Tears of the Sun

Films about war often share several things in common. The primary ingredients are lot's of guns, good explosive action scenes and a believable story. Have one and not the others and it will surely fail. The movie " Tears of The Sun " has several. Our story is framed around Seal Team leader Lt. A.K.Waters (Bruce Willis) who is selected by his commanding officer Capt. Bill Rhodes (Tom Skerritt) for a simple rescue mission. He is to clandestinely enter the sovereign territory of Nigeria, a battle-scarred nation in the mists of a civil war and rescue a tiny group of white missionaries and take them to safety. Easy enough. However, the situation becomes complicated by the group's refusal to leave, or to travel without taking the African people with them. For a soldier, it's easy, take the group by force and leave the people. However, Waters' and his team, decide to become humanitarians and rescue all the Nigerian refugees whatever the consequences. The main consequence is; the team is a ten man squad and after their decision become the quarry of a thousand angry Nigerian soldiers. This is a good film for Willis, but becomes entangled within it's multiple plots. Still, it contains two of the prescribed ingredients and therefore makes for a good movie. ****

Antoine Fuqua's Tears Of The Sun is a brutal, tough war machine of a flick in the tradition of the old 70's war films, kind of like a brooding Dirty Dozen. Bruce Willis stoically heads up a team of special ops soldiers who are sent into a war torn region of Africa to rescue a doctor (Monica Belucci) from a missionary camp. Genocidal maniacs are encroaching into the area and it's no longer safe for locals or relief workers. His orders are simple: locate and extract the doctor, and no one else. However, when he comes face to face with the refugees, and their situation, he simply can't find it in himself to turn his back on them when he can do something to help. He then disobeys his orders, collects both his team, Bellucci and the Africans and makes a run through the jungle for diplomatic protected soil. His team are a grizzled band of warriors, each with their own unique qualities and opinion on his decision. Kelly (a badass, mohawk adorned Johnny Messner) believes it's too much of a risk, and not their concern). Michael 'Slo' Slowenski (Nick Chinlund, excellent and understated) takes a compasionate standpoint. Second in command Red Atkins (Cole Hauser) trusts Willis is making the right call. Soon they are pursued by the extremists, led by a hulking Peter Mensah, before King Leonidas kicked him into the Sarlak pit. The combat scenes are hard hitting, seemingly very well rehearsed and researched. The only problem for me was the overbearing and extended sequences of genocide, which are harrowing and quite tough to watch. When it's combat based it's a damn fine piece, with a rugged, thoughtful band of heroes who are an absolute joy to see in action. Rounding out the team are Eamonn Walker, Charles Ingram, Paul Francis, Chad Smith and a briefly seen Tom Skerritt as Willis's commanding officer. Tough, muscular and no nonsense, with burgeoning compassion that gives that soldiers purpouse beyond the cold lethality of the mission. Fuqua has a terrific collection of lean and mean action flicks under his belt, and this is one of the best.

Hmmm...where do I start? Should I point out to a recent reviewer, who sarcastically pointed out that Nigeria has an air force and could have bombed the group fleeing through the jungle, that the "bad guys" are rebels, not government forces? Since the rebels just killed everyone in the President's family, they probably scared off the government pilots, too. (Sorry...couldn't resist.)

And since when was a movie so horribly, horribly bad because it couldn't be filmed in the actual location? So what if this was filmed somewhere other than Nigeria? And so what if the music was not "authentic Nigerian music"? I don't remember a title card at the beginning of the movies saying it's a National Geographic documentary.

This is a good movie. Less action than many war movies and less thought than some political dramas. There are good and bad people of all races. There's tension and there are explosions and gunfire. There is ample opportunity to reflect on what mankind is capable of doing to each other for political reasons.

Give it a chance and I think you'll enjoy it. Better yet, I think you'll be sombered by it.

"Tears of the Sun" is a thrilling, emotional ride based on real events. The film is not without flaws. There are a few character flaws, questionable character decisions, minor errors in editing and sound, and there could be one or two issues with historical accuracy, but this is a movie, not a documentary. And they do a great job telling a story about how humanity can be at its worst, as well as at its best, and that good always triumphs over evil. It's got more feel to it than most standard Hollywood action films, and while there is action, there is also drama, war horror, and emotions. It is not one to dismiss, nor be ridiculed. It feels honest, and is an entertaining, as well as though-provoking movie.

Now I will add my counter-arguments to some of the most common negative reviewers:

• "Typical Hollywood narrative"

While many Hollywood films have proven in the past to have made MANY mistakes in story-writing, one thing they are effective in doing is using data of all sorts that help generate formulas that in turn create effective stories that are received as positively as possible, and that will generate the most profit, while maintaining numerous other variables. In short, if a generic plot formula works, no point in not using it. It is presumptuous when people attack the story of a Hollywood movie, by claiming it to be a dull, and stale cliche. Because you can usually find other movies that have received outstanding reviews and overwhelming praise that follow similar, if not close-to-exact, plot structure. Take "Saving Private Ryan" for example. There are several plot elements in that movie that are nearly identical to this movie, yet I guarantee many negative reviewers of "Tears of the Sun" have given glowing reviews to "Saving Private Ryan." This hypocrisy is not relevant to all, or possibly even most of those who gave a harsh critique to this film's plot, but it definitely applies to some.

-"The Americans have to be the heroes yet again" Why not? Americans have been heroes many times in real history. What's so wrong about the nation that creates movies, whether basing them on real events or not, to depict the protagonists as heroes with that nation's origin? EVERY country that generates movies does this. There is nothing wrong with a nation's pride being a focal point in cinema, as long as it's in good taste. Additionally, yes this film is based on a Canadian task force. But the actual events in the story is fictional (events of the direct story = fictional, events of the surrounding story = non-fictional), so there's no problem creating a fictional task force that's American, during a historical conflict.

-"A handful of soldiers cannot overtake a whole army" This is an easy one to counter. Let's list how many ways a small American squad can handle a small army: 1. Training. The Navy SEALs had far more extensive training, and knew how to operate well as a small group, which is easier to control and engage with than an army. Selection is also a point here. Only the best can be Navy SEALs, and I'm sure the rebels added anyone who supported their cause to their ranks. 2. Technology & gear. The SEALs had it all, the rebels had AK47s and blades. The SEALs had communication equipment that kept them all operating simultaneously and with minimal effort. Their weapons were well maintained, and thus more accurate, while the rebels no doubt did not take nearly as good care of theirs, which would result in much less effective firepower (and AK47s are already a fairly inaccurate rifle, which were the most common rifles used by the rebels). And don't forget, they had some help in the end. 3. Willpower. After seeing what the rebels are capable of, the American soldiers, along with the Ibo people, had more to fight for. That can make, and has made, a difference. 4. History. There are MANY accounts of a small group of people, even sole individuals, who have stood their ground against many hostiles. In some of these true and confirmed events, those heroes who stood their ground also came out alive. In all of them, they were heavily outnumbered. A few examples are: July 18, 1918 where 5 American soldiers held against more than 60 Germans, killing 22 and capturing 40, . Thus, based on history alone, the efforts of the SEALs depicted in "Tears of the Sun" could be justified.

'Tears of the Sun' is still one of my favorite war movies - not necessarily because of the war elements, but due to the humanistic element, and the amount of emotion the film contains. (Although strictly speaking this is not a war film as such, I suppose).

This is also the time still when Bruce Willis was actually leading a film, and not making small appearances only, yet with his name written bigger than the film's title on the poster. Willis makes a credible hero, with very good character development. The rest of the cast were very good, as well, and the characters didn't have the cliched introductions like most war movies do.

'Tears of the Sun' is refreshingly without comic relief or a romance interest. It is a fast-paced action thriller with feeling. The finale is stunning. This is an incredible film.

Would I watch it again? Yes, and again, and again.