what a whizzing bullet would sound like, and ESPECIALLY what one wouldn't sound like. In this film, I was completely disconnected from any verisimilitude by the use of cheap bullet sound effects. The whole thing seemed forcefully done for the purpose of sensationalism. It even felt as if Mike was in on the hype by using cheap editing tricks to make certain shots seem WAY more dramatic than they actually were. Again, I felt like I was watching "World's Wildest Firefights Caught on Camera" instead of genuine raw combat footage. Which is a shame because the real story here should've focused on the soldiers and the high price they pay fighting America's wars. I didn't dislike the film entirely, the last 20 minutes made up for what the film was lacking in. But if you guys really want to see what The War in Afghanistan looks like, I would stick to films such as "Restrepo" or "Armadillo." No cheap sound-effects used there, just pure-unadulterated storytelling.

  More

• Would have been better if the director had limited his exposure

  brendan-821-6548552014-09-13

  This is actually two documentaries (i.e. two distinct subject matters) - the first being the story of the father and son journalists (and documentary makers) Mike and Carlos Boettcher, the second being the story of the fighting men on the ground in Afghanistan. This could have been a truly great documentary if 3 things were done differently: 1. The first half of the movie, about Mike and Carlos Boettcher, was removed from the film, and that time was instead used to introduce us in more detail to the fighting men who would become the subjects of the second half of the documentary (which was definitely where the heart and soul of this film is found). 2. Mike Boettcher had not tried to use the film as a vehicle to justify, and in the process, completely over-hype the importance and role of journalists in war. Journalists play a vital role, but in this film the importance of that role was overblown. As a father I also really struggled to accept all the 'this is how I redeem my lack of fatherly attention to my family over the years' rhetoric - not only did it lack authenticity, but taking your son to work with you for a couple of weeks is not really how one genuinely makes up for a self-professed and deliberate absence in the life of your wife and child. 3. Mike Boettcher had not inserted himself into this movie so much. The real story of this documentary is found in the second half of the movie, but Mike Boettcher keeps inserting himself into the powerful narrative the footage is telling in really inappropriate ways - like the continual talking head shots of himself explaining how the fighting was effecting him, and often in a tone that felt really forced and possibly even contrived. All we really needed from Mike Boettcher was for him to shoot the footage, weave it together into a coherent narrative, and then narrate the story of the fighting men - rather than to keep telling us about himself over and over again. It's a real shame, because he definitely shot some really amazing footage here, and there is a powerful and very moving story to be told about the courage of these fighting men, and the truly ugly awfulness of futile wars. If you can hang around for the second half, and you can get past the weaknesses, there is a really powerful story found in the second half of this movie - which would have been made great if Mike Boettcher had removed his own story from this documentary and instead devoted that time to telling more of the story of the fighting men we journey with in the second half of this movie.

  More

• Get through the contrived drama in the beginning, stay for the end.

  david427-20-5088072014-10-03

  Could have done without the contrived father/son drama at the start of the film, it was so bad I almost stopped watching it. Luckily I kept on watching it, it really picked up steam in the second half when the film was devoted to the 101st in operation strong eagle III. It really highlighted the sacrifice of the soldiers and their willingness to give all. I was a civilian contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan, the losses and ceremonies commemorating them were always sad. The professionalism of the US troops, despite the politics and questionable nature of the Iraq War always made me proud.

  More

• Interesting, but also contrived

  jmcfrancis2014-10-03

  At its core I love what this doccie does: it presents some front line perspectives of American soldiers fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. That in itself is impressive and at times harrowing. But then the movie wraps itself in a jacket of awful ideas. The soundtrack feels ripped from every reality show made in the past few years. I almost started to expect a host from something like Fear Factor to show up. The storytelling is also very convoluted. It skims details and personalities, briefly introducing them before running to the next plot point. While it goes out of its way to highlight the sacrifices made by the soldiers, The Hornet's Nest gives little clarity on what is going on half of the time. Other than bring across the intensity of firefights, much more isn't revealed. But my biggest problems are the cheap narrative tricks. At times moments are made more dramatic than they are, especially if it involves one of the journalists potentially getting shot. This is done twice and both times it's more a trick of editing than what actually happened. I'd liken this to Ross Kemp's Afghanistan doccies: intense, but vapid and a little bit exploitative. You don't come out of The Hornet's Nest learning much, other than Americans are great soldiers. If that is the point, this succeeds. But it could have done so much more with its material instead of feeling like a made-for-reality-TV special.

  More