CDN$ 42.51 + CDN$ 3.49 shipping
Only 1 left in stock. Sold by M and N Media Canada
+ CDN$ 3.49 shipping
Used: Very Good | Details
Sold by thomas video
Condition: Used: Very Good
Comment: Expedited shipping from Guelph, Ont. available. Our films are always guaranteed.
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon

Lebanon [Import]

Price: CDN$ 42.51
Only 1 left in stock.
Ships from and sold by M and N Media Canada.
2 new from CDN$ 42.51 3 used from CDN$ 25.00

Product Details

  • Actors: Yoav Donat, Itay Tiran, Oshri Cohen, Michael Moshonov, Zohar Shtrauss
  • Directors: Samuel Maoz
  • Writers: Samuel Maoz
  • Producers: Anat Bikel, Benjamina Mirnik, David Silber, Gil Sassower, Ilann Girard
  • Format: AC-3, Dolby, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC, Import
  • Subtitles: English
  • Aspect Ratio: 1.78:1
  • Number of discs: 1
  • MPAA Rating: R
  • Studio: Sony Pictures
  • Release Date: Jan. 18 2011
  • Run Time: 93 minutes
  • Average Customer Review: Be the first to review this item
  • ASIN: B003Y5H5II
  •  Would you like to update product info, give feedback on images, or tell us about a lower price?

Product Description


Customer Reviews

There are no customer reviews yet on
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on (beta) HASH(0xa1600e94) out of 5 stars 46 reviews
28 of 33 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0xa1bf8bd0) out of 5 stars A descent into darkness Jan. 20 2011
By H. Franco - Published on
Format: DVD Verified Purchase
"Lebanon" is the last of a small crop of acclaimed Israeli war films that addresses the First Lebanese War of 1982. The first was "Beaufort", released in 2007, followed by "Waltz with Bashir" in 2008. Curiously the first of these movies, Beaufort, depicts the last chapter of the war that involves the precipitous Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon. Waltz with Bashir is an animated film mostly centered around the massacre of Palestinian refugees in the camp of Sabra and Shatila. Beaufort was honest, sad and difficult to watch due to the slow motion prevailing in the film. Waltz with Bashir is enthralling but morally murky for eventually placing almost the entirety of the culpability of the massacre on the actions of the Lebanese Phalanges. Lebanon, I feel, is by far the best of the three. It has a unique form of presenting its story. The movie alternates scenes of the inside of a tank with views through the gunsight of the gun turret. The four Israeli soldiers inside the combat vehicle experience the events of the first 24 hours of the war in a progressively deteriorating atmosphere, suffused with broken equipment, stench, filth and smoke. Through the gunsight, the audience can visualize the war in its total depravity. The movie does not preach, take sides or sanitize the insanity of combat. The horrific scenes of destruction of property, dead and dying civilians, and unending pain and suffering are only matched by the quick psychological deterioration of the soldiers. The tank crew is not in control of their fate or environment, and there is no attempt to create false heroism or glorify their actions. Samuel Maoz, the director, delivers an astonishing cinematic experience. It is difficult to make comments about this movie that will not involve spoilers. Lebanon certainly more than deserved the Golden Lion Award it received at the 66th Venice International Film Festival. So far, Hollywood has still to match the boldness and calculated delivery of this movie. One may need to understand the context of the never ending conflict between Israel and Lebanon to better appreciate Mr. Maoz's work. Lebanese movies about the Second Lebanese War such as "Beirut Diaries & 33 Days" and "Under the Bombs" are a good complement to "Lebanon" for those interested in this tragic confrontation. Lebanon is not a movie for those who believe that war provides acceptable solutions for political disputes. I wish without much hope that one day the leaders of these two creative nations will attain the insight, compassion and sensibility of their movie directors and bring an end to the hatred and destruction that still go on.
19 of 25 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0xa1bf8e1c) out of 5 stars The Worst War Film Ever Made Dec 18 2012
By R. A Forczyk - Published on
Format: DVD
Despite what his bio says, it is clear that Israeli director Samuel Maoz has either never been inside a tank (it is claimed that he was a gunner in the June 1982 War) or has forgotten everything he ever saw inside one. The 2009 Israeli film Lebanon, about an Israeli tank crew on the first few days of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in June 1982, is easily the worst war film ever made. It is multiple sins: it is completely unrealistic in important details, the characters are ridiculous and unsympathetic and is essentially built around a gimmick, rather than a story. The director's idea was clearly to capture the claustrophobia of tank warfare and the intensity of frontline action through a "gunner's eye" view of events. This is not a bad idea in itself, just horribly executed here. For starters, I have never seen a tanker (having been one myself) suffer from claustrophobia; exact opposite - "man, oh man, am I glad to have all this armor wrapped around me instead of being outside like the bloody infantry." Tankers love their tanks (exact when they are broken down), and do not treat them like garbage piles as depicted here. The film is also very anti-Israeli at its core, which explains why it was both blocked by the Government of Israel and given an award - for political reasons - in the Venice Film Festival. It was an awful choice.

To begin with, none of the film is actually filmed inside a real tank and the only hint as to what kind of vehicle it is supposed to represent appears in the last few seconds of the film - a brief exterior shot of a Centurion tank amidst a field of sunflowers. It is clear that the Israeli military provided no help in making this film (why would it? - it makes them look like thugs). It's hard to believe that this is the same country where the best tanker movie ever made - the Beast (1988) - was filmed. It is clear that the director made a tank interior set, which is about three times too large inside. In one scene of the drivers compartment, one can see that the "radio" is actually just a plate with dials attached to a wall. The director also seems to have forgotten from his military service that Israeli tankers wear CVC helmets and talk via intercoms - there is no way that the tank commander could direct the driver without it. The water and trash on the floor, the water dripping on the hull inside (from where?), ammunition lying on the floor of the turret basket - these are all horrible mistakes.

The film is essentially built around the gimmick of the "gunner's eye view," except the view doesn't look anything like a real gunner's primary sight (or 105-D secondary sight). The reticule has no numbers on it, so how would the gunner determine range. Most of the "sight pictures" are zoomed in to 100x mag, looking right at people's faces and even showing the hairs on their face. This is ridiculous. The gunner never scans for targets, but instead focuses on a picture, on a dead chicken, on a Seven-Up can. Folks, this is NOTHING like what a real tank gunner does or sees. It is pure fantasy. At times, the director seems to forget how "big" his tank is and we see it moving under low overhangs and other times he seems to forget that there is a main gun attached to his sight and that it can traverse so quickly or easily in a city street. The crew never gets out of the "tank" - again ridiculous - but other people are constantly coming inside as if it were a bus station. Israeli tank commanders are known for fighting "unbuttoned" so they have better situational awareness and can use their .50 cal machinegun against infantry. Operating buttoned up as in this film, would be suicidal. However, it is clear that the gimmick became essential when the Israeli Army refused to loan Maoz a real tank for his anti-war film.

As for the characters, the director chose the "small unit drama" format and employed the hackneyed formula of internal strife. Rather than a crew, the four men are portrayed as inmates in a small prison, constantly at each other's throats. The gunner - obviously a self portrait of Maoz himself - is a hysterical jerk who sees everything with wide-eyed astonishment. The anti-war sentiment of the film is ham-fisted and presents the hardly-unique notion that war is hell. I believe William T. Sherman said that already. Folks, this is not how a tank crew talks or functions - it is an anti-military caricature. In real combat, these guys would be dead very quickly. All in all, this film is an insult to the Israeli Army and tankers everywhere.
7 of 9 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0xa1bfb078) out of 5 stars Counterview to Forczyk's review Sept. 2 2014
By Hotel worker - Published on
In response to the bad review by Forczyk, he seemed offended by the film's point of view, accusing it of making Israeli soldiers "look like thugs." I don't actually agree with that, as I saw more complexity in the soldiers depicted in the movie than Forczyk did. But for what it is worth, I was a peacekeeping (sic) marine in Lebanon in 1982 and the Israeli soldiers I encountered were brutal. The tankers in particular used recon-by-fire tactics frequently. They did not give a damn about the Lebanese and were not worried about wasting a few Americans as well with their Blackwater-in-Nisoor-Square-style tactics. I remember hearing about a marine captain jumping up on an Israeli tank at one point and threatening a particularly out-of-control tank commander with his pistol. (Google it for details, It was not my unit.) Regarding the cinematic depiction of a leaky tank and its dispirited crew, Forczyk offhandedly and arrogantly dismisses this as a ridiculous figment of the filmmaker's imagination, invoking his expertise as a former tank crewman as proof. Well, his opinion of Israeli soldiers is counter to my own personal experience. Unlike him, I do not expand this into any arrogant claims, but just add my story to the mix. As with the soldiers, one can figure that other tankers had different experiences than Forczyk. Perhaps they did not view their machines and their task with as much enthusiasm as he and his crew may have. I certainly have read many accounts of tankers in battle who found a tank to be claustrophobic. With the limited viewing slits available on a buttoned-up tank, it is an inevitable human reaction. It doesn't mean you want to jump out into the maelstrom, just that you must fight in a claustrophobic foul-smelling environment.
At any rate, a veteran like Forczyk can decide a film is terrible, but judge it on its own merits, not through preconceived opinions which he has expanded from past experiences into universal truths! Get out of your own head: All our experiences are a legitimate part of the story.
HASH(0xa1bfb0f0) out of 5 stars Very Amateurish June 5 2015
By Melvyn Bowler - Published on
Format: DVD
The way to get the most out of this film is to concentrate on attitude. The attitudes of the tank crew, the attitudes of the Paratroopers, the attitude of the command centre and the attitude of the Phalangists. As for the Lebanese civilians, their attitude does not matter as they are there to be killed.

Given that what is happening to the Lebanese civilians is the most significant aspect of the Lebanese invasion, this omission condemns the film as second or third rate.

But even the attitudes were cliches, and predictable. There was nothing in the film that allowed us to understand the conflict better than before we saw the film. I acknowledge that the trauma and barbarity of war affects both sides, the film only shows the one side, and then not very convincingly.

The "tank" is just not believable, the talk inside the tank is realistically impossible, and the sub-titles on my copy were done by a google translator that was drunk. No matter.

Not worth watching, not worth making.
HASH(0xa1bfb5e8) out of 5 stars I really liked the way the entire movie took place in the ... May 27 2015
By WristWrocket - Published on
Format: Blu-ray Verified Purchase
Bought this movie after seeing the trailer and hearing it referred to as "the Das Boot" of tank movies. I really liked the way the entire movie took place in the tank and felt very claustrophobic; I think that was a cool and interesting choice by the director and I can appreciate the movie for that. Also if it was simply the director's choice due to budget concerns I can appreciate that as well; I would much prefer the movie as is verses a dull roar of bad effects or CGI. Overall I think the ending left a little bit more to be desired; not necessarily more action, but I didn't have quite the sense of troop brotherhood I get from other war movies. Also the last scene at the end that could have been left on the cutting room floor, I don't see how that added anything to the story or characters or movie as a whole.

Look for similar items by category