User reviews

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 movie with a message and an interesting first hour, but contains too many Hollywood clichés to really be something. We start with Lieutenant Waters (Bruce Willis) and his team of SEALS who have to rescue Dr. Lena Kendricks (Monica Bellucci), a priest and two nuns from a missionary post in Nigeria where murdering rebels are about to arrive. The priest and the nuns want to stay, Kendricks only wants to come if the Nigerian refugees can come too. Waters agrees only to leave them behind as soon as Kendricks is on the helicopter. Then, from the helicopter, he witnesses the result of rebels passing by and in an instant he disobeys his orders and turns the helicopter around.

This is the point where the best part of the movie begins. Waters and his team are on their own now, leading the refugees to the border of Cameroon. The way his team not always agrees with his decisions but how they are loyal anyway is one of the interesting things here. Another is the way the movie dares to show the rebels and their actions, things we see parts of on the news in places like Liberia and Sudan. It gives us an impression how hopeless the situation is in some parts of Africa. The distraction here comes from Kendricks who is an obvious Hollywood plot device. She is the possible love interest, or at least the needed female character, and she must annoy Waters by constantly suggesting things that even to her must sound stupid when followed by a lot of rebels. Never mind.

Then the third act starts and the movie fails to deliver what it kind of promised before. Instead of following the dramatic path it changes into the kind of action film Hollywood likes to produce. A lot of gunfire, explosions and bodies flying through the air. That's too bad since an earlier action sequence was able to show both the horrific actions of the rebels and the trained and nuanced way of SEALS dealing with a situation. During that sequence I felt a director (Antoine Fuqua) doing his job the right way, making the movie very intense. He did the same thing for the excellent 'Training Day' from the year before. His third act of 'Tears of the Sun' was sort of like an introduction to his real Hollywood adventure, 'King Arthur'.

Not sure why this one is so poorly rated and reviewed. I understand that Bruce Willis, like Nicholas Cage, seems to be known more for quantity than quality these days but this one is a good display of his persona. The story of soldier and US team designated to extract Monica Belluci from war torn Nigeria. The problems intensify when she refuses to leave without a group of her helpers and patients she knows will be slaughtered by the opposing forces when they attack. Belluci is very good. Willis is in top form. This film is Directed by Anton Fuqua, so you know it is intense and filled with realistic action. There are some heartbreaking moments in this one. I did enjoy it.

The world we live in is a dangerous, unstable place, and nowhere is this more evident than in Africa, the place where many things of our world, AIDS included, are said to originate. Indeed, about the only thing that cannot be found in Africa is oil, which makes American interest in the region difficult to imagine, leave alone explain. So when we are presented with a story about a war in Africa, it only stands to reason that we must ask exactly why we see American soldiers.

Bruce Willis gives a delightfully underacted performance as the leader of an infantry unit sent to retrieve a handful of American citizens. Things get complicated when the primary objective refuses to leave without dozens of her patients. Instead of simply escorting one woman to safe territory, the party winds up in a race to the Cameroon border with one substantial territorial force in pursuit. Exactly why this force pursues them, we don't know until the climactic battles are about to take place, but it works.

Indeed, the actors here are not even noticeable, excepting maybe Tom Skerritt, who looks as if he spent his salary on diet pills. Instead, the sumptuous locations and cinematography, along with the action, are the stars of this film. This is a good old-fashioned action film, in spite of its very relevant story. What makes it stand out is that instead of modern action where nobody can see enough of what is going on for it to matter or make sense, we get our action scenes the old fashioned way. Blood spurts, detailed shots of the guns going off, or weapons striking flesh, are a reality rather than a much lamented unfulfilled requisite.

There are some problems, but they are minor in the grand scheme of things. When one shows fighter planes dropping air-to-surface weapons, it is usually an idea to get those weapons right. Using air-to-air missiles to drop napalm, for example, is not on. At least the dire action films of the 1980s used weapons in a manner that was convincing. The believability of a commanding officer allowing such violations of orders is very difficult to imagine, to say the least. Then again, given that these minor lapses happen once or twice during a two-hour film, this can be overlooked.

I gave Tears Of The Sun a seven out of ten. It's not at the level of a Verhoeven action film, or even a Cameron action film. It is, on the other hand, a good piece of entertainment with a decent and human edge, with sequences that have been competently shot. Which puts it ahead of a lot of films on today's market already.

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. ****

This film was simply incredible. I didn't see it at the cinema, which upon seeing it later on DVD release, regretting missing first time round.

It made some incredibly powerful statements and was very difficult to watch. I rarely admit to this, but I actually found parts of it so moving, that I cried! And I never cry.

The choice of Bruce Willis was a good one and he plays a deeply conflicted character, he plays him with depth. I have seen Monica Belucci in films before. She is an incredibly gifted actress and she really believed in this project. Her character comes across as having strong religious and moral convictions, prepared to die to help and protect others. This comes across in the decisions she takes and the willingness to stand strong under pressure.

Having seen the Documentary on the special features section of the DVD afterwards, I could see the incredible lengths that everyone attached to the filming went to. Each of the actors playing Seal Team members, went through some very authentic training in preparation and stayed in character outside of filming during the day. Given the commitment of all those attached to the film, I can see why the film is what it is.

The director, Antoine Fuqua, from the films I have seen in which he directed, brings a strong moral theme to his characters and the story. The whole visual manner of filming, camera angles, close ups etc adds to the intensity here.

The choice of filter during filming, that gives a subdued and darker feeling visually, was perfect. The use of Africans as extras was an interesting and a suitable choice, given their backgrounds. Many of these extras were showing genuine emotions which was captured on camera, as they relived traumatic moments in their lives when certain scenes were filmed.

On that note, one scene in particular made for very difficult viewing, but totally in context and I would expect it would provoke a strong reaction from viewers, for good reason. The actual combat scenes are kept selectively short and in context to the overall film. They are also very realistic.

The soundtrack was well suited and complimented the whole overall feel to the film. I would not say that this film was entertaining, it is very hard to watch but it is an example of good film that will challenge everyone who watches it and who has a conscience.

After seeing this film, as with Hotel Rwanda and Tears of the Sun, I am constantly reminded of our individual and collective moral responsibilities in the 'civilised Western World' when atrocities are committed. And it sits badly with my conscience that 'we' in the West do so little and so late in trying to stop such genocide from happening. I for one think that every adult should see it.

'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.

Tears of the Sun. A pretty typical actioner which reminded me a little of Navy SEALs, though grittier and more believable. Willis is his usual mostly expressionless self here, yet somehow he manages to get the part of the troubled Lieutenant across very well indeed. The other actors all do their parts well and leave little that makes you frown in their portrayal of hardened special forces personnel. It was nice to see Cole Hauser in this movie. An underrated actor who is only now starting to get decent parts since his role in Pitch Black. Almost makes me want to go and see 2Fast 2Furious to see how he does in that. Almost...

But back to the movie. The plot won't stretch your mind much and the "strange" reason why the rebels pursue the refugees so ardently isn't very hard to guess long before the characters in the story discover it. But the action is plentiful, as is the brutality portrayed. If you like sanitized action movies then this film might upset you a little. It's not for those who think that war is about pushing buttons from hundreds of miles away or that all soldiers carry a copy of the Geneva Convention in their kit and consult it regularly.

But if you like gritty, realistic action movies then this will not disappoint.

And now....a small rant.

Oh dear God! I can't believe some of the truly stupid comments here. The concept that this movie's sole purpose was as a propaganda vehicle to make people feel better about the Iraq conflict is laughable to anyone who has a higher IQ than their shoe size. And as for Hollywood constantly portraying Americans as the great saviours....well why the hell not? Who in God's name wants to go and be depressed watching "the good guys" shoot innocents and ignore suffering. Yeah, that'd do real well at the box office! Movies are meant to entertain and make you feel good, not come out of the theatre wanting to slash your wrists. Jeez! Get a grip you people.

Thank you....end of rant.

Francesco Rosi has made "God has stopped at Eboli". Indeed God may well have. Several people commenting on Tears of the sun mention Burke's quote on evil triumphing if good men do nothing. But to me the most memorable, and most poignant, quote is Willis reply: " God has left Africa a long time ago". I have worked in Africa for 17 years. I can fully understand the sentiment expressed in this reply. I do not want to give up hope, and I have spent some memorably good moments there, but I cannot but help thinking more often than not that Africa has become a basket case. Some of the reasons for this are hinted at in the movie: greed, by the west hungry for oil and minerals and by the corrupted local officials, tribalism, which may be linked to religion although in my experience the tribe comes first, and especially the use of tribalism to foster greed, as in this film.

The carnage shown at the mission and at the village are gripping illustrations of something that has been happening in Africa for ages and certainly will continue for many more years. I can believe the movie is honest in trying to kick us a conscience with these images. They certainly are very powerful. But this honorable intention is marred by 2 things. One: it is packaged into a very mediocre action movie, woodenly acted, with a script full of holes and an unbelievable, but it is Hollywood after all, ending. Two: it is too topical. We are not looking at a universal conflict, the two tribes are not archetypal for THE tribes, no, they are specifically named: Fulani and Ibo in Nigeria, and suggesting the Fulani are monsters and the Ibo innocent slaughtering sheep. Not so. It could easily be the other way around. By giving these very specific topical references, the film compromises severely whatever universal message it might want to make. And presenting the son of a tribal chief as a hero for democracy is delusional.

Related to the topicality: if your film is supposed to take place in south-west Nigeria, the landscape should look the part. I did not believe for one moment that we were in Nigeria. I liked the music, but if it was supposed to bring a sense of Nigeriality across, it failed to do so. On the other hand, it gave a sense of Africa, and as such the music came much closer to illustrate the universality of the movie than did the story.

Still related to topicality but in a different sense: the character of the doctor played by Monica Belluci was very unbelievable, especially if you consider that her husband was killed not that long ago in a similar situation in Sierra Leone. I could easily recognize the priest and the nuns and their desire to stay. I talked to many missionaries who survived the massacres in the Congo in the sixties. What we see in the film comes over as quite realistic. But why does Dr Lena behave the way she does? What is her motivation? How is it possible that she is always yelling: "MY people" as she is only there since a short time and doesn't even speak the language? Psychologically she is totally underdeveloped, and that brings us back to the first problem point.

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).

As usual Bruce Willis gives a remarkable performance supported by a good cast of characters in a suspenseful action thriller with a good screenplay, great direction, and beautiful cinematography. This is heart wrenching story beautifully done with few details to complain about. While the horrors of war and human cruelty are prevalent in this film it presents a lesson for those who are a bit too comfortable not knowing. Hopefully it will lead to more appreciation of the greatness of what our Founding Father's achieved for us by suffering through war during the birth of America. 7/10.

The makers of `Tears of the Sun,' blindfolded, maybe just pointed at a list of African nations in which ethnic cleansing has taken place and landed on Nigeria? Actually Nigeria is as good a country to pick on as any. Rwanda, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe are some other nations they had to choose from. Clearly the makers of `Tears' wanted it to take place in Africa, for noble reasons I'm sure. Hollywood has long ignored the tribal warfare and military horrors of many of its nations.

But I wondered how close what happened in the film is to modern conditions in Nigeria. I thought there had to be a reason they picked it. For one, I think they wanted a jungle nation. That eliminates Ethiopia and Sudan, which are eastern, high and dry nations. As for Rwanda (also not a jungle nation), the U.S. presence there in 1994 is still a source of controversy, with questions about the degree of our involvement or lack of it. Also much of that catastrophe was aired on newscasts throughout the world. It's safe to say that the film's makers, understandably, simply wanted nothing to do with that nation. Then there's Nigeria. What takes place in `Tears," the source of the religion-fueled ethnic cleansing depicted, is a military coup d'etat. The truth? A civilian government exists there today, although parts of Nigeria regularly experience localized civil unrest and violence, including in the country's largest city, Lagos. Clearly what takes place in `Tears,' though, at least the events of the coup itself, are modeled after Rwanda.

The choice to use a real nation is curious indeed. To not do so would seem to indict all of Africa in the minds of those with a narrow world view (surely a good portion of the film's potential audience). I guarantee the film will be the ONLY education many people who see the film will get on that country. It's as if the film's makers are saying, 'Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda--one's as bad as another so it doesn't matter which we use.' As I said at the beginning, if any nation deserves to be picked on in this way, Nigeria fits the bill. The problem is that the reasons behind genocide, in any nation in which it takes place, are much more complex than Muslims (easy targets these days) killing Christians.

In the film, the only body commiting murder in the film are the soldiers. In Nigeria's history, the violence has been largely tribes warring with each other, with the military getting involved and sometimes, according to whom you ask, taking sides. What's happening in the film is basically a very one-sided civil war, which is accurate--but more times than not, it's tribe versus tribe that produces the mass killings. By necessity, the filmmakers must take an overly simplistic view of Nigeria's history of unrest. The film tells of a royal family, democratically elected to office, being assassinated. This, as far as I can see from some researching the subject, never happened in Nigeria. Military dictators were overthrown by other military men, and sometimes the outgoing leader was assassinated. Nothing in the scope of the events told in "Tears," though, ever took place. In fact, Nigeria's current president is a civilian, Olusegun Obasanjo, who was the country's dictator from 1976 to 1979, was replaced by a civilian, then jailed during the administration of Sani Abacha (who ruled from 1993 until dying of a heart attack in 1998). Obasanjo was freed by Abacha's successor, Abdulsalam Abubakar, in 1998. Abubakar, like Obasanjo in his time, transitioned the country to democracy. Obasanjo ran in the elections of 1999 and won.

What eats me about `Tears of the Sun' and other war films like it (`Behind Enemy Lines' comes to mind) is that just once I'd like to feel like I'm not watching an Army propaganda film. Even `Black Hawk Down' had a certain war hawk-lean to it. This is certainly due to the fact that cooperation with US Armed Forces is vital to the production of these films. Agreements are made-certain lines are not to be crossed, certain information not divulged. But a piece like `Tears' not only doesn't cross the line, it comes off like a navy SEAL training video. A scenario like that told of in `Tears' deserves better than the macho fronting, the ‘just doing my job, ma'am' excuses for inexcusable behavior. Surely audiences deserve a better explanation for ethnic cleansing than ‘it is what they do,' as if the Nigerian woman has no idea why the Nigerian soldiers would commit such atrocities. If you're not willing to answer the question yourself, then don't ask it.

I'm sure `Tears of the Sun' is supposed to be about how humanity is impossible to suppress, even for the most hardened soldier. It's hard to believe they would stand and watch the ethnic cleansing take place for even the short time they do before acting. From where I sat, there seemed to be no choice at all. The only thing to decide is how to stop it. See `No Man's Land' for a better picture of how it's impossible to get in the middle of a conflict and stay neutral.

A well made war drama that puts the highlight on humanity. It may not be true to form combat, but the message was heartfelt and the film captivating. The acting was good from the whole cast and the characters had chemistry.

More powerful than you think it will be. Bellucci puts in a memorable performance as well. Definitely a must watch for war/military movie lovers.

"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.

Gave it a go a few years ago, on cable Tv. Yes, not the top war movie but not the worst at all! Raw on human cruelty reality but also delivers a message of hope. Photography is a 9/10. Takes time to the action scenes, but when fight and combat is engaged, oh yeah, you get the action you've been waiting for. Gonna continue to rewatch, nice movie!

Monica Bellucci's character was one of the most irritating characters I've seen this year. How an experienced MD living in the jungle could be this naive is beyond belief. She whines and whines and puts the soldiers at extreme risk. This was just not credible. I can't imagine the soldiers would put up with this in real life. I just kept wishing something would happen to take her out or my misery or someone would just hit her up-aside the head. The priest and nuns were irritating too, but I guess this might really happen; there people can be real naive in real life as well as dedicated. I think Bruce Willis had a real chance for a halfway decent movie and should have vetoed the casting. They actually did a decent job at developing the other military characters, but it was destroyed by her character.

I have done studies on the Militant style terrorists in the jungles of Africa and this is unfortunately how they operate.. its very hard to find them due to how thick these jungles are. They know how to disappear and have spies everywhere to warn them about any operations to come get them. The villages are scared to death of them..

Come on people, this movie was atrocious. I really like Bruce Willis, which is why I rented it, but this was his worst movie and performance ever. I would think someone as big as bruce willis would look at this movie and laugh, he doesnt need the money, come on bruce pick a better script. It immediatly starts cliche with his crew having to go in an a mission and save this hot doctor. Bruce is this tough lutenant, we think, atleast he looks the part, but we have no real investment in him or any of his crew as characters. He could of been shot half way in to it and i wouldn;t of cared. His lines were boring and unfelt, he just walked through the jungle doing his best clint eastwood squint. The first interesting thing comes into the plot about half way through the movie when we find out that the last living member of the presidents family is in the group bruce and his boys are trying to get out. So the movie starts awfull and gets better, unfortunately never better than bad. It goes without saying that the hot doctor is bad too, i dont know her real name, although ive seen her in other flicks, most recently the matrix reloaded, but in this movie she sucks. Its not necesarily her acting, its more due to the writing of the movie that makes her character seem pathetic to me. First of all she always has makeup on, and to draw just a smigeon of belief to this story she should get dirty and nappy with the rest of them. She is too quik to mouth off to bruce and also too quik to warm up to him. I mean she is in a desperate situation, she has to act a little more desperate in the sence that she has to get her and her patients out, instead she always wants to take a break cuz her people are tired. whatever lady, keep moving.