QUESTION OF THE WEEK: Why
is it that almost every $20 million dollar leading man feels
the urge to make a pointless, dreary, and utterly unoriginal
war movie? Nicolas Cage did it in "Windtalkers".
Harrison Ford did it in "K-19: The Widowmaker".
And, now, Bruce Willis does it with "Tears of the
Sun", a big disappointment from director Antione Fuqua,
who offered such promise after "Training Day".
One hit wonder? Maybe.
Bruce Willis stars as Lieutenant Waters, a veteran officer
whose main objective in life is to complete the mission and
get the job done. He follows this code very strictly,
and so do his men. However, his code is put to the test
when he is sent into the jungles of Nigeria to rescue Dr. Lana
Hendricks (Monica Bellucci), two nuns, and a priest. She
agrees to come with the soldiers, but with the condition that
she is allowed to bring some of the villagers with them.
The soldiers agree, and a couple plot points aside, the action
begins, as Waters and his men try to lead the doctor and the
villagers to safety, all the while pursued by close to three
hundred guerillas hell bent on ethnic genocide and tons of
ultra violence.
Now, for the break down of the Top 5 things that were wrong
with this picture. In no particular order, they go as
follows: (1) The clichés. Of course, Willis
starts out as a real hardass but ends up the hero. And,
of course, the soldiers have to become emotionally involved
with some of the people they are rescuing, i.e. "Promise
me you will get us out of here alive?"; (2) The villain
factor. Every film like this needs a good, identifiable
villain. We know who the the main villain is, but he is
not developed at all, and nothing that happens with him gives
us any satisfaction; (3) The acting. Bruce Willis did an
acceptable job with a role that required very little from him.
The rest of the actors playing the soldiers seemed like they
were straight out of the Max Fischer play from
"Rushmore"; (4) The baboon. Halfway through
the film, Fuqua focuses on a baboon. We hardly get to
see any of the jungle animals (here seem to be a lack of them)
and focusing in on that baboon had zero relevance and no point
whatsoever. A tiger would have been more substantial.
A snake, maybe. Not a friggin' baboon; and, (4) The Post
Effect. What happened once they got back home? We
are suppose to believe they all lived happily ever after, when
in reality, Willis was probably court-martialed and sued by
the families of the fallen soldiers. The guerillas
probably assassinated the President's son two days later, most
of the refugees probably ended up dying of starvation in a
month or so, and the rest of the soldiers were probably so
scarred by the atrocities they had gone through, that they
were never able to live a fulfilling life. Why don't we
get to see things from a realistic standpoint? Throw the
ideology out the window. (Sidenote: Why does Tom
Skerritt pick the deck of an aircraft carrier as the place to
hold his important conversations, especially when planes are
taking off? And, how in the hell does he hear so well?)
I can't really think of a good thing about the picture.
I wish I could. Bruce Willis was tolerable, but should
not have even signed up for this flick. After "The
Sixth Sense", "The Whole Nine Yards", and
"Unbreakable", I had hopes that Willis might be
exploding. The came "The Kid" and "Hart's
War". I forgave those with the hope that he might
recover. Then comes "Tears of the Sun".
Looks like Willis is pulling a Travolta. And, with his
next two films being sequels to "Die Hard" and
"The Whole Nine Yards", outlook is not so good.
So, "Tears of the
Sun" brought tears to my eyes. Not because it was
so sad and overwhelming emotionally, but because it was so
mentally tiresome and exhausting. Go rent "We Were
Soldiers". That was a GOOD war movie. Don't
waste your time with this one.
