Related Movies:

Jarhead 3: The Siege (2016), directed by William Kaufman, is a direct-to-DVD war thriller that delivers relentless action and gritty combat in a fictional U.S. Embᴀssy under siege in the Middle East. Starring Charlie Weber as Corporal Evan Albright, alongside Scott Adkins and Dennis Haysbert, the film follows a small Marine unit fighting to protect the embᴀssy from a militant ᴀssault. Packed with explosive shootouts and tense standoffs, it’s a high-energy B-movie that appeals to action fans but struggles with clichés, unrealistic tactics, and a tenuous connection to the Jarhead franchise. This review explores why Jarhead 3 is a thrilling, if imperfect, ride for fans of war thrillers.

Plot Summary: A Desperate Defense Against Overwhelming Odds

Jarhead 3: The Siege centers on Corporal Evan Albright (Charlie Weber), a gung-ho Marine ᴀssigned to a seemingly quiet U.S. Embᴀssy in an unnamed Middle Eastern city. Expecting routine duties like guarding gates and playing video games, Albright’s unit—led by Gunnery Sergeant Raines (Scott Adkins)—is caught off guard when a militant group, led by the supposedly deceased terrorist Khaled (Charlie de Melo), launches a surprise attack to kill an embᴀssy informant, Jamal (Khaled’s brother). Outnumbered and outgunned, Albright and his team must protect the ambᴀssador (Stephen Hogan), secure sensitive intelligence, and survive until backup, led by Major Lincoln (Dennis Haysbert), arrives.

The screenplay by Michael D. Weiss and Chad Law draws inspiration from the 2012 Benghazi attack, sharing similarities with 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, but reimagines it as a fictional, action-heavy scenario. While the premise offers high-stakes tension, the plot leans on predictable tropes—maverick hero, corrupt officials, and endless gunfire—lacking the psychological depth of the original Jarhead (2005). The film’s 89-minute runtime keeps the action relentless, but its thin character development and unrealistic combat scenes limit its narrative impact.

Cinematography and Atmosphere: Gritty Chaos on a Budget

William Kaufman, a veteran of low-budget action films like The Hit List and Sinners and Saints, brings a gritty, functional style to Jarhead 3. Cinematographer Mark Rutledge captures the embᴀssy’s claustrophobic interiors and chaotic street battles with a raw, handheld aesthetic, evoking the intensity of urban warfare. The film’s Middle Eastern setting, though filmed in Bulgaria, feels convincing, with dusty streets and crowded markets adding authenticity to the action, a detail praised by some Amazon reviewers for its realistic street scenes.

The score by Frederik Wiedmann pulses with adrenaline, complementing the near-constant gunfire and explosions. However, the film’s low budget shows in uneven CGI effects and dim lighting during night scenes, which can obscure the action, a critique echoed in reviews. Practical stunts and shootouts, a nod to your appreciation for authentic action in films like Fire with Fire, keep the energy high, but the lack of tactical realism—such as Marines firing endlessly without reloading—frustrates viewers seeking authenticity.

Performances: Weber and Adkins Carry the Load

Charlie Weber delivers a solid, if unremarkable, performance as Evan Albright, a lone-wolf Marine eager to prove himself. His earnest intensity suits the action-heavy role, though his character’s arc—complete with a clichéd “I got nowhere else to go” breakdown—feels derivative, as noted in Amazon reviews. Weber’s charisma holds the film together, aligning with your interest in gritty leads like Josh Duhamel in Fire with Fire.

Scott Adkins shines as Gunnery Sergeant Raines, bringing physicality and gravitas to a mentor figure described as a “Buddha of the Marines.” His action pedigree (The Bourne Ultimatum, Expendables 2) adds credibility to the fight scenes, though fans, like those on Action-Flix, wish he had more martial arts moments. Dennis Haysbert, as Major Lincoln, is underused but brings authority to his brief role, echoing his commanding presence in 24. Supporting actors like Dante Basco, Romeo Miller, and Sasha Jackson (as a CIA operative) are serviceable but hampered by one-dimensional roles, with Jackson’s character drawing praise for her firearm discipline.

Themes and Tone: Courage Amid Chaos

Jarhead 3 explores themes of duty, courage, and the chaos of modern warfare, reflecting real-world embᴀssy security challenges. The film attempts to avoid simplistic “good vs. evil” narratives by portraying the militants as a minority opposing local civilians, a nuance praised in Vern’s Reviews. However, its heavy-handed “us vs. them” dialogue and stock characters—like a stereotypical millennial intern filming the chaos—undermine its depth, as noted by Common Sense Media.

The tone is relentlessly intense, with non-stop action in the final hour, appealing to your taste for high-octane thrillers like The Expendables. Unlike the introspective Jarhead (2005), which focused on the psychological toll of war, this sequel is a “bullet-fest,” prioritizing spectacle over substance, a shift some fans appreciate but others find jarring.

Pacing and Execution: Action Over Authenticity

The film’s 89-minute runtime ensures a breakneck pace, with the first 30 minutes establishing characters before unleashing relentless combat. The siege itself, reminiscent of Call of Duty as per Mikes Film Talk, delivers satisfying action but sacrifices realism for spectacle, with “bottomless magazines” and questionable tactics drawing criticism. Kaufman’s direction is slick for a DTV budget, but clichés and a lack of military advisors, as noted on IMDb, hinder authenticity. The film’s connection to the Jarhead franchise feels tenuous, existing in name only, a point of contention for critics.

Reception: A Divisive B-Movie

Jarhead 3: The Siege has a 5.1/10 rating on IMDb and mixed reviews, with no Rotten Tomatoes score due to limited coverage. Action fans, like those on Action-Flix and Amazon, praise its “high-octane” shootouts and entertainment value, aligning with the X post’s 8.2/10 enthusiasm and an X user’s excitement for its tension. However, critics like Common Sense Media and IMDb users slam its clichés, poor acting, and lack of connection to the original Jarhead, calling it a “mindless” sequel. Its direct-to-DVD status and low budget are seen as both a strength (for delivering on modest expectations) and a weakness (for lacking polish).

Where to Watch Jarhead 3: The Siege (2016)

As of May 2025, Jarhead 3: The Siege is available on Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Tubi (check regional availability). It can also be rented or purchased on YouTube, Apple TV, and Fandango at Home.

Final Verdict: A Thrilling but Shallow Action Flick

Jarhead 3: The Siege (2016) is a pulse-pounding, action-packed war thriller that delivers for fans of gritty, low-budget shoot-em-ups, with Charlie Weber and Scott Adkins anchoring the chaos. Its relentless combat and tense embᴀssy siege satisfy action cravings, but clichés, unrealistic tactics, and a weak link to the Jarhead franchise hold it back. Perfect for fans of 13 Hours or The Outpost, it’s a fun, forgettable B-movie that prioritizes bullets over brains.

Rating: 6.5/10
Perfect for: Fans of war thrillers, Scott Adkins, or direct-to-DVD action.
Skip if: You want the depth of Jarhead or realistic military tactics.

Stream Jarhead 3: The Siege for a noisy, adrenaline-fueled escape that delivers thrills but lacks lasting impact.

Keywords: Jarhead 3: The Siege 2016, Charlie Weber, Scott Adkins, Dennis Haysbert, war thriller, embᴀssy siege, direct-to-DVD, movie review 2025, William Kaufman, action movie.

A Farmer’s Misplaced Hammer Led to the Largest Roman Treasure in Britain

---

November 16, 1992 was the day which changed Suffolk-resident Eric Lawes’ life in a huge way. What he thought would have been an innocent search for a hammer he had misplaced on his farm in Hoxne Village, Suffolk, England ended up bringing him much more than he had bargained for — namely, uncovering the hiding spot of a long-hidden treasure. Based on the Guardian’s coverage of the story, Eric Lawes had been previously gifted a metal detector upon his retirement as a parting token. He decided to put his retirement gift to good use in order to locate the hammer which he had had some trouble finding. According to a 2018 Smithsonian Magazine article, when the device started recording that there was a strong signal coming from the earth, he knew that he was about to discover something big. As he started digging, it soon became clear to him that he had unearthed a treasure trove.

The Guardian reports that, when Lawes saw that his preliminary digging had yielded a few gold coins and silver spoons, he immediately contacted both the local archaeological society and the police department. Archaeologists came to the property the following day and had the area of earth holding the treasure carefully sectioned-off and removed. Their hope was that at a later stage, in their laboratory, they could examined the items in order to identify both their age and how they were stored.

When all was said and done, close to 60 pounds of items made from silver and gold were found on the site. These included more than 15,000 Roman coins, 200 gold objects, and several silver spoons. For archaeologists, this find — which later became labeled as the Hoxne Hoard — was an incredible discovery. AP News reported that archaeologist Judith Plouviez was over-the-moon about the discovery, saying that it was “an incredibly exciting and amazing find.” What’s more, another archaeologist, Rachel Wilkinson, told Smithsonian Magazine that this discovery was “the largest and latest ever found in Britain.”

Ordinarily, archaeologists would use radiocarbon dating as a means of identifying the age of ancient relics. However, they couldn’t locate any suitable material from the haul. Consequently, they determined the age by examining writing on the coins, as well as the ruler carved into them, estimating that the treasure was probably buried in either 408 or 409 AD.

Roman-era archaeologist Peter Guest told Smithsonian Magazine that “if you look at them a little more carefully, then they should be dated to the period after the separation of Britain from the Roman Empire.” He offers as part of his evidence the fact that almost all of the coins found in the Hoxne Hoard were clipped – in other words, small chunks of their edges had been taken off. These clippings would have been used to create coins which were similar to the Roman coins of that era.

Guest has a logical reason for this, arguing that “The Roman Empire wasn’t supplying Britain with new gold and silver coins, and in light of that, the population tried to get over this sudden cutoff in the supply of their precious metals by making the existing supplies go further.”

Archaeologists also believe that the treasure belonged to a Romano-British family. During that time, considering that there was so much societal discord and upheaval, it was common for Romans who had settled in Britain to bury their most prized possessions.

That said, one archaeologist is of the belief that the hoard had a lot of sentimental value for the Romano-British family to whom it is believed to have belonged. In her book The Hoxne Late Roman Treasure: Gold Jewellery and Silver Plate, Catherine Johns claims that the manner in which the treasure was kept supported this claim. Some of the items which were recovered had been packaged in small, wooden boxes which were lined with leather. What’s more, pieces of wood, locks, and nails, among other things, surrounded the gold and silver pieces. This leads Catherine to assert that the package was carefully buried and not simply chucked away in a rush.

Interestingly enough, the items unearthed might shed some light on the identity of the family who owned them. They cite a gold bracelet bearing the inscription “UTERE FELIX DOMINA IULIANE,” which roughly translates to “use this happily Lady Juliane”. A second name “Aurelius Ursicinus” has also been discovered. This has consequently led some to believe that Juliane and Aurelius were the couple and the original owners of the treasure. That said, that has yet to be confirmed.

All in all, the discovery was a real treasure for archaeologists, and by extension, for Lawes. According to Smithsonian Magazine, in recognition of his discovery and willingness to contact authorities, the British government rewarded him with over £1.7 million, an amount which he shared with the farmer whose land was dug out in order to get the treasure. Funnily enough, apart from the treasure, Lawes also found his lost hammer — which now resides in the British Museum.