Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Scotty Burke It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

aryan-40242 This film angered me so much, I've written a review on it even given the age of it now.It appears after reading other reviews that are clearly written by people with hatred for the British Army or by people who have no idea what war is like, or even what life in the army is like. With people honestly saying that this is an accurate portrayal of what happens in war and that it paints an honest picture of what went on in Iraq. That's either seriously misguided or biased thinking or just downright slanderous lies.As somebody who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan, this film does nothing but insult me and every young man and woman who has served and those who are still serving. It paints the army to be a bunch of young, sadistic, idiotic thugs, it couldn't be any more wrong if it tried. Utterly disgusting and s***s all over the efforts in Iraq of both the living and the deceased . The director should be ashamed of himself for this steaming turd.

paul2001sw-1 Tony Marchant's film 'The Mark of Cain' tells three stories: that of the impossible task facing British soldiers in Iraq; that of the terrible cruelties they inflicted on Iraqi suspects; and that of a cover-up in the chain of command. The story is fictional but based on true events; however, there's less evidence in the real world for the cover-up than for the other two elements, and while it seems plausible, this aspect of the tale feels more "written" than the other two. And as always with Marchant, there's a careful and clever manipulation of the viewer's sympathies throughout: I never quite feel that Marchant gives me the space to form my own opinion. But it's strong stuff, well-performed and unflinching, even if it doesn't really say much in the end except that bad things happen in war.

bob the moo Once the mission was "accomplished" in Iraq and the end of major combat operations was announced, parts of the country were handed over to the armed forces for the purposes of enforcing the peace and winning over the hearts and minds of the newly free Iraqi people. A group of British soldiers are stationed in Basra to this end under a steady commander. However when a patrol is ambushed and their commander is lost, the decision is made to enforce justice fast and hard to send a clear message out.This was originally down to be screened in the week that the British sailors were being held after being captured supposedly in Iranian waters. Channel 4 folded under pressure and pulled the screening because it was said it may "inflame" the situation and make it harder for the UK to find a democratic solution. I'm not sure if this was true (as it turned out they were actually released on the day this was postponed) because it was only ever going to be watched by a million or two if that, plus the story was already contrasting obviously with footage of how the US and UK treated prisoners (which I assume was why Iran made such a big show of how they hold our prisoners).Anyway, although it is stated up front that this is a work of fiction, it is clear that it has been very well researched because it does strike home as very convincing. This is most evident in the first half as the squaddies patrol the Basra streets, innocence is lost, violence is sudden and the soldiers react in different ways. This much is very well done and the script rings true. The main scene of action is really well delivered and it is well used as it folds into the changes in the characters and what they end up doing. This is rather lost near the end where I wasn't sold on it. Suddenly the script becomes clunky with characters speaking in "moral arguments" and speeches rather than sounding like real people. This also coincides with the narrative becoming weaker as well.To me this occurred where we went too much into the court case and had too much said that didn't need to be said. It would have been better to have had a much more subtle touch but it doesn't manage it. It is a shame and not even the performances of the lead two can totally convince in these later stages. This is saying something though because I thought the cast was mostly very good, with particular credit being owed to Kearns and McNulty. Gregory and Dooley are also strong and it is only some of the actors playing the brass who are a bit weaker.Despite the flaws associated with the final third, the film is actually very strong and convincingly written and delivered.

recrea33 this is an important war movie. the best war movie i've seen since 'three kings' not much shooting or setpiece explosive action mind you. movie critics are uneasy at its stark portrayal of dysfunctional army ways and its psychopathic sergeant whilst we are still in the midst of that same war.it seems disloyal somehow. to our boys in the field to lay bare the prosaic anatomy of torture so powerfully. but i think this is a film all true soldiers will love.they say the first casualty of war is truth and they're not far wrong. because war is horrendous.it's just a damn shame that after all the classic Vietnam war movies that there will be another crop of classic iraq war movies. (eg gunner palace)