adonis98-743-186503 A group of Marines must protect a US Embassy in the Middle East when it suddenly comes under attack from enemy forces. Jarhead 3: The Siege is another fun and quite action packed sequel to the disappointing Jarhead (2005). It also stars Scott Adkins which most of the time that's actually a pretty good thing although he is not the main protagonist. The acting was pretty good, the action very good and the storyline quite interesting and cool, definitely check it out when you can you won't regret it it's actually better than it gets credit. (8/10)

smilegel I really enjoyed it. I wanted action with some back up story and acceptable acting. I got that and more. Acting was pretty good, with some good actors. A ton of nonstop action and a good story and kept me on the edge. I think some wanna-be soldiers expected absolute perfection and that just does not exist.Action 10/10. Directing: 7/10. Acting: 7/10. Script: 7:10.Would like to watch more movies like this.--- I got nothing else to add. Just watch the movie! Never understood all the amateurs whose reviews consist of "trailer" type scenario. Why?! If I wanted to know more about the movie, I can watch the trailer and not read it!

pandalarve This movie was bad on so many levels.1. unrealistic, the "freedom fighters standing in mid open places, with 5 guns pointing and hooting at them and they don't get hit, after like 100 bullets go past them, and if they had missed at least they would hit the people behind with how center clustered they stood. as well as standing in the middle of a hallway, no cover. not hit once, not before you give the "guy we don't trust" a gun to prove himself, then they drop like flies.2. When the movie uses the name jar head 3... claiming to be a sort of sequel down the genre.. At least follow the premise from the other movies. Jarhead 1, damn good movie, you follow the protagonist, you get to experience what he feels and how he perceived things, you are in the story, good job! Jarhead 2. Little worse than the first but stile decent enough for entertainment, it follows somewhat the lines of the original.. then you got this thing.... Just going thru all the action movie stereotypes, just as if the director had a list in front of him that he had to check every box on as he made the movie... At least the two first movies tried to be realistic, opposed to just pure classical action movie setup, that no one wants anymore.3. The comic relief, the douche bag, and the black hype up guy, and the annoying guy who are useless... WHY ALL THESE STEREOTYPES? seems like the director, just check every box again... 4. The literal second the last guys die... the rescue comes in, nonchalantly, not even trying to secure the area in case more enemies comes in... I mean, if the rescuers, were so close, that the second the propane tank had exploded and the dust settled, they could walk in... then one would expect they were within firring range to help shoot right? or at least lob a grenade.... So poorly made, in terms of realism.5.the plot was weak...

quincytheodore It's originally a delight to see B-movie with more emphasis on realism of marine life than merely blasting guns. Scott Adkins looks better in acting department too as he plays the high rank officer and there's good effort to develop intense scene from military part. However, it soon crumbles with poor Jason Bourne imitation for shady opt, uncomfortable missed machismo and a particularly strange silly man of supporting character.The first misfit comes in the form of Blake, the documentary guy. He sticks out like a sore thumb in every scene, throwing needless jokes and ruining the high octane sequence. If there is a need for comic relief, then it has to be done with more finesse and less unsavory method. The film gives almost half of its runtime to create a sense of dread, yet this nagging character singlehandedly ruins it, even more so when the other actors trying to deliver a more serious performance.Scott Adkins is more comfortable here, he has good mentor-student relationship with Albright (Charlie Weber), the protagonist. The rest of the squad are decent as well. Then, it suddenly introduces a tough female character who may or may not be a spy, in Top Gun-esque bantering. There's also mandatory nationalism angle, which is not entirely bad, but seems shoehorned in as emotional bait.After halfway point the movie pushes the shooting to the maximum volume, gunning for most bullets shot per minute. It's the usual gunslinger military stuff, which is admittedly expected. Nothing too grand, although there are some oddities like people running away from covers and even though Scott Adkins is here, this is not martial art movie, so those expecting intricate hand-to-hand combat might be disappointed."Jarhead 3" is the expected cinematic rendition of soldiers filled with testosterone and gunpowder, and also unfortunately a few out-of-elements ridiculous antics.