I could rant for ages about the bad reviews but to name a few. Firstly if your not British how can you say what its like as a british soldier in afghanistan, secondly the muppet who said it was more nam than stan and that hos mates had a great time in afghanistan well i ask you this , losing a mate infront of you, what is great about that? What a muppet. Clearly all the bad reviews are from people who have never served a day in the forces or they sat in an office all day and pretend to friends and family they were Rambo and The closest they probably ever got was call of duty or the cadets. 1 review even says that the sa80 is brilliant. Not so when this film was set. Nor was the soldiers equipment. I served 21 Years before a medical discharge 3 tours of Afghan, Bosnia, Kosovo and NI. For the low budget it was made on i found it good. A refreshing change from seeing some hollywood star looking pretty with a rifle that never jams and has everlasting rounds. The sound is pretty damn good. The acting pretty good and they do pass as soldiers., but give me this over Hollywood any day. The scenery is realistic and beautifully shot I think they done a great job and should get together for another. Oh and for the record a happy soldier is a moaning soldier. In all I say give this film a chance and don't listen to idiots who think call of duty is what war is about.

A group of soldiers are on patrol in Afghanistan during a fiction operation known as Icarus. This story is loosely linked to operation Achilles and might be more accurately stated "inspired" by true events rather than based upon. We get to know the characters by their nicknames, Smudge, Stab, Ginge (ginger) and Welch. The banter between them is not the healthy kind as they concentrate on their differences. Once one in the group dies, the troops begin to question the war and their mission while their commanding officer who has the same thoughts is forced to toe the company line.

The film is about the relationships of a diverse unit who question their leadership. The war acts as a background to escalate tension. This is not your classic war film about combat and killing the enemy. It is a war drama, one where young men are placed in combat roles and don't believe the cause is worth their life.

If anything, this is more of an anti-war film, showing how someone like Bowe Bergdahl could do and say the things of which he has been accused, although the message is not heavy.

Parental Guide: F-bomb.

This got a lot of hype when it received its very limited release . The publicity material heavily emphasised writer/director Tom Petch served in the British army for more than eight years which is eight years longer than I served . The publicity was rather reluctant to go in to details and I don't want to sound disrespectful but Mr Petch left the army in 1997 , four years before the war on terror started . Mr Petch was a civilian when the British army entered Helmand province in 2005 and it shows . If nothing else it goes to show than former ex British military can make a dreadful war drama as badly as any British civilian peacenik

The success of a war film is to bring a sense of time and place to the audience . The story is set during a British operation in Helmand in 2006 but on nearly every level the entire narrative feels like it's taking place in Vietnam in the early 1970s . Petch claims he made this film to show the lack of proper equipment and of a clear mandate British forces found themselves with in Afghanistan but is badly executed you'd think the director has an agenda somewhere

As for the equipment .50 calibre machine guns constantly jam and the reason is put down to bad ammo . Not impossible I guess . I'll give the director the benefit of the doubt even if it happens a bit too often . Likewise radios not working . Apparently though the ire of Petch goes mainly towards the SA80 rifle

" If it's supposed to be so good " whines one squaddie " Why don't the SAS use it ? "

So if the SAS don't use a certain weapon it must be rubbish ? Not sure if that's good yardstick to judge something with

" But who else uses the SA80 ? " whines Mr Whiny

40 years ago all the world's armies were split between using three assault rifles , the M-16 , the FN Fal and the AK47 . Since then nearly every country due to reasons of chauvinism has produced its own assault weapon with the British using the SA80 which is almost universally adored by everyone who uses it in the British Army and is considered better than the American M-4 carbine . Mr Whiny is obviously an obtuse contrarian

What this makes more problematic for the film is that it ties in with a bigger picture mainly one of characterisation . A British military patrol pushes in to Taliban territory in 2006 within a couple of days morale has collapsed in to near mutiny . Seriously ? From what I've read and heard second hand from squaddies a posting to Helmand in 2006 was a dream posting . Young men join the army to fight and since 1960 no one has been forced to join the British Army . Constant tours to the 'Stan might have taken a toll on the military but this wouldn't have been the case in 2006 . Nor would morale have collapsed to the extent where soldiers constantly disobey mission orders as seen here . What makes it even worse from a logic and drama point of view is the time-frame along with a distinct lack of inciting incident and motive . I don't want to sound like a cheer leader for the Ministry Of Defence but if I had served in Afghanistan I'd feel very insulted by this film and I wouldn't be surprised if some of Mr Petch's erstwhile military colleagues are arranging a firing squad for him as I write this