Tears of the Sun

"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.

As a person who can speak from a reputable stand point, I have to say this movie is different than many other "war" movies and is generally regarded highly among many different types of members in the U.S. military. This films representation brought forth a perspective that showed a few sides to a mission. Yes there is the desire to finish and get out. But the film also showed that the situation can change on the ground as it always does, and sometimes you have to modify. An seasoned veteran like Lt. Waters who is somewhat seasoned being a Lt. probably would have the foresight to say it is safe to go ahead and try and get these people to a border being that was the only way to drag the doc outta there without hog tying her, even though the orders above were different. A team leader is expected to use some discretion and Lt. did that. Although it was borderline crazy operationally it still worked. Working in that environment is not just like a round of socom. Things happen and you have to do the best you can for the situation if it is feasible and you have the balls to do it. Also, the depiction of the action scenes were practically dead on and impressive. Mr. Fuqua didn't cheese it up, it was kept fairly raw and confusing as is a real engagement. The ethnic cleansing scenes, well it doesn't get any more realistic than that. I can understand why everyone else hates America for doing these films about ourselves but honestly can you see a french film showing specwar going into save a village, nope. They would hand out white flags to everyone. Maybe the Aussies, Israelis, or Brits, but pretty much beyond those three countries thats all ya got. If at the least, this is a reminder that even when you think you know about what our guys are doing in the world, you don't know the half,we lose guys everyday and people should realize that a silent war exists.

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. ****

7.5 out of 10

Tears of the Sun is hardly perfect. Director Antoine Fuqua's direction can get a bit heavy-handed and most of the characters are one to two-dimensional in development (understandable, given the large cast). But it's a solidly made, often thrilling and sometimes thought-provoking film that aims for serious issues, particularly as a sober outlook of modern warfare and morals. It's not entirely successful at the latter, but to even attempt to stray from typical Hollywood is admirable, and Tears of the Sun is often more hit than miss.

Bruce Willis stars as A.K. Waters, the head of a mission to retrieve a Dr. Lena Hendricks (Monica Bellucci) from the Nigerian jungle, after Muslim rebels have just assassinated the presidential family, and are on a rampage throughout the country. Hendricks is located easily, but she will only leave so long as all able-bodied individuals on her mission can come along. Waters reluctantly agrees, but soon finds that he and his group must trek the jungles with no assistance and with 300 Nigerian soldiers hot on their trail.

Tears of the Sun works as a thoughtful film, but is more successful as a tension-builder. Director Fuqua shows an able hand at building suspense to a feverish pitch, all the way to the concluding battle sequence, a fifteen minute setpiece that rivals any recent war film in both intensity and technical superiority. The other major action setpiece is a tense shootout in a village, the aftermath of which is disturbing in its revelation of the rebels' treatment of civilians. Tears of the Sun is a violent film, but never exploitative in its approach.

The film's two best developed characters belong to Bruce Willis and Monica Bellucci. Willis has always been a fine actor, this understated approach has worked for him before and fits like a glove here. I'm not quite as familiar with Bellucci, who I've only seen in Brotherhood of the Wolf and as one of the brides in Bram Stoker's Dracula, but she's quite good here, easily the film's anchor when it comes to heart and warmth. I'm certainly not exaggerating when I say she's one of the most beautiful (and bodacious) women to ever grace the screen (and I look forward to her in the upcoming Matrix sequels).

There are flaws, such as the rather obtrusive musical score and some pretentious use of slow motion on Fuqua's behalf. The film's biggest narrative stumble comes with a plot twist 3/4's through the movie, when an extraneous plot twist is revealed. Admittedly, without the twist, the film wouldn't have been able to build up as much suspense, much less deliver that final battle. But when all is said and done, Tears of the Sun is highly recommended, a Hollywood film that has more on its mind than explosion and gunfights (which the movie still has an ample amount of).

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.