The film served as Denmark’s submission to the 88th Academy Awards. To be upfront, it didn’t quite live up to the hype or my expectations, particularly considering I'd previously seen the director's excellent seafaring thriller 'A Hijacking.' However, these days, any war movie with decent production values and a reasonable plot tends to generate considerable buzz; for example, how a smaller film like 'Kajaki' managed to resonate so strongly with audiences. The same key cast and crew members collaborated again on this project. It presented a straightforward narrative divided into three distinct sections. The initial two parts unfolded in parallel, depicting a husband engaged in combat in Afghanistan alongside his wife caring for their children at home. The third section proved pivotal—the convergence of the earlier storylines, indicating that all previous developments led to this final and arguably most compelling resolution. It felt like an authentic representation, though it certainly suffered from a deliberate slow pace. However, the timeline, specifically the jump of nearly six months between the film’s two halves, disrupted the flow of the narration. That said, the story necessitated that approach; there was no alternative. Regarding the plot itself, viewers will find it difficult to draw any firm conclusions about what they're witnessing. It wasn't a complex narrative, but the entire movie unfolds from a single viewpoint, leaving you unaware of events happening elsewhere. > "You can't imagine, what it means to be out there." I may have voiced several criticisms, but I did enjoy the film and still believe it could have been significantly stronger. Your experience might differ; perhaps you’ll appreciate it more than I did. The subject matter is quite serious, dealing with a war crime and subsequently transitioning into a courtroom drama. The first half feels somewhat disorienting as to what the movie's about, making predictions impossible. It resembles a collection of seemingly insignificant events leading up to the army unit’s initial confrontation with their adversaries. What followed was genuinely compelling, raising anticipation for the conclusion, only to be met with another fairly unremarkable sequence. Simplicity is acceptable because this screenplay wasn't intended for commercial success or entertainment; it aimed for realism. The film’s underlying message stands out, yet audiences often overlook it, instead focusing on reasons why they didn't like it—as I did earlier. All the scenes were well-executed and the actors delivered strong performances. I also understand that the soldiers featured were actual army personnel who had fought in the very battleground where the film is set. This meant the director had experienced individuals around to guide production, resulting in a polished war drama that ultimately paid off as it advanced through the Oscars race. That’s what every filmmaker aspires to—international recognition for their efforts. 7/10

Source on TMDB