Rating: 
Summary: Not bad, but it just didn't do it for me
Review: You can't really call "Tears of the Sun" a bad movie. By any account it's certainly a decent action war movie, and I enjoyed it. Where "Tears of the Sun" fails to succeed is in it's somewhat one-dimensional and shallow aproach at including policical and social messages, and in it's seeming impotence at crossing the lines from mediocrity to greatness.The plot is pretty much a no brainer that gets set up right from the get-go. The Democratic government in Nigeria gets ousted by a military coup and rebel forces execute the presidential family and begin an genocidal killing spree, killing christians and rival tribes. Bruce willis and his small special forces team is sent to to find and evacuate several US Citizens, including a doctor working at a christian mission. The doctor wont leave without her patients, and so Willis and his team agree to escort the people to the Cameroon border. Of course they are followed by the rebels the whole way and are grossly outnumbered and it becomes a race to get to the border and to safety before they are completely over run. Not exactly full of surprises and not much food for thought. of course there is the initial lie/double cross, and then the classic (not to mention very cliche) moment where our heroes grow a conscience after witnessing the horrors and extent of ethnic cleansing that is taking place and decide to help the people as thier way of making amens with thier own guilty consciences. other than this there is little to talk about plot-wise. The acting is pretty good, although it varies throughout. Willis himself does a very good job playing his charcter though other than him and the doctor none of the characters grew on me. The setting is great, and the shots of the african landscape were very nice. For being an action war movie, "Tears of the Sun" offered only sporadic action until the climatic battle at the end which was mildy impressing, though nothing you havent scene before. There is a constant attempt throughout the movie to bring attention to the brutality the ethnic cleansing that occurs in Africa that most americans are unaware of. We hear about bosnia, kosovo, but not so much about the many war torn regions in africa many of which are subject to constant guerilla warfare, famine, tribal clashes, and civil wars. The current attention being given to the situation in Sudan is very similar to what is shown in the movie. The look we are given however, although sad and mildly graphic, is a little one dimensional, and doesnt really explore the complexity of the political, ethnic, and religious angles of african conflicts. instead this is all reduced to "good guys vs bad guy" with the US as the good guys who sit idley by of course. I think many people will wish that the movie had a more realistic and more complete look at this angle of the plot rather than just showin "a bunch of rebel guys in red hats who run around killing all the christians and guys from the other tibes". Other than that there is an overwhelming lack of depth and substance to the movie. Character development was underdone and there just arent many layers beyond what you see on the surface. And what is on the surface, though not bad, is not spectacular either. While I liked the movie over all, it just didnt have enough meat to it I felt. There were times I would just feel like something I couldnt put my finger on was missing to this one. "Tears of the sun" does win points however for atleast trying to shed some public light to the attrocities in africa that most of the world lives happily ignorant to. It also serves as an effective, and enjoyable military action movie that is hard to hate but impossible to love.
Rating:
Summary: One-dimensional but...
Review: I really have quite ambivalent felings about this movie. From one hand, it's full of cliches and very simpleminded. You pretty much know what will happen, a lot of things are overdramatized (not the scenes of atrocities though). The acting is mediocre but it's not a problem of actors but rather of a bad script. On the other hand, the scenes of atrocities in the movie (somewhere in Africa - Sudan comes right away to mind) make people to realize that such terrible things are really happening today. It did really resonate through probably some shock - at least that's the way I feel. And who knows, maybe a simplemindness of this movie helps to deliver the message. I would give one star for cinematographic qualities and five stars for revealing the problem and showing disasters really happening in the world today.
Rating:
Summary: Not that great
Review: I can't really see the fuss about this movie - or Monica Bellucci for that matter. I wasn't bored as such through most of it, just wondering what was going on, and when it was going to end. And wishing Monica would do up a few more buttons on her shirt.
I don't mind Bruce Willis movies at all, although it's disappointing sometimes when they don't live up to expectations. I might take a peek at Hostage when it comes out on DVD, plus it's got his daughter in it, playing his daughter, which should be interesting. But as for this, I'm so glad I didn't buy it, as it would have been a waste of money.
Does anyone else think that when Bruce has the very grey stubble, he looks like Jean Reno?!
The characters very one-dimensional in this, particularly Monica Bellucci's character. (Why do I think she's French instead of Italian?) All she had to do during a lot of the movie was stand around, look worried, and not very much else - except call Bruce all the names she could think of in a different language. She was highly unbelieveable, particularly as her husband was said to have been killed not that long ago, in a similar situation. Wouldn't that have awakened old memories? Brucie must have got a right slap off set, during the scene where she got knocked out, cos he got a right feel of her ass when he put her over his shoulder. Plus, the director must have realised that there's a few boring moments, cos suddenly, Monica bares a lot of cleavage, just to get the guys interested in the movie again, when there's not much action.
What stops this movie from being rated two stars was the shoot out/war towards the end. This definitely made up for the rest of the movie being rather tedious, as it was a shocking, nail biting few minutes, as one by one the SEALS got killed, or injured. It was simply amazing, and brutal. The score reminded me very much of Armageddon, and all the fighting and the planes coming to the rescue, strangely enough, reminded me of Pearl Harbour.
Although it was only 10 minutes longer than Secretary, which won in a toss up over which movie to watch late at night, I still found Secretary to pass a lot quicker. This was incredibly slow, and definitely felt quite a bit longer than its 1hr 56mins at some points.
This movie does a great job of portraying the heartbreak that people go through in that part of the world, and I will admit, I did get quite teary towards the end when people were reunited. It doesn't make up for the fact the rest of the film was pointless and tedious.
Rating:
Summary: Good action/drama...but very lacking as a "war movie"
Review: I finally watched this film after strong insistence from a few friends who hailed it as one of the best war movies ever made. Well, as my title states, this is a very well-made drama as well as a great action flick. But I cannot call this a great war film. First off, there is far too much disobeying of orders, especially by the most highly trained warriors in the U.S. arsenal, trained first and foremost not to disobey (or even question) orders. Secondly, they are made to look like heroes for doing so, and the commanding officer responds with an "Oh well, all's well that ends well" attitude.
The acting is great. The music is also very good (kudos once again to the great and versatile Hans Zimmer). The technical details regarding SEAL operations are also dead-on (with the obvious exception of following orders).
Overall, this film is about moral principles on the battlefield. This is a very thought-provoking concept and makes us think about some important issues. But in real-life situations, the mission is more important, and completing the mission will help maintain a great number of moral principles. For instance, innocent people die in war. But how many more innocent people would die if there were not a war (i.e. World War II, Operation Desert Storm, and yes, even the recent Iraqi War)?
So, I do not regret seeing this film. And most film goers who like movies of this kind will not be disappointed either. But there was still room for improvement. For real war films with realistic portrayals of soldiers (using the generic term) obeying orders and maintaining their moral principles, I would recommend WE WERE SOLDIERS, BLACKHAWK DOWN, and the now classic SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.
Rating:
Summary: Difficult to figure out but pays off emotionally
Review: Here is a worthless fact for you. Tear of the Sun was supposed to be Die Hard 4. It was taken from a book called Les Larmes du Soleil by Henri Vernes.
In "Les Larmes du Soleil", a plane in which the hero is travelling over South America is hijacked by rebels. They intend on asking for a ransom to the Governments of the countries of the 'white' passengers. The plane crashes and the hero escapes into the amazon. Soon he hooks up with a tribe of Aztec descendants and leads them away as the rebels are after them. This book was written as Die Hard 4 but Bruce Willis liked the title so much he agreed to do Die Hard 4 if he could use the Tears of the Sun title and script for a completely different movie.
Now it's about a group of Elite Navy SEALS given the simple sounding mission of rescuing a doctor (an American Citizen) from a jungle village in war-torn Nigeria as an Evil General seizes control of the country and imposes brutal ethnic cleansing. Not a pretty situation.
But as soon as Willis and his hardass SEALS (including Cole Hauser, Johnny Messner and Nick Chinlund) show up the stubborn Doctor (that's the lurv-ley Monica Bellucci) refuses to budge unless she can take 70 villagers with her. Willis lies, telling her that this is fine by him as long as she agrees to go. The choppers arrive, Bellucci freaks as Willis-calling him every name under the crying sun (!) as only she is escorted to safety. Minutes later they fly over the village to find that the rebels have massacred everyone. His conscience gets the better of him, he orders the choppers back and they lead the ditched villagers to the safety of the Camaroon border through 40 miles of jungle.
Trouble is, one of the villagers is a mole and someone else isn't who he says he is. As a result, what seems like every member of the Nigerian rebels go after them with about a bazillion bullets and rockets at their disposal.
The difficulty lies in the fact that Tears of the Sun both does and does not glorify war. You can't really tell if the film is gung-ho or serious. But there's something quite moving and noble about a bunch of hardened commandos willing to die for a cause they've not had enough time to understand. Soldiers are humans and are too often portrayed as killing machines. There is no entertainment in the combat, only a sense of real danger and hopelessness. I actually prefer this film to the Black Hawk Down because A) it's not a jumpy, jittery blur and B) there a subtler emotional investment. Subtlety is something Black Hawk Down did NOT have. You can argue that it hardly belongs in a war film but it does give Tears of the Sun a strange edge.
I have the Superbit DVD that has a brilliant 2.40:1 anamorphic widescreen picture with a loud, dynamic Dolby/DTS 5.1 soundtrack. Get this version, it's only available in R2 at the moment so you'll have to import if you live outside the UK.
Rating: 
Summary: Compelling film.
Review: Wow. I was not expecting this. I thought oh good, another mindless Bruce Willis action flick. This is an emotionally draining movie. Willis did an excellent job portraying the Lieutenant. If he seems stoic and unemotional, it's because he has a job to do. Obviously, he does have emotion as he turns the chopper around after seeing the burning blood-bath of the church he had just left several hours ago. And the fact that he didn't follow his orders exactly is totally realistic; people break rules all the time to follow their conscience.
I've read a lot of reviews, and people seem to be confused as to why the SEAL's were sent in to extract the American doctor, and why she was so important. Um, people. Stay with me here.....that's what we do. As Americans. We get our people out of war torn countries when it is no longer safe. Why was she so important? How do you rate the importance of human lives?
The action was credible. I like how not a fire was shot until halfway through the movie. The way the SEAL's cover each other, the stealth, the efficiency when they go into the village to kill the rebels is amazing to watch. All the SEAL's were excellent actors.
Rating: 
Summary: THE RIGHT THING TO DO
Review: After viewing this well made military undertaking, I think the movie's point is doing the right thing. A group of SEALS are sent in to do a mission, and when they discover the horrors of what's going on, and with such a feisty doctor to boot, they choose to disobey their orders and get the people to safety. The atrocities of what happens to these people caught up in a revolution are delivered with maximum impact and the cast does a good job despite the fact that we don't really get to know them. Bruce Willis is staunch, heroic and compassionate; Monica Bellucci (Passion of the Christ) gives a riveting performance as the doctor; Cole Hauser, Johnny Messner, Eammon Walker, Paul Francis and all the seals perform with conviction and sensitivity. The young lady who plays the doctor's best friend is especially convincing, I just can't spell her name!!! Despite some of the implausibilities of the script, the movie's mission is to make us feel for these people and applaud their heroic rescue. And in that way, TEARS OF THE SUN is a very good movie.
Rating:
Summary: Inanity!
Review: The whole movie lacks coherence. First, a soldier disobeys direct orders, but yet his commanding officer is highly accomodating. Second, the mission seemed quite pointless to me. Was that American woman so important that she needed rescuing? I think not! Thirdly, was this movie suppose to entertain or make one cry? I must say that this movie played on my emotions from the start. The scene of Africans hacking each other is just too brutal for me to handle. Finally, the whole plot strikes one as being absurd. The American Aristocracy (government) cares nothing about Africa as it stands. I would venture to say that the writers of this movie used a lot of imagination to come up with the plot. Know why? There is no precedent for such a mission in Africa. No wonder the story was so ridiculous! Oh well, I was entertained somewhat.
Rating: 
Summary: What if our soldiers started thinking for themselves?
Review: Interesting concept.
Bruce Willis leads a crack team of Special Ops into the Nigerian jungle to rescue a beautiful widowed female physician and reigious staff (priest and nuns) from a mission. The doctor (Bellucci) won't leave without taking the people she's caring for who are able to walk with her. Rescuing the refugees is contrary to Willis' orders. He's just supposed to deliver the 'package' (Bellucci) and optionally the priest and nuns if they choose to come. They march through the jungle for several hours' (or what seems like it) and then are 'extracted' by the helicopters. The physician is not aware that she is the only person to be removed until the helicopter starts taking off without them.
Willis and his team are just following the orders they are given. They're delivering the 'package' safely. That, in itself, is a risky mission.
When they pass over the mission and see it destroyed---something changes. Willis orders the chopper back to the refugees they previously ditched, so they can march them to Cameroon.
I won't belabor the points the other people made. While I have zero military experience, some of the strategy just doesn't make sense. The acting was good for the most part---Bruce Willis is Bruce Willis as usual. There's enough action to keep you riveted.
And yeah, the ending was satisfying in part.
I'm certainly glad I never saw this in the theatre. It's only worth a discounted rental and I wouldn't want to see the film again.
Rating:
Summary: Tears of the people who bought this DVD
Review: There are so many plotholes in this movie, an M1 tank couldn't even drive though it. The following are things about the movie that made it stink...
1. In the end battle, LT and crew decide to confront the Nigerian soldiers pursuing them by hiding behind bushes while waiting for the baddies. Then a huge firefight breaks out. They realize they are outnumbered and retreat to the Cameroon border. NOW WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST WENT ON RUNNING TO THE CAMEROON BORDER IN THE FIRST PLACE INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR THE BADDIES IN THE JUNGLE?!?!
2. HOW THE HELL DID THE HELICOPTERS ARRIVE AT THE SAME TIME AS THE F18s DURING THE FINAL SCENES???
3. Upon meeting up with the choppers and finally extracting the doctor, they fly over the mission and find it ravaged by the rebels. WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST PICK UP THE DOCTOR AT THE MISSION INSTEAD OF MARCHING THROUGH THE JUNGLE FOR SEVERAL HOURS???
4. THE NAMELESS, FACELESS NIGERIAN COLONEL CHASING THE NAVY SEALS AND OFF COURSE THE OVERACTING DONE BY THE NIGERIAN TRACKER.
5. THE WAY THE NIGERIANS FOUGHT IN THE END BATTLE. IT'S AS IF THEY WERE DRUGGED BEFORE BEING SENT TO COMBAT. DOESN'T ANY OF THEM KNOW THAT BULLETS HEADED THEIR DIRECTION EQUALS DEATH?
6. WHAT'S UP WITH THE MOHAWK CUT GUY???
7. If the Nigerian Ibo prince was so important, then why didn't the good doctor confess everything to LT so he could get in the chopper.
8. Before filling the choppers with refugees, LT told his men to get anyone who might be of some burden to the journey onboard. Good thinking, but why did they bring "wooden-leg-guy" with them to cameroon.
They should promote this DVD as an instructional video and rename it "Things Navy SEALS should NEVER do".
|
