The movie was good untill the last scene where two F/A-18´s came in armed with Air-to-Air ordnance to give air-support.It would have been quite OK if they would have taken their time to get a pair of Hornets with a pair of Maverics instead.I know it´s a tiny detail, but I can´t help comparing this to a fart during the act.yeah. I noticed that too. Hornets with AMRAAMs and sidewinders. Shooting maverics.but.
All the stuff with the SEALs was pretty damn good. Especially when they go in to that village to stop the ethnic cleansing.good story. Good movie.as for a mod of these weapons.
Get Earl's Standard Upgrade. Thats basically it.
Minus the shotgun and LAW's. Edited July 24, 2003 by DWilliams11. Right but my point was that HARMs are air to ground and they look and awful lot like AAM.BTW.Hornets only carry AIM-9s on the wingtips and they always carry them on missions.There really isnt much difference as far design between the AIM120, AIM7. Mostly dimension wise and capabilitys.If you want to get technical, then you wouldnt fire mavericks at personal, either.
Mavericks are used for moving armour such as tanks.LOL.you dont think I know this stuff, SC? Im hopefully going to be flying those in a few years. That is unless they ship me off to Helos like most people these days.I understand the point that it was a little odd seeing Hornets fire something like that, but cmon.its just a movie. All that first screen is is blackness.
The point I was trying to get across here is that their are Ag weapons that look like AAM. I guess I should have kept my mouth shut though.I also talked about the mavericks in my post.@Incubus,I was under the impression that fleet hornets still dont carry AIM120's on their wingtips due to forces during traps. I have heard of ordinance actually coming off of the wingtips and pylons due to trapping.@TollenI already got accepted into the Navy's flight program. I would rather be a windguzzler then a ground pounder anyday. Tollen, look very closely at the fins on the missile from the movie.
It slopes back at approx. 30 degrees, then angles at 15 degrees. Whereas in your pic of the AMRAAMs, the fins are a constant 50 degrees. Those are HARMs in the movie. Also note the size of the missiles; if you look at where the rear of the movie's missiles are, they extent nearly to the back of the wing, under the flaps. HARMs are approx. 164 inches long, AMRAAMs are only 144 - that's almost 2 feet longer.
Trust me, I know my airplanes and ordinances; those are AGM-88s.Blakeness, the Marine Corps flies Hornets with wingtip AMRAAMs. I have a poster of one sitting in my office. Not all Hornets are deployed on carriers at all times.
Congrats on being accepted into the flight program, good luck, and do your best to let the Air Force know who the best pilots really are. I know the UN doesn't like it being used.but nothing beats napalm for soft targets.' I love the smell of napalm in the morning!' Smells like victory!' Tollen, don't sweat it. I'm sure the guy directing the movie didn't know what it was.I really wish directors and producers would do their job and research the stuff they are portraying in these movies.
Jerry Bruckheimer (Black Hawk Down) and Steven Speilberg (Saving Private Ryan) seem to be the only two that did this. And even they got a few details wrong. Oh well, thats just Hollywood. At least the movies are fun to watch.
TEARS OF THE SUN - Movie Production Notes.CinemaReview.comAbout The ProductionThe task of trainingthe cast to effectively portray the Navy SEAL heroes in Tears of the Sunfell to Navy veteran and military technical advisor Harry Humphries, who spentsixteen years as a Navy SEAL. During his decorated career with the Navy, heserved as both a SEAL operator and a Provincial Reconnaissance Unit Advisor withthe Phoenix Program's Counter Terrorist Unit. As he had done in several othermilitary-themed movies over the past decade ( Black Hawk Down, G.I. Jane),Humphries put together a regimen to whip the film's eight male stars intoshape to accurately portray Navy SEALs and weather the grueling conditions inwhich the film would be shot.' We had anexcellent group led by Bruce Willis,' Humphries reports.
'We weregiven two weeks to concentrate on the specific skills required for thisparticular project. Whatever they were going to use in the film - weapons,tactics, combat techniques - by the time they finished their two weekstraining, they knew how to do it inside-and-out.' On location in Hawaii,the actors started off the day with two hours of boot camp and rigorous physicaltraining and then embarked on maneuvers to learn the specifics on how tofunction as a team. Both on and off camera, the actors remained in character,addressing each other by their character names.' This kind of filmwas something I'd wanted to do for a long time,' Humphries adds. 'Toshow that SEALs are not just machines.
They're human beings. I want theaudience to see what SEALs really are, how professional they really are.
And howhuman they are.' In addition to dailyexercises, Willis and his co-stars visited the Marine Corps Base Hawaii (MCBH)at Kaneohe Bay for weapons demonstrations and handling instructions.
(One memberof the acting team, screen newcomer Charles Ingram was the real McCoy, a formerForce Recon Marine with more than four years of military service. The role ofDemetrius 'Silk' Owens marks his dramatic acting debut after breakinginto the entertainment business as a stuntman on Black Hawk Down and TheMatrix Reloaded).' Harry Humphriesbrought a great deal of authenticity to the film,' remarks producer IanBryce. 'He taught them all the military movements and the language.
He alsocoordinated our activities with the Department of Defense. Tears of the Sunis the first movie about Navy SEALs to receive the full cooperation andendorsement of the United States Navy and Department of Defense. It was crucialto our story to have the military on board. From the very start they helped uswith the proper terminology and behavior. We were given access to such hardwareas Navy Sea Hawks, Army Black Hawks and F-18s.
We also received permission tofilm aboard an active nuclear aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Harry S.Truman.' Before settling onHawaii, veteran location manager Liz Matthews scoured the globe looking for theperfect spot to represent equatorial Africa. She scouted sites as diverse asMozambique, South Carolina, Florida, Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, Australia and NewZealand.
When the decision was made to keep the production inside the U.S.,Hawaii was chosen, according to production designer Naomi Shohan, 'becauseof the similarities in climate and elevation. The rain forest and the generalfoliage in Hawaii are an excellent match for the African rain forest.' Your Comments and Suggestions are Always Welcome.© 2019 4®, All Rights Reserved.
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. 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.
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). 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. 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. 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.
Get a grip you people. Thank you.end of rant. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The is a solid 'war' movie with U.S. Navy Seals, led by Bruce Willis, rescuing an American doctor and 70 of her patients from war-torn Nigeria. This is violent and bloody n parts but definitely not another 'Blackhawk Down' with overdone violence (although I liked Blackhawk Down). This is beautifully-filmed, artistic in spots.
I imagine this would look super on HD with a big plasma TV. The sound is excellent, too. Critics didn't like this movie. I suspect one big reason is that they are used to seeing films in which Christians are shown as sympathetic victims of persecution. Critics also don't like to see the right thing being exalted. Willis is perfect for this role as the strong, stone-faced leader. Monica Bellucci could have been a little more likable as the doctor.
The story gets a little too melodramatic at the end, but it's tolerable. This is not a family film by any means, because of the violence, perhaps 20 f- words and a dozen abuses of the Lord's name in vain. Still, an interesting movie with a different slant, and at least has a noble message.
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. 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. Having just seen 'Tears of the Sun' I can understand why certain left-wing liberal reviewers ripped it. Here are the reasons: 1.
It honestly and correctly showed Muslim Fulanis in Nigeria massacring and slaughtering Christian blacks. It correctly showed the U.S. Military as good guys taking action against evil. It correctly showed the 'the only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing' - a clear reference to al-Qaeda, terrorism, and Iraq in 2003.
The PC liberal America-haters and Hollywood degenerates and Communists will hate this film. But I thought it superb.
In the tradition of many films such as 'Operation: Burma', 'Distant Drums', 'Predator', and many others, an elite team goes on a mission behind enemy lines and has to march out fighting along the way. Willis' team was sent to rescue some white missionaries and a doctor in Nigeria being threatened by Muslim ethnic Fulanis who were massacring the Christian Ibo. The missionaries, typically, won't leave, and the good-looking female doctor, Monica Bellucci, with shirt conveniently unbuttoned at the top, will not leave without her patients, those who can walk. But there is a crucial secret about this she tells no one, endangering the entire mission - some the refugees are not what they seem. But the epiphany for Willis' character is seeing the massacred mission they just left, that after having lied to the doctor and abandoned her refugees and patients while flying away on helicopters. Exactly WHY Willis he has this epiphany, this revelation, to GO BACK in violation of orders to rescue these refugees, is never fully explained: he himself said 'I'm trying to figure it out'. Perhaps it doesn't even matter - what matters is he DID take a moral and humane course.
They continue the march out of Nigeria heading towards the Cameroon border, all the while being suspiciously tracked all too easily by pursuing Fulanis, who for some reason seem very determined to stop them. Again, one of the refugees is not what he seems. After the climactic fight upon reaching Cameroon, the film ends with the famous Edmund Burke quote, 'The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing'. President Bush is NOT going to 'do nothing' about Saddam Hussein, and that is why liberal reviewers feel so uncomfortable with this movie. The gore was much less than 'Blackhawk Down', although some atrocities are referred to, but not shown in great detail. Some younger teenagers could see this, but I doubt if they'd appreciate the moral dilemma facing the Willis' character and his men: obey orders and abandon innocent people to certain horrible death, or, take action and do what is necessary. For those interested, there was also a lot less military hardware on display here.
My complaints were minor. Eastern Nigeria looked a bit too much like Hawaii, which is where it was filmed. Willis was slightly too laconic, but good enough. One American character was an obligatory black man making reference to 'my people'. Entertaining and compelling all the way. With a message very relevant for the world in 2003 - a cowardly world willing to do nothing about terrorists and mass murderers.
You can also be sure the Hollywood liberal America-haters will despise this movie. It's not hard to see why John Woo was attached to this project for a while - it has a lot of similarities to his earlier (and underrated) movie HEROES SHED NO TEARS. (The intense climax, in fact, feels extremely John Woo-ish.) I can only wonder what it would have been like had he been in control. Though considering the general quality of his American movies, maybe that might not have been a good thing.
Anyway, the movie as it is ends up being not bad. It's paced pretty well, and even though there's not that many action scenes (though they are all well-staged), it's never boring, and that fact will be enough for most people. The biggest weakness is that the characters are not very strong - Willis' character hardly says that much and you don't get a feel for his character, Bellucci's statements and actions eventually resemble that of a broken record, and the rebel commander pursuing the protagonists is given no personality at all. But if you are looking for more for jungle action, look for HEROES SHED NO TEARS. And if you are looking more for this kind of thing with more of a human element (though no less exciting) to it, seek the equally underrated DARK OF THE SUN. Seemed to have missed this Bruce Willis film and I was completely taken by surprise with the plot of the film, the photography and the great acting and action scenes are beyond words. Bruce Willis (Lt.
Waters),'Bandits','01, is assigned a mission and decides to complete the mission just the way he wants to and disregards his orders from his Commanding Officer. Waters does however, rescue Monica Bellucci(Dr. Lena Fiore Kendricks), ' The Passion of the Christ','04, and Lt. Waters does not seem to get along with her wants and desires. Lena Kendricks asks for an entire village of poor sick people be taken on helicopters to avoid brutality and rape from Terrorists. There are very graphic scenes that does not leave much to your imagination and sparks and passion does seem to occur between Lt. Waters and Dr.
In order to enjoy this film, be patient with the beginning and stay with the film, you definitely will enjoy the entire picture. 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. 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.
Although a film with Bruce Willis is always worth watching, you better skip this one. I watched this one on television, so I didn't have to plunk down cash for it. The plot develops slowly, very slowly. Although the first 30 minutes or so are quite believable, it gets more and more unbelievable towards the end. It is highly questionable, if a seasoned soldier like Lt.
Waters would disobey direct orders. And even if he would, if the rest of his platoon would.
They know he puts them in direct danger, and they know they will certainly die if they follow him, but what the heck, he is our Lt. So let's do what he says (despite the direct orders, remember). Still, there are some nice scenes in this movie. They somewhat save a village, where the total population is being massacred by the rebels. Well, they save a dozen villagers or so, the rest was already killed.
The strange part of it, that they did take the trucks which the rebels left behind. They rather go on foot. Maybe because the roads are unsafe, but there was no explanation for it.
I think this was what earned the movie the one point I gave it. What made this movie an insult to the brain and hence completely unbelievable is that a group of 7 soldiers can kill of so many rebels without being hurt or killed themselves. Only near the end they loose a few comrades.
And that is only because they have to fight of an army of nearly 500 or more. Can you believe that? They fight of an army of so many, kill hundreds of them, and only loose a few of themselves.
And they have rounds and round of ammo. Never run out of it.
Grenades and claymore mines, an M60 machine gun and even an RPG. Where do they get this stuff. Carrying it around or what? They even got a laptop which shows them the activity of enemy rebels.
And this laptop has a battery which goes on for days. Who think up this crap.
I guess if you turn off your brain completely and accept that the rebels are a bunch of idiots, you give this movie a high rating. If not, skip this one. It saves you time. The story, and particularly the ending is the worst type of Hollywood sentimentalist junk.
Since the film is so consistently trying to manipulate the viewer, many scenes become quite predictable (especially when various Americans get shot; you could pinpoint some of those to within +/- 2 seconds). The use of string music to push people's buttons - please be sad here - is more obvious than usual.
It all becomes quite boring. Any why is it so hard to produce a film with believable Africans? As usual in American films, most of the time they react and behave like black Americans. I guess that had more to do with the script than the actors, since many of them seemed to be Nigerian immigrants. Having said all that, the art direction was very good and most of the sets had a quite African feel to them. 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. 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. 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'm always flipping through channels for a good action flick. I remembered seeing a preview for this when I was at the movies but never decided to go see it.
A couple of months ago STARZ showed it and I was surprised. There was no hype, no support, and really no appreciating reviews that I read or saw. But I watched it. As civil war rages in the African country of Nigeria. Citizens are stuck in the war-torn country and Special-Op soldiers under the command of Lt. A.K Waters (Bruce Willis) is sent in to retrieve the American doctor Lena Fiore Kendricks (Monica Bellucci). After arriving at her clinic she refuses to leave unless 70 refugees are taken to safe haven with them.
Water's, a fiercely loyal man decides that the only way to complete the mission is to save them too. Now it is a race across the Nigerian jungle with ruthless rebels chasing them. I'm still not sure if this is based on actual events, I know that many countries in Africa have gone through civil war but I'm not sure about this. Bruce Willis' character develops through the duration of the movie from a hardened soldier to a complex, caring character focused on saving the refugees.
Monica Bellucci is making a name for herself with this, The Passion of the Christ (2004) and both matrix sequels (2003-2004). The movie did not receive what it deserved. This could probably be considered the predecessor of Hotel Rwanda (2004) focusing on the same subject of genocide.
The film is slow at some parts but the amazing battle scenes held in the forest and the representation of cruelty of the rebels keep the movie going. Some scenes are hard to endure, the slaughter of an entire village including the children and babies. Bombs incinerating refugees as the run from the rebels. The movie doesn't stray from its point and the ignoring of the world toward the civil wars raging in Africa (currently Sudan). Tears of the Sun.
Starring: Bruce Willis, Monica Bellucci, Cole Hauser, Eamonn Walker, Tom Skerritt, and Mick Chinlund. 4 1/2 out of 5 Stars. 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. I saw this movie when it first came out on theaters and after that I bought it and added it to my collection.
This is by far one of the best military movies ever. Good story and good acting deliver a touching message regarding the cruelty of ethnic cleansing, and remind us that all too often force has to be met with force. One of the details that make this flick so different is the military aspect of it. Forget 'Navy SEALs', Missing in Action', 'U.S. SEALs' and all those other special operation based movies.
This film is as close as you will ever get to seeing a real SEAL team in action. You will get special warfare eye candy when the team does a stealthy assault on a village where some killing is underway. The way they move, how they attach suppressors without being told to, the tactics they use, the way they deploy to cover a large area with only eight men, the actual procedure of 'peeling off' (retreating) later in the movie, and many other small details, are the closest I've ever seen that shows the general public what a deadly machine a real life SEAL team is. I give it the highest score. If you want to enjoy a good action movie with depth, that is actually believable, check this one out. You'll be wondering if is based on actual events.
Humphries (right) with c.2002Born( 1940-11-17) November 17, 1940 (age 78)Kearny,AllegianceService/ branchYears of service1958–1971RankBattles/warsAwardsOther workOwner/Operator of Global Studies Group Inc., Owner/Operator of International Security Solutions LLC, consultant/advisor, actorHarry R. Humphries (born November 17, 1940) is a former who currently works as a consultant and actor on Hollywood films. After graduating from Admiral Farragut Academy and attending Rutgers University in New Jersey, Humphries joined the Navy, where he was assigned to UDT 22 and SEAL Team 2. In 1971, Humphries left the Navy with an. After a career with Henkel KGaA, the German Multi National Chemical Company, he moved to California where he started Global Study Group, Inc. Humphries currently resides in where he works full-time as a Security Consultant and Entertainment Technical Adviser/Actor.
Contents.Military career Soon after joining the Navy, Humphries completed (Underwater Demolition Team Replacement) Class 29 and graduated as Honor man. This was before was created. After working with for some time in 1965 to 1967, Humphries volunteered for and was accepted into SEAL Team Two alongside, who would later in life go on to write best selling book, an autobiographical account of his life in the Navy (Humphries is mentioned numerous times throughout the book).
Humphries was involved in over 200 combat missions and served two tours in, first as a member of Eight Platoon, SEAL Team TWO under Lt Marcinko, and then later as a 'PRU Advisor' with 's unit. It was during this second tour of duty when he was severely wounded. One of Humphries' most famous operations was during the when he and other SEALs drove into to rescue medical personnel trapped in a crossfire. It was for this action that Humphries was awarded a. In 1969, after being promoted to, Harry Humphries left the Navy. GSGI (Global Study Group Inc.) Tactical While GSGI mostly works within the film industry, they formerly offered training to police and military units. Humphries was a tactical instructor with the Advanced HRT Instructors program at and at near.
He participated in the program. He still does some training for Law Enforcement, Military and qualified civilians. Consulting With GSGI, Humphries has for the last few years focused on consulting for Hollywood movies.
Humphries acts as tactical consultant/advisor, technical advisor, script consultant, military advisor, stuntman and producer. Humphries has worked with numerous directors on many different movies. He has done several movies with,. He has also worked with other well-known directors such as.
^ Waterman, Steve. 'Brown Water to Silver Screen: Story & Photos'. Soldier of Fortune Magazine,54–57, 67–69. July 1997. Roat, John Carl (December 10, 2008). New York: Random House Publishing Group. P. 221.
^; Weisman (1999). The Real Team.
New York: Pocket. (February 28, 2011). 'The Shooting Schools'. Iola, Wisconsin: Gun Digest Books. Pp. 77–80. Murray, Kenneth R. (January 1, 2004).
Armiger Publications. P. 73. Raw, Laurence (September 28, 2009). Scarecrow Press.
Pp. 133–135. (December 1, 2005). Simon and Schuster. P. 188. ^ Nolan, Ken; (March 25, 2002). Newmarket Press.
P. 159. ^ Rubin, Steven Jay (January 1, 1981). P. 253. Brown, Robert K. (July 12, 2013). Boulder: Casemate. P. 309.
Silverstein, Ken; Burton-Rose, Daniel (2001). Pp. 154–155.External links. on.
M4a1 Guns In Movies
Navy SEAL Lieutenant A.K. Waters and his elite squadron of tactical specialists are forced to choose between their duty and their humanity, between following orders by ignoring the conflict that surrounds them, or finding the courage to follow their conscience and protect a group of innocent refugees. When the democratic government of Nigeria collapses and the country is taken over by a ruthless military dictator, Waters, a fiercely loyal and hardened veteran is dispatched on a routine mission to retrieve a Doctors Without Borders physician, Dr.
Lena Kendricks. Kendricks, an American citizen by marriage, is tending to the victims of the ongoing civil war at a Catholic mission in a remote village.
When Waters arrives, however, Dr. Kendricks refuses to leave unless he promises to help deliver the villagers to political asylum at the nearby border. If they are left behind, they will be at the mercy of the enormous rebel army. Waters is under strict orders from his commanding officer. Quotes first linesFemale news reader: voiceoverThe tension that had been brewing for months in Nigeria exploded yesterday as exiled General Mustafa Yakubu orchestrated a swift and violent coup against the democratically elected government of President Samuel Azuka.
In a land with 120 million people and over 250 ethnic groups, there'd been a long-standing history of ethnic enmity, particularly between the Fulani Moslems in the north and Christian Ibo in the south. The victorious Fulani rebels have taken to the streets.». 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.
Tears Of The Sun Weapons Full
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.