Behind Enemy Lines III: Colombia (2009)

Don't Believe the Hype

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

I completely agree with everything said in the negative reviews above (whether written by Colombians or not). Did Tackleberry direct all the action scenes ? Unlike some other American films, I was impressed they were able to spell Colombia properly in the title (check out Steven Segal's Above the Law), that's what my 1/10 star was for. This is one of those ridiculous films you put on in the background when you have your mates over for a few snacks/drinks. No need to have the sound on, you can work it all out from every 3rd or 4th scene. I found the scene where the guy is underwater swimming through the pipe quite amusing, what are all those weeds in there? Enjoy it if you can... I didn't.

first of all look at the very first film behind enemy lines starting Owen Wilson is a great film then a second film came axis of evil which was bad but this third film is a solid mess i would never call these 2 last films to be attached to the original film by director john Moore lets just pretend that there is no trilogy these films are separate from the first best film.there are several reasons for it.will someone tell me why the world wrestling entertainment produced this movie and it starts Ken Anderson aka Mr Kennedy is he an actor i have seen him in WWE getting beat down by undertaker and Kane he maybe a good wrestler but in a film you need acting i would have to say i am wrong few films don't need acting it just have to start some famous guy like John Cena,the rock,Goldberg,big-show even Kurt and Kane all these guys made films but only rock films clicked it it a fault a fault of Mr Kennedy no the fault of producers the spent a lot of money on a budget but not the script,this is what happens here there is no script of this film it looks like a few kids playing in afternoon in garden with guns and ammo.the plot:Navy seals have to rescue a hostage to do this they have to attack Columbian special forces.the cast,direction,plot and execution is flawed not worth discussing at all even action is disappointing try to ape the Bourne supremacy 2004 will not help it sir director.this is the third film in the BEL Trilogy but fails,heavily there is only one film that is worst watching and is the best its called behind enemy lines 2001 with Owen Wilson.so don't bother watching this.My Rating for behind enemy lines:Columbia 2009 is 1/10 an awful experience even if this film went theatrical or direct release it don't matter now it was a failure when it was in production.Skipp it

I watched the trailers and read the story line and checked who the director and cast was. There was nothing that compelled me to watch it on that basis. All I was hoping for was some reasonably believable action adventure I could watch until something better came along. I was concerned that it would be so poor I would give up before the end. This movie, when it comes to production value, is not close to "Green Zone (2010)", "The A Team (2010)", "The Losers (2010)" or even the fantastic "Strike Back" TV series, but until that next one comes along and you are in need of an action movie in the genre, you can watch this third instalment of the 'Behind Enemy Lines' franchise (not really a franchise) without the risk of giving up before the end. It is certainly better than the two previous, 'Behind Enemy Lines' movies; it has none of the actors or key operation production of those two earlier ones.In words we can all understand: It's not bad at all. Yes I was pleasantly surprised that actors I did not know or know to be second rate only, by virtue of their past roles, managed to do a good enough job to have me watch it all the way through. It is predictable in many respect, which is not a plus for action movies, but the action scenes themselves and all the high-tech instruments of covert ground war were featured as well as split screen simultaneous action you see on screen showed a real effort to bring us quality production, not to mention darn good fighting sequences. The ratings are unfairly low and do not represent the real effort put in to the production. It is what it is, not a meal of a movie but a very good snack that will tide you over. More action seekers will like it than not and so I suggest you consider it on that basis.

I don't get this movie, nor its story. Come to think of it, neither the ending.It discusses how a group of Navy SEALs, sent by the US government, go to the guerrilla-invaded Colombia on a recon mission that goes wrong.The story is not all realistic or believable. The elements just don't fit together. A bunch of SEALs go into a country filled with enemy soldiers ALONE? Certainly a suicide mission; recon or not.The producers did not do a good job in hiring the actors; the acting was terrible! I know, I know, Joe Manganiello is well-built for a soldier and in a way seems like a perfect pick, but he's more of an actor that should star in comedies and not war movies. Ken Anderson? Seriously? Anyone who watched the movie will agree when I say that this dude has no idea what acting is.It had potential to be a *good* movie, but it failed, big time.I don't see a reason why you should watch this movie. It doesn't have anything enjoyable. But, if you like shooting randomly and all that stuff; why not?