WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Pluskylang Great Film overall

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

mjpetrario The main problem I have with this film and many others at that, is the lack of research and/or military advisor's. It is almost as if the writers, producers, etc guessed the entire time during the making of it. Hollywood as a whole rarely, if ever, gets military uniforms right or close to it so I can't complain about that. Also in the film, we have chaotic firefights that include insane amounts of RPG's blowing things up at point blank range and the first .50 caliber machine gun ever that can't shoot through anything...at all. "Stop-Loss" also continues the Hollywood tradition of reloading a weapon once or twice, if ever. Stop-Loss in real life was/is much more common in active duty soldiers than it is National Guard. So I'm also left kind of confused as to why they used the NG plot. The storyline is pretty boring, there is an overage of cheesy military slang that nobody has used since the late 80's/early 90's. All military flaws aside, I personally flat out don't like this movie as a whole. It's right down there at the bottom of the barrel with "Home of the Brave" with 50 Cent and Samuel L. Jackson, and "Hurt Locker", (where apparently there's no rules for an EOD guy and he's a Ranger?). I believe that the personnel involved in the writing, producing, directing of this film, Stop-Loss had the best intentions to shed light on the epidemic that is Stop-Loss. However, this film is a travesty to anyone who, like myself, has experienced the Stop-Loss policy during OIF and OEF. Kimberly Pierce, Mark Richards, Greg Goodman, and Scott Rudin should "Stop" making stupid cheesy movies before they take another box office "Loss".

droseyaz-1 To those of you thinking not everyone in the military is a beer guzzling, hick, you are right. But it is also true that a lot of us hated what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. We love our country and respect most of our leaders. Not all, but most. We in the 82nd airborne, Medic unit Mash 3 love our country but know that this is a bloodbath and nothing more. Another rich defense contractors war. Where are the Senators sons/daughters. Comfortable in their wealth away from any of this. It's a real portrayal of a slice of characters in another senseless fiasco. So making this 10 lines I will also say that you can't speak unless you were there. You didn't see it the way it really was and is. Ridiculous to keep these wars going when our own country has no health care, losing jobs, foreclosures. It's all one sided. Bravo Kimberly Peirce for yet another brilliantly direct film.

badajoz-1 This film is never going to make money in the USA because all films and politicians have to make Amnericans feel good about themselves. This leaves one with the queasy feeling that not all is well - the US might not be doing the best thing by the Iraqis, after all whose country is it? Who invaded whom? And under what pretext? But the film is in favour of all those guys fighting on the ground, but they may be fighting the wrong war in the wrong place - and to conservative US that is not acceptable. So this film divides opinion. 'Hurt Locker' of course portrays US heroes so is going to be far more acceptable. The film has a fifties/forties feel in that a decent man makes one mistake, and becomes a fugitive. Montgomery Clift would have made this then. The film portrays a good man caught by duty and his own feelings of justice - a classic theme - well played by Ryan Phillippe, who does manage to show a good range of emotions, and who doesn't get the comfort of getting the girl into the sack - that was left for real life! The script shows the strain of loyalties and the effects of killing in a war that the West brought down upon a largely civilian population - sounds like Concord and 1776 to me! The supports act well and do not drown out the main action and character. But the film has a problem in that the spur for the action is played down too much - eg Brandon King refusing to be 'stop lossed' - and it does not want to make events too dramatic (something the more visceral 'Hurt Locker' engages). Therefore, the film tends to meander as it tries to be too understated. But it does get in several wry observations about an immigrant army, a creepy, smiling officer class, and promise all politicians. A good effort, but ultimately it gets caught between too many stools. A pity because the acting deserved more recognition than being tarred by the rabid, blind patriotism of Americans who see an anti-war and anti-US film!

thesar-2 My mistake for thinking this was a serious war-is-hell movie prior to seeing it. That all ended seconds into the film when the "MTV" logo appeared. It might as well been called "National Lampoon's Sexy-N-Loose." And it did play to the "MTV" crowd; the movie that followed those comical first few seconds played like the music videos they used to play 40+ years ago. At least Disney was smart enough to ship its Rated R stuff over to Touchtone and allowed us to take it seriously. Okay, I'm being harsh; it wasn't that bad of a film. However, it definitely has its share of overacting and the film is extremely biased/one-sided. Admittedly, I'm not a war movie buff. I can't watch 'Platoon,' 'Full Metal Jacket' or 'Saving Private Ryan' more than once. Sure they were good movies, but they're not my forte and they all seem to blend in after awhile to where I wouldn't be able to distinguish one from the next. Following a tour in Iraq, Phillippe plans life after the war but is drawn back in due to a clause in his contract. Or, at least, that's the military's plan until he goes AWOL and the characters speed cross-country on a few bucks amazingly never caught. No, I haven't been in any war, nor to Iraq, nor do I agree with it. I also don't have all the knowledge when it comes to recruitment or signing their contracts. I can say this: though I am sorry they're drawn back into this conflict, I can't feel too much for someone so dumb not to read the fine print. It's like someone on their deathbed leaning over to finally read the Surgeon General's warning on their box of cigarettes and say, "Oh, they're what? Deadly? I'll sue them!"