The Kill Hole

I haven't reviewed a movie in a while but after seeing the 3.4 rating for "The Kill Hole", I felt compelled to respond. I gave it a 10. Not that it's truly one of the great movies like "Apocalypse Now", which it echoes in some ways, but its exceptional qualities are very distinctive. The writing is outstanding. If you're looking for an action movie, then you came to the wrong place. I was ready to turn it off immediately if I found it too slow, but the dialog was compelling and dealt with moral issues central to war: personal responsibility, relationship to authority, how sanctioned violence changes those who act under its mandate and so easily drifts into the indefensible. The acting is superb. Boseman and Kittles give Broadway-level performances and they bring a sizzling commitment to the dialog. It's a true confrontation, filmed with interesting cuts that actually work rather than simply trying to be hip or jarring. Billy Zane is great as the leader of a vets support group and the non-actor veterans who appear in the group speak from the gut and clearly speak their personal truths. The "bad guys" are very much so but acted with pizzaz and, despite being reprehensible, are used to explore the line between punishment and revenge. Landscapes are rendered beautifully, the city scenes are convincing. This could have been a 2-person stage production with the vets group acting as a Greek chorus of sorts; view it as a compelling play fleshed out somewhat for the screen and one won't be disappointed by the lack of action.

Couldn't disagree with more with reviewer chiefs3182 or a couple of the supposed pro reviewers. I thought the movie was very good and thought provoking. I guess that some people aren't happy unless a movie is all action and explosions, this isn't that. One of the so-called pros criticized the movie for having an overly serious tone. The story was about 2 Iraq war vets with PTSD being pitted against each other by "Agency" types, not a lot of room for humor there. That fool probably thinks that Roger Moore was the best James Bond too. Anyway, it is a little known film worth seeing and I have no problem recommending it. at a time when Hollywood is being criticized for lack of parts for black actors, this was a good vehicle with very good performances by 2. I hope to see them again in some other serious work.

An unexciting and poorly structured action movie, with very little action, mostly just exposition scenes. It does have an anti-war stance that I agree with. Luckily, it has Chadwick Boseman in it to keep you interested, he delivers a great performance, much better than the movie he's in.

This is no masterwork but it has a unique atmosphere and decent acting. It just wasn't as "fast paced" as many viewers tend to demand. Pity, it asks you to think! The introspective soundtrack also helps with that.

At least one IMDB reviewer seems to have not fully watched the film, claiming there's no action (as if it was mandatory anyhow) and calling PNW wilderness "the jungle" (wrong latitude).

Anything that celebrates mountain country, for better or worse, has my vote. Location info just says the Portland area and I'm wondering which mountains are shown. One certainly looks like Mt. Hood.

The main flaws were some logistically unexplained scenes and other minor details. Definitely worth watching if you like the basic elements.

The entire time I was watching this movie I though it was just shot in the last year or so. Still relevant today. And the topics were discussed in a very philosophical manner in the movie that you could not deny it's relevance in today's society. If we don't stop and take a look at what we are doing we will just continue to repeat the same atrocities. Like Spike LEE Said - " Wake Up" . Be woke América!!