I can see why some people kinda hate this movie. It's a drama that could've been made for TV. It shows American soldiers returning back home and not their victims life and/or point of view. But the movie doesn't try to make a political statement about the war, it does however try (and achieve to a certain extent imho) to show us the tragic (after)life of a soldier. Yes Flags of our Fathers (C. Eastwood) is a better/superior picture in that respect, but that doesn't mean that Home of the Brave isn't at least good! While there is no full attack on/against the war (excuse the pun), certain moments do criticize the events. What really made this movie watchable for me, were the actors. The main actors did a good job conveying their trauma, fear and rage. While that might not be enough for many people, I did like what I saw. I liked the movie and the discussions here show that it affects people (even if it is in a bad way) and they keep talking about it. Although some conversations go to far, this only adds to the attraction/appealing of the movie ... whether you like it or not!
98 Reviews
Brave film about journeys to Iraq and back
janos4518 December 2006
Irwin Winkler's "Home of the Brave" is much more than "just a movie," even if, as such, it's a partially flawed one. It is, without question, an important, thought- and emotion-provoking film, certain to be controversial.
Regardless of its merits, "Home" is brave, worthwhile, even admirable in its pioneering coverage of 150,000 soldiers "over there," and roughly the same number of returnees, who are trying to return in fact, not only in name.
This story of a group of National Guard soldiers from Spokane serving in Iraq and returning home is a schizophrenic experience: you are watching scenes straight out of last night's TV news, and yet feel as if you were back in the 1940s, in the era of "The Best Years of Our Lives" war movies, and the 1970s "Born on the Fourth of July" type Vietnam veteran sagas.
Given the subject, it's to Winkler's credit that "Home of the Brave" (a confusing title choice, considering the many movies with that name) remains firmly neutral about the current debate central to all politics. The film portrays both the support for and the opposition to the war, but favors neither. Winkler (producer for 40 years, including "Rocky" II-VI) sticks with characters in the context of the war, not making mouthpieces of them for or against a cause.
Mouthpieces, no; cardboard figures, some. Writing (by Mark Friedman) and acting are fair-to-problematic. The overemotional writing and excessively melodramatic acting combine to present a drama of extremes, denying the existence of true majority response to trauma: simple coping. Murder, suicide, insanity do occur in postwar situations, but most people, in my own experience, deal with such problems - more or less successfully - and go on with their lives.
In "Home of the Brave," you find no such "middle of the road," only extremes. After suspenseful (and depressing) Iraqi war scenes, shot in Morocco by Tony Pierce-Roberts, in a remarkably focused way that allows rare visual clarity in the midst of combat confusion, the film shifts to Spokane.
There, we follow - among many others - the lives of a combat surgeon (Samuel L. Jackson), a driver who loses an arm (Jessica Biel), three high-school buddies with intertwining stories (Chad Michael Murray, Brian Presley, and rap star 50 Cent). There are some quiet moments and reality-based situations, but the constant high-voltage !DRAMA! reveals and partially invalidates a manipulative hand pulling the (heart) strings.
Regardless of its merits, "Home" is brave, worthwhile, even admirable in its pioneering coverage of 150,000 soldiers "over there," and roughly the same number of returnees, who are trying to return in fact, not only in name.
This story of a group of National Guard soldiers from Spokane serving in Iraq and returning home is a schizophrenic experience: you are watching scenes straight out of last night's TV news, and yet feel as if you were back in the 1940s, in the era of "The Best Years of Our Lives" war movies, and the 1970s "Born on the Fourth of July" type Vietnam veteran sagas.
Given the subject, it's to Winkler's credit that "Home of the Brave" (a confusing title choice, considering the many movies with that name) remains firmly neutral about the current debate central to all politics. The film portrays both the support for and the opposition to the war, but favors neither. Winkler (producer for 40 years, including "Rocky" II-VI) sticks with characters in the context of the war, not making mouthpieces of them for or against a cause.
Mouthpieces, no; cardboard figures, some. Writing (by Mark Friedman) and acting are fair-to-problematic. The overemotional writing and excessively melodramatic acting combine to present a drama of extremes, denying the existence of true majority response to trauma: simple coping. Murder, suicide, insanity do occur in postwar situations, but most people, in my own experience, deal with such problems - more or less successfully - and go on with their lives.
In "Home of the Brave," you find no such "middle of the road," only extremes. After suspenseful (and depressing) Iraqi war scenes, shot in Morocco by Tony Pierce-Roberts, in a remarkably focused way that allows rare visual clarity in the midst of combat confusion, the film shifts to Spokane.
There, we follow - among many others - the lives of a combat surgeon (Samuel L. Jackson), a driver who loses an arm (Jessica Biel), three high-school buddies with intertwining stories (Chad Michael Murray, Brian Presley, and rap star 50 Cent). There are some quiet moments and reality-based situations, but the constant high-voltage !DRAMA! reveals and partially invalidates a manipulative hand pulling the (heart) strings.
You Have a Problem Which Is So Poorly Defined We Can't Help You
boblipton5 November 2021
Four soldiers return from the Middle East to discover that they can't make the adjustment to fat, peaceful civilian life as easily as they thought they would.
One of my favorite George Carlin routines -- in an intellectually-funny-and-true way -- is how we take strong, simple words, and substitute long, soft phrases that mean very little. The example he used was how the World War One phrase "shell shock", which is simple, graphic, and clear, became the longer and softer "combat fatigue" in the Second World War, and finally "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder", which is so bloodless and vague it can be used to apply to what happens after any unhappy event. And so we lose the ability to identify and deal with shell shock. When the aftermath of days of constant war is described in the same way as a bruise on the arm, you can treat neither the readjustment to peace, nor a bruise.
That's what this movie is about. Four veterans are left to struggle on their own mid loving family who have no idea what's going on: Samuel J. Jackson, Jessica Biel, Brian Presley, and Curtis Jackson. They all give good performances.
One of my favorite George Carlin routines -- in an intellectually-funny-and-true way -- is how we take strong, simple words, and substitute long, soft phrases that mean very little. The example he used was how the World War One phrase "shell shock", which is simple, graphic, and clear, became the longer and softer "combat fatigue" in the Second World War, and finally "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder", which is so bloodless and vague it can be used to apply to what happens after any unhappy event. And so we lose the ability to identify and deal with shell shock. When the aftermath of days of constant war is described in the same way as a bruise on the arm, you can treat neither the readjustment to peace, nor a bruise.
That's what this movie is about. Four veterans are left to struggle on their own mid loving family who have no idea what's going on: Samuel J. Jackson, Jessica Biel, Brian Presley, and Curtis Jackson. They all give good performances.
Thought provoking, gripping and touching
Gordon-1127 May 2007
This film is about how soldiers who served in Iraq face life back in their hometown.
The striking thing is that this film focuses on the emotional impact on the returning soldiers, and the people around them. The dialogs are raw, truthful and at times politically provocative. The portrayal of post traumatic stress disorder is subtle but palpable, and Jessica Biel's performance of a tough woman to hide her pains of losing her hand is astonishingly well acted.
I do not see this as an anti-war vehicle. Rather, it serves as a reminder of how wars affect the soldiers, and then make us think hard whether such a war was necessary in the first place. I am the most impressed by the filmmakers decision on making this movie, as the predominant climate in America is against them.
The striking thing is that this film focuses on the emotional impact on the returning soldiers, and the people around them. The dialogs are raw, truthful and at times politically provocative. The portrayal of post traumatic stress disorder is subtle but palpable, and Jessica Biel's performance of a tough woman to hide her pains of losing her hand is astonishingly well acted.
I do not see this as an anti-war vehicle. Rather, it serves as a reminder of how wars affect the soldiers, and then make us think hard whether such a war was necessary in the first place. I am the most impressed by the filmmakers decision on making this movie, as the predominant climate in America is against them.
Good overall
creativehistorygirl14 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I am glad that I had the opportunity to go to an advanced screening of this film. It was a good show overall.
Some folks have complained about overacting, but people coping with trauma/post trauma in real life overact. They do not not behave like society expects in that little box that is deemed 'normal.' It also allowed for the movie to not have a tidy Hollywood ending where everyone lives happily ever after. I felt that the characters were much more believable that way.
Samuel L. Jackson's performance was particularly strong when his character arrived late to thanksgiving dinner with his guests. Victoria Rowell was a solid counterbalance to his character throughout the entire piece as well. It would have been nice to see the roles by 50 Cent and Brian Presley switched as it would have gone against typecasting.
The biggest weakness I felt the film had was such a strong reliance on flashbacks, but they make sense for the way that the story is structured.
I also found it humorous that a Judith Krantz or was it a Susan Brown book is in a doctor's office where medical reference books should be. This appears later in the movie.
This film does not try to tackle whether the Iraqi war is right or wrong. It only asks the question as it shows viewers the aftermath of its impact on an individual level.
Some folks have complained about overacting, but people coping with trauma/post trauma in real life overact. They do not not behave like society expects in that little box that is deemed 'normal.' It also allowed for the movie to not have a tidy Hollywood ending where everyone lives happily ever after. I felt that the characters were much more believable that way.
Samuel L. Jackson's performance was particularly strong when his character arrived late to thanksgiving dinner with his guests. Victoria Rowell was a solid counterbalance to his character throughout the entire piece as well. It would have been nice to see the roles by 50 Cent and Brian Presley switched as it would have gone against typecasting.
The biggest weakness I felt the film had was such a strong reliance on flashbacks, but they make sense for the way that the story is structured.
I also found it humorous that a Judith Krantz or was it a Susan Brown book is in a doctor's office where medical reference books should be. This appears later in the movie.
This film does not try to tackle whether the Iraqi war is right or wrong. It only asks the question as it shows viewers the aftermath of its impact on an individual level.
sincere but may be too sincere
SnoopyStyle22 May 2016
After getting notice that they're soon going home, an American unit gets ambushed in Iraq. Will Marsh (Samuel L. Jackson) leads the drivers. Single mom Vanessa Price (Jessica Biel) survives a blast but loses her hand. Tommy Yates (Brian Presley) holds his dying best friend Owens in his arms. Jamal Aiken (50 Cent) gets hurts tripping over some bricks. They return to Spokane. Surgeon Marsh is dealing PTSD and his anti-war son Billy. Yates loses his job. Price deals with her hand and angry Aiken is haunted by killing a civilian.
The opening action scenes contain both the good and the bad of this movie. It does some compelling action. It's got good intensity. Then this ends in one of the most old-fashion melodramatic overwrought-music cry-holding-dying-buddy scene possible. That is the pull-push of this movie. It is sincere in its portrayal of the home front but it is also very on-the-nose. It's got good intentions. Everybody is acting well. It does need to pull back the melodrama.
The opening action scenes contain both the good and the bad of this movie. It does some compelling action. It's got good intensity. Then this ends in one of the most old-fashion melodramatic overwrought-music cry-holding-dying-buddy scene possible. That is the pull-push of this movie. It is sincere in its portrayal of the home front but it is also very on-the-nose. It's got good intentions. Everybody is acting well. It does need to pull back the melodrama.
A veteran's perspective
antiotter11 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I probably have a different point of view than most reviews, being an actual Iraq War veteran.
This movie is quite terrible from the start. A bizarrely organized Washington National Guard unit is caught an ambush. Unfortunately, it's so patently obviously they're being herded into a kill zone, and they do absolutely nothing to prevent it, that it's difficult to feel sympathy for anyone dumb enough to allow themselves to get trapped that easily. It gets even more absurd as a fire team of four guys decides to abandon their vehicles and run blindly into a numerically superior force with overwhelming firepower. Again, my response was "serves you idiots right" when someone gets killed.
The three main characters are Lt. Col. Marsh, a medical officer; Sgt Price, a female mechanic; and two enlisted infantrymen, Yates and Jamal. Yes, they all ended up in the same ambush. Don't ask.
Marsh hits the bottle and clashes with his rebellious anti-war son, culminating in an unintentionally hilarious drunken Thanksgiving scene.
Price loses a hand to an IED, and she becomes a bitter and angry at the world.
Jamal is just angry, and his mumbling is nearly unintelligible. He flips out at a group therapy session, complete with a random appearance by a grizzled Vietnam veteran. Don't ask.
Yates is supposed to be the emotional center of this film, but between his limited acting ability and the poorly written script, you just want him to stop whining. His civilian employer blatantly violates the federal USERRA law, and his response is to do nothing. He even gives the cheesy "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE OVER THERE, MAN!" speech.
What little suspension of disbelief is frequently broken by the poor production values, lack of research, and training. None of the actors look remotely comfortable holding a weapon, wearing a uniform (the berets in particular look ridiculous), or doing anything even remotely military-related. Random military jargon is thrown into the dialogue, even if it is completely out of place, or totally nonsensical in context.
The main problem is none of the characters have a realistic character arc. They go from damaged to whole again for little or no reason. It's like going from A to C with no B.
This movie is quite terrible from the start. A bizarrely organized Washington National Guard unit is caught an ambush. Unfortunately, it's so patently obviously they're being herded into a kill zone, and they do absolutely nothing to prevent it, that it's difficult to feel sympathy for anyone dumb enough to allow themselves to get trapped that easily. It gets even more absurd as a fire team of four guys decides to abandon their vehicles and run blindly into a numerically superior force with overwhelming firepower. Again, my response was "serves you idiots right" when someone gets killed.
The three main characters are Lt. Col. Marsh, a medical officer; Sgt Price, a female mechanic; and two enlisted infantrymen, Yates and Jamal. Yes, they all ended up in the same ambush. Don't ask.
Marsh hits the bottle and clashes with his rebellious anti-war son, culminating in an unintentionally hilarious drunken Thanksgiving scene.
Price loses a hand to an IED, and she becomes a bitter and angry at the world.
Jamal is just angry, and his mumbling is nearly unintelligible. He flips out at a group therapy session, complete with a random appearance by a grizzled Vietnam veteran. Don't ask.
Yates is supposed to be the emotional center of this film, but between his limited acting ability and the poorly written script, you just want him to stop whining. His civilian employer blatantly violates the federal USERRA law, and his response is to do nothing. He even gives the cheesy "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE OVER THERE, MAN!" speech.
What little suspension of disbelief is frequently broken by the poor production values, lack of research, and training. None of the actors look remotely comfortable holding a weapon, wearing a uniform (the berets in particular look ridiculous), or doing anything even remotely military-related. Random military jargon is thrown into the dialogue, even if it is completely out of place, or totally nonsensical in context.
The main problem is none of the characters have a realistic character arc. They go from damaged to whole again for little or no reason. It's like going from A to C with no B.
Flawed, But Actually Quite Good
leonardshelby17-124 October 2007
I'm not for the war in the Iraq, and I certainly haven't wanted to see the string of many Iraq films coming out in the last year. Home Of The Brave really stood out for some reason, but since it failed in limited release last Christmas, and then again this summer when it tried a second release, it never did come to theaters locally. So I waited for the DVD, which I just finished moments ago. The film got bashed across the board, and obviously nobody else wanted to see it, from looking at it's box office take. I was somehow still compelled to watch it, and just like I hoped, it was actually quite good. However, it is very flawed, and it probably could have been a lot better as an HBO miniseries, cause the story feels way too rushed. You're introduced to these characters, most of which, I cared about. Even 50 Cent, who people here have HUGE issues with, played a character that I believed could be realistically that conflicted. Which makes it a pretty good performance to be able to do that. The film does have it's clichés, and it does get rather preachy at times. There's one scene in particular, which takes place in a movie theater, that goes a little bit over the top, where it becomes very obvious that the writer really had strong opinions to give out, which sort of took away a bit of the reality. It didn't seem to have a clear opinion on how it felt about the war, but I think that was probably the point. I'm generally not into war films, but besides the obvious war scenes, it's hard to call it a war film, cause really, it's a character study about how people who'd be heroes to a few, but to everyone else they are just another man or woman, trying to live their life. I really enjoyed this film.
Horrifyingly incompetent butchering of an important topic
Eat128 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Poor Tommy Yates (Brian Presley), one of the heroes of the Iraq war drama Home of the Brave, has fallen so far after his return home that the best job he can get is (shudder) working the box office at a movie theatre. He runs into Vanessa (Jessica Biel), who was hurt in the attack that killed his best friend, at the movie theatre; they chat about how hard it has been to adjust. Tommy notes that he sells "stupid tickets to these stupid movies," but he never goes to see them, because they "seem so unimportant."
There are no other scenes at Tommy's place of employmenthe could work at any number of low-paying menial jobs. But screenwriter Mark Friedman works in that little piece of commentary to congratulate both himself and the viewer; the film you're watching is not like all those other "stupid movies," you see. It's important. The problem is that Home of the Brave is an execrable film, so poorly made and obvious that it is impossible to take seriously, no matter how earnest and noble the intentions. A bad film is a bad film, whether it concerns serious topics or not.
Most bad films can be blamed squarely on the scriptand this one's a doozybut Home of the Brave is incompetent on every level: bad writing, bad directing, bad music, bad editing, and mostly bad performances. Director Irwin Winkler started out as an accomplished producer, and bore that credit on many good films (Raging Bull and Rocky among them), but he has yet to direct a good film, after many tries (The Net, At First Sight, De-Lovely, Life as a House). There's no focus to this effort; the pacing plods, the performances are all over the place, and there's not a cliché in the war movie book that Winkler doesn't embrace (when Chad Michael Murray buys the farm early in the pictureto my immense reliefWinkler actually has his best buddy Presley run to him in slow motion, screaming "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!").
The screenplay, by first-time screenwriter (and former Harvey Weinstein assistant) Mark Friedman, is astonishingly bad. Its poor quality sneaks up on you, since there's minimal dialogue before the first extended action sequence (though said dialogue does include the news that this Iraq company will be heading home inside of a week, which anyone who has ever seen a cop movie knows is a sure sign of impending death and destruction). But the dialogue is atrocious, the kind of corny, cliché-ridden platitudes that would get a quick rewrite on your average made-for-TV movie (which Home of the Brave, with its plinky piano music and slo-mo flashbacks, often recalls). For example, when he visits his buddy's widow (Christina Ricci, whose tiny role in a film this bad is entirely inexplicable), she asks, "Was he a hero, Tommy?" He replies, "He died defending his country." The whole script is like that.
And everyone gets a big monologue. Poor Jessica Biel actually has one where she tells the story of how she was injuredwhich we saw, in its entirety, in the opening sequence. Her telling adds no insight or additional perspective to the earlier scene; I guess it's there for people who showed up late (helpfully, footage from the scene is shown over her shoulder, as if she's Katie Couric or something). Victoria Rowell, as Samuel L. Jackson's wife, has a long monologue where she lists all of the things she did for their family while he was gone; he's aware of all of them ("I supported you when you enlisted!"), so this entire speech exists purely for our benefit. And so on. Even Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson gets a monologue, and whoa boy was that a bad idea. I know he's a tough guy (since he'll never shut up about how many times he's been shot), so I'm sure he can take the criticism he'll receive for his performance in this film. He's awful, all dead eyes and mumbled dialogue; given moments that require a real actor (like when he accidentally takes out an Iraqi civilian), Jackson's face registers nothing. Whatever you call him, Jackson or Fiddy, he stinks.
Brian Presley, who probably has more screen time than anyone, doesn't fare much better. The bulk of Presley's resume, according to IMDb, is on soap operas; this is his first major film, and with any luck, it will be his last. His line readings are stilted and unconvincing, his attempts at genuine emotion are laughable, and even a good actor would have trouble delivering his final "Dear Mom and Dad" voice-over well.
Samuel L. Jackson is good enough, I guess, but when is he going to get back to making good films? We've given him like ten years of paycheck roles now; it's time for him to stop phoning it in. He basically has to play the same notes that his contemporary Denzel Washington did in Courage Under Fire ten years ago; that was a brilliant, subtle performance, but even more so compared with Jackson's work here (his drunk act is about as nuanced as Foster Brooks'). The surprise of the film is Jessica Biel, who is actually the best thing in it, proving that her solid (but brief) turn in The Illusionist was no fluke. She has a couple of moments so honest, in fact, that they deserve to have been airlifted into a better film.
Believe it or not, I feel like I'm low-balling the sheer ineptitude of Home of the Brave; it really is inexcusably stupid, a mixture of every bad Lifetime drama, filtered through a hot topic to make it seem timely. And that's perhaps what is most reprehensible about the film: it is a ham-fisted, simple-minded, schlocky examination of an important subject. And for that, the people who made it should be ashamed of themselves.
There are no other scenes at Tommy's place of employmenthe could work at any number of low-paying menial jobs. But screenwriter Mark Friedman works in that little piece of commentary to congratulate both himself and the viewer; the film you're watching is not like all those other "stupid movies," you see. It's important. The problem is that Home of the Brave is an execrable film, so poorly made and obvious that it is impossible to take seriously, no matter how earnest and noble the intentions. A bad film is a bad film, whether it concerns serious topics or not.
Most bad films can be blamed squarely on the scriptand this one's a doozybut Home of the Brave is incompetent on every level: bad writing, bad directing, bad music, bad editing, and mostly bad performances. Director Irwin Winkler started out as an accomplished producer, and bore that credit on many good films (Raging Bull and Rocky among them), but he has yet to direct a good film, after many tries (The Net, At First Sight, De-Lovely, Life as a House). There's no focus to this effort; the pacing plods, the performances are all over the place, and there's not a cliché in the war movie book that Winkler doesn't embrace (when Chad Michael Murray buys the farm early in the pictureto my immense reliefWinkler actually has his best buddy Presley run to him in slow motion, screaming "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!").
The screenplay, by first-time screenwriter (and former Harvey Weinstein assistant) Mark Friedman, is astonishingly bad. Its poor quality sneaks up on you, since there's minimal dialogue before the first extended action sequence (though said dialogue does include the news that this Iraq company will be heading home inside of a week, which anyone who has ever seen a cop movie knows is a sure sign of impending death and destruction). But the dialogue is atrocious, the kind of corny, cliché-ridden platitudes that would get a quick rewrite on your average made-for-TV movie (which Home of the Brave, with its plinky piano music and slo-mo flashbacks, often recalls). For example, when he visits his buddy's widow (Christina Ricci, whose tiny role in a film this bad is entirely inexplicable), she asks, "Was he a hero, Tommy?" He replies, "He died defending his country." The whole script is like that.
And everyone gets a big monologue. Poor Jessica Biel actually has one where she tells the story of how she was injuredwhich we saw, in its entirety, in the opening sequence. Her telling adds no insight or additional perspective to the earlier scene; I guess it's there for people who showed up late (helpfully, footage from the scene is shown over her shoulder, as if she's Katie Couric or something). Victoria Rowell, as Samuel L. Jackson's wife, has a long monologue where she lists all of the things she did for their family while he was gone; he's aware of all of them ("I supported you when you enlisted!"), so this entire speech exists purely for our benefit. And so on. Even Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson gets a monologue, and whoa boy was that a bad idea. I know he's a tough guy (since he'll never shut up about how many times he's been shot), so I'm sure he can take the criticism he'll receive for his performance in this film. He's awful, all dead eyes and mumbled dialogue; given moments that require a real actor (like when he accidentally takes out an Iraqi civilian), Jackson's face registers nothing. Whatever you call him, Jackson or Fiddy, he stinks.
Brian Presley, who probably has more screen time than anyone, doesn't fare much better. The bulk of Presley's resume, according to IMDb, is on soap operas; this is his first major film, and with any luck, it will be his last. His line readings are stilted and unconvincing, his attempts at genuine emotion are laughable, and even a good actor would have trouble delivering his final "Dear Mom and Dad" voice-over well.
Samuel L. Jackson is good enough, I guess, but when is he going to get back to making good films? We've given him like ten years of paycheck roles now; it's time for him to stop phoning it in. He basically has to play the same notes that his contemporary Denzel Washington did in Courage Under Fire ten years ago; that was a brilliant, subtle performance, but even more so compared with Jackson's work here (his drunk act is about as nuanced as Foster Brooks'). The surprise of the film is Jessica Biel, who is actually the best thing in it, proving that her solid (but brief) turn in The Illusionist was no fluke. She has a couple of moments so honest, in fact, that they deserve to have been airlifted into a better film.
Believe it or not, I feel like I'm low-balling the sheer ineptitude of Home of the Brave; it really is inexcusably stupid, a mixture of every bad Lifetime drama, filtered through a hot topic to make it seem timely. And that's perhaps what is most reprehensible about the film: it is a ham-fisted, simple-minded, schlocky examination of an important subject. And for that, the people who made it should be ashamed of themselves.
Routine flick that only skims the surface of its subject matter
JoeytheBrit19 October 2009
Sincerity oozes from every scene of The Home of the Brave, but it can't disguise a rather routine story that has been told many times before. Essentially an updating of The Best Years of Our Lives, the film follows the trials of three veterans of the Iraqi occupation as they struggle to adjust to life back in civvy street. Jennifer Beils returns home minus her hand, Brian Presley is haunted by witnessing the death of his childhood friend while on duty, and surgeon Samuel L. Jackson is guilt-stricken by the lack of emotion he felt when he failed to save the wounded soldiers on his operating table. Like Harold Russell, Biels struggles to come to terms with the loss of her hand (although the hook has been replaced by a chunky looking prosthetic), which costs her a relationship, and like Dana Andrews, Brian Presley returns home to find his job has been given to someone else and finds employment in a low-paid job (ticket clerk at a multiplex instead of Andrews' soda jerk). In easily the least convincing storyline, Jackson seeks refuge from his feelings in alcohol.
The film's script can best be described as prosaic, with a couple of high-points standing out from the alarming reliance on familiar phrases and sentiments. The scene in the vice-principal's office is well played, and there are a couple of insightful moments, but everything looks too familiar, as if the film has been cobbled together as a kind of homage to the best of previous 'coming home' movies.
While no one questions the bravery and dedication of the troops from all countries in places like Afghanistan and Iraq – and there is no suggestion that this film is anything other than a genuine attempt by the makers to depict how it feels to find yourself a stranger in your own land with emotions you can't control or understand – you can't really hope to create a successful film if you're not prepared to allow it to embrace the bigger picture. I wonder how many people return from these places feeling betrayed by their leaders, and that they've been used by their country for reasons other than altruistic. The idea that the war in Iraq is about America's need for oil, and the questions arising from the States' heavy involvement on the world stage and the perception such an involvement gives rise to amongst its own population and people around the world, is only briefly alluded to – and even then by a troubled juvenile who is ostensibly rebelling against his parents.
The film's script can best be described as prosaic, with a couple of high-points standing out from the alarming reliance on familiar phrases and sentiments. The scene in the vice-principal's office is well played, and there are a couple of insightful moments, but everything looks too familiar, as if the film has been cobbled together as a kind of homage to the best of previous 'coming home' movies.
While no one questions the bravery and dedication of the troops from all countries in places like Afghanistan and Iraq – and there is no suggestion that this film is anything other than a genuine attempt by the makers to depict how it feels to find yourself a stranger in your own land with emotions you can't control or understand – you can't really hope to create a successful film if you're not prepared to allow it to embrace the bigger picture. I wonder how many people return from these places feeling betrayed by their leaders, and that they've been used by their country for reasons other than altruistic. The idea that the war in Iraq is about America's need for oil, and the questions arising from the States' heavy involvement on the world stage and the perception such an involvement gives rise to amongst its own population and people around the world, is only briefly alluded to – and even then by a troubled juvenile who is ostensibly rebelling against his parents.
Awful movie
Ilikebooks30 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The only spoiler I can give is this: the movie sucks! The acting, the plot and the cliché of Veterans returning home is lame. Whoever the military adviser was, should never work on a military themed movie again. Although the subject matter is important, it was handled in a format that won't help people understand but merely mock them. If you want to watch an excellent depiction of PTSD, The Best Years of Our Lives is quite spot on. It was one of the first movies to deal with, what is now known as PTSD, however it's ending which suggests that normalcy will happen only after you find a love interest gives it an easy out.
Best Film I've seen in years!
christopher-joyner24 October 2007
If you are an OIF VET, you must see this movie. If you have never been in combat, you may want to skip it. I watched this with my significant other and it was the best 2 hours of our life. I am very proud of my service and those I served with. The movie is incredibly accurate and was worth the wait. If you're expecting a shoot 'em up film, skip it and consider enlisting in the military. If you want to know what battle is really like; the disorganization, the confusion, the odd moments, this movie is it. I can't say enough about the actors. Even recalling the trauma events is dead on. The girl in the movie was dead on. You don't recall it like a film, it's bits and broken pieces with important details gone and odd small clips (like a lollipop) that stick. THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS FILM. IF YOU'RE A VET, SEE THE FILM AND FIND A VET CENTER.
Not An Original Film But A Realistic, Powerful Look at Us Soldiers in Iraq
bobcoughlin23 December 2006
After reading some of the early reviews for the movie on this website, I went into it with some fairly low expectations. However, by the film's end, I had a different take.
This story is by no means original in its plot or take. If you're looking for an original war film, look elsewhere. A lot of this movie is very clichéd but that's not to say that it's a bad thing. This movie is mainly an after-the-war film, so those looking for a true war movie need not look here. This film focuses heavily on the psychological aspects of war and the damage war can do to the human psyche.
The material in this movie is very realistic. I think the film accurately portrays the struggle of soldiers returning home from Iraq and serves as an eye-opener for people who do not know what it's like to be "over there." Be it as it may, the subject matter is a little slow but very, very sad and powerful at it's core. PTSD seems to be an overlooked area of soldiers returning from war, and I think this movie shines a lot of light on the importance of offering psychological support.
I would recommend this movie to anyone interested in the politics of the war or the war in particular. There is some very good material in the movie, the acting was not superb but still well-done nonetheless, and the message isn't biased like one may have expected.
If anyone is weary of seeing this movie due to "50 Cent's" role in the film, you really needn't be concerned. 50 Cent's role is fairly limited in the movie and his acting isn't nearly as bad as the reviews would have you believe, though you can tell he has a ways to go when you look at the other polished members of the mostly-veteran cast.
This story is by no means original in its plot or take. If you're looking for an original war film, look elsewhere. A lot of this movie is very clichéd but that's not to say that it's a bad thing. This movie is mainly an after-the-war film, so those looking for a true war movie need not look here. This film focuses heavily on the psychological aspects of war and the damage war can do to the human psyche.
The material in this movie is very realistic. I think the film accurately portrays the struggle of soldiers returning home from Iraq and serves as an eye-opener for people who do not know what it's like to be "over there." Be it as it may, the subject matter is a little slow but very, very sad and powerful at it's core. PTSD seems to be an overlooked area of soldiers returning from war, and I think this movie shines a lot of light on the importance of offering psychological support.
I would recommend this movie to anyone interested in the politics of the war or the war in particular. There is some very good material in the movie, the acting was not superb but still well-done nonetheless, and the message isn't biased like one may have expected.
If anyone is weary of seeing this movie due to "50 Cent's" role in the film, you really needn't be concerned. 50 Cent's role is fairly limited in the movie and his acting isn't nearly as bad as the reviews would have you believe, though you can tell he has a ways to go when you look at the other polished members of the mostly-veteran cast.
I'm Ashamed I Went To The Advanced Screening Of This
Roger_Eberts_Ghost30 November 2006
I am a film student and tonight Producer Rob Cowan came to our campus to show the first advanced screening of this film. Naturally, many students took advantage of this hoping to see a decent, entertaining film... HOWEVER, There aren't adequate words to describe how awful this film is. I knew going into it that this film was probably not going to be some engaging, powerful war drama, but still something to leave audiences satisfied. The reasons why this movie was awful 1. The acting is preposterous, not one character (Samuel L., Jessica Biel, 50 Cent (Obviously)) was well acted in any manner. 2. It is one of the most poorly written I have ever been privy too. Feeding off of the topical debates over the war in iraq, the script is ridden with clichés and feels like a Lifetime Movie gone wrong. 3. The directing to say the least is an absolute disgrace. This film is horribly structured and a complete headache as a result 4. 50 Cent. Going in, I was ready to give him the benefit of the doubt and judge his acting abilities fairly without any prior stigmas. Sadly, The minute he opened his mouth he erased all doubt that he has absolutely no place in this film
Typically, I am not a big fan of completely trashing a film. I believe that my opinion is my own and it is wrong to spread that on others. With that being said, I can say that this is the one film that I have no problem doing so. If in the event you would like to judge for yourself, don't say I didn't warn you when your cursing out the Movie Theatre manager for not giving you a refund.
Typically, I am not a big fan of completely trashing a film. I believe that my opinion is my own and it is wrong to spread that on others. With that being said, I can say that this is the one film that I have no problem doing so. If in the event you would like to judge for yourself, don't say I didn't warn you when your cursing out the Movie Theatre manager for not giving you a refund.
I don't think so . . .
JohnDeSando11 December 2006
A better title would be "Home of the Made-for-TV Movie"--You'd have to be from the "home of the brave film critics" to sit trough this laundry list of post-traumatic syndrome clichés. Three Iraq veterans return to face a civilian world that doesn't understand and personal demons that won't let them forget the ungodly carnage they lived through. But nothing is new or unique, no dialogue is incisive, no action is memorable.
The film does remind us about how unfair the whole Iraq invasion is to the soldier, who not only must suffer the damages to limb, life, and psyche but must also face a hostile electorate which carries little of the respect and patriotism that welcomed soldiers back from WWII. In this way, director Irwin Winkler achieved a success: He catalogued the suffering of the returning soldier, be he a surgeon experiencing the horror of failure to heal or a female grunt losing a hand and learning to live with the clumsiness.
A work of art should be unique in some way, often in its vision of its subject. Home of the Brave says nothing new to a populace awaiting insights into a war that still makes no sense. In that regard both fictional soldiers and real audiences remain largely clueless about the Iraq dilemma. Perhaps President Bush could helpI don't think so.
The film does remind us about how unfair the whole Iraq invasion is to the soldier, who not only must suffer the damages to limb, life, and psyche but must also face a hostile electorate which carries little of the respect and patriotism that welcomed soldiers back from WWII. In this way, director Irwin Winkler achieved a success: He catalogued the suffering of the returning soldier, be he a surgeon experiencing the horror of failure to heal or a female grunt losing a hand and learning to live with the clumsiness.
A work of art should be unique in some way, often in its vision of its subject. Home of the Brave says nothing new to a populace awaiting insights into a war that still makes no sense. In that regard both fictional soldiers and real audiences remain largely clueless about the Iraq dilemma. Perhaps President Bush could helpI don't think so.
Home isn't what it used to be.
michaelRokeefe11 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
A war-worn National Guard unit is all but ready to leave Iraq; then one last assignment...a mercy mission to take food and medical supplies to a small town, where things go terribly wrong. A chaotic firefight leaves dead and wounded. The unit returns to Spokane and the soldiers find themselves fighting personal demons as well as a hard time adjusting to home. Dr. Will Marsh(Samuel L. Jackson) saved his share of lives in Iraq, but back home he returns to his doctor duties and his memories cause him to slide deeper into alcoholism. The always confident Vanessa Price(Jessica Biel), returns to depression caused by going back to her coaching position with use of only one hand. Tommy Yates(Brian Presley)returns finding his boss didn't keep his job open at the gun shop and ends up selling tickets at the movie theater. Jamal Aiken(Curtis(50 Cent)Jackson)returns home to a girlfriend that just doesn't feel the same about him sending his life into chaos. Both heartache and heroism emerge from an indifferent homecoming. Also in the cast: Sam Jones III, Christina Ricci and Joyce M. Cameron.
A sensitive, restrained film about ordinary people under huge stress
tim-kjeldsen14 March 2008
This is clearly a film which divides audiences. I think it has virtues which are easily overlooked. It is actually rather a simple, restrained film with few pretensions. It characters are ordinary and recognisable and their struggles are easy to identify with and entirely comprehensible. Because it is so simple, it is easy to see it as clichéd, but I don't think it is. Ordinary people under stress usually do respond in fairly predictable ways and express themselves in fairly stereotypical language. The script acknowledges this, but still presents the characters with great sincerity.
I don't think it is a particularly political film, though is probably a little more pro- the war than we in Europe would generally like (this hasn't stopped some US critics treating it as anti-war propaganda!). But the point of the film is not whether the Iraq invasion is right or wrong, but to explore the experience of normal contemporary individuals in the aftermath of the shock and horror when they come home. Nothing very original, perhaps, but sensitively done. I felt a lot for all of them.
I don't think it is a particularly political film, though is probably a little more pro- the war than we in Europe would generally like (this hasn't stopped some US critics treating it as anti-war propaganda!). But the point of the film is not whether the Iraq invasion is right or wrong, but to explore the experience of normal contemporary individuals in the aftermath of the shock and horror when they come home. Nothing very original, perhaps, but sensitively done. I felt a lot for all of them.
The War Inside
gradyharp6 November 2007
The War Inside, November 6, 2007 By Grady Harp (Los Angeles, CA United States) - See all my reviews (TOP 10 REVIEWER) (REAL NAME) HOME OF THE BRAVE is one of those films that is difficult to critique: the message of how war permanently alters the minds and bodies of soldiers and their families is a meaningful one and one about which we need to be reminded. Irwin Winkler has made some good films (DeLovely, Life as a House, Guilty by Suspicion), but in this film he seems to be working against the script by Mark Friedman which has a tendency to oversimplify emotions and thus loses its impact.
The film begins in Iraq where each of the main characters is at least tangentially connected. Dr. Will Marsh (Samuel L. Jackson) is in a truck driven by Vanessa (Jessica Biel) and accompanied by soldiers Tommy (Brian Presley) and Jamal (50 Cent AKA Curtis Jackson) when a roadside bomb explodes, maiming the hand of Vanessa, killing Tommy's best friend, making Jamal witness unnecessary civilian deaths, and placing Will in an impotent position as a doctor. Flash forward to Spokane, Washington where each of these four wounded people try to piece their lives together in a world that loathes the Iraq war (not at all unlike the treatment of soldiers returning from the unpopular Vietnam debacle), trying to make sense of it all.
The problem with the good idea for a movie lies in the too traditional plot lines. The actors (especially Presley and Biel) give it their all, but credibility enters and the smoke rises and we are left with a misplaced patriotism. The message is strong: the delivery of it is shaky. Grady Harp
The film begins in Iraq where each of the main characters is at least tangentially connected. Dr. Will Marsh (Samuel L. Jackson) is in a truck driven by Vanessa (Jessica Biel) and accompanied by soldiers Tommy (Brian Presley) and Jamal (50 Cent AKA Curtis Jackson) when a roadside bomb explodes, maiming the hand of Vanessa, killing Tommy's best friend, making Jamal witness unnecessary civilian deaths, and placing Will in an impotent position as a doctor. Flash forward to Spokane, Washington where each of these four wounded people try to piece their lives together in a world that loathes the Iraq war (not at all unlike the treatment of soldiers returning from the unpopular Vietnam debacle), trying to make sense of it all.
The problem with the good idea for a movie lies in the too traditional plot lines. The actors (especially Presley and Biel) give it their all, but credibility enters and the smoke rises and we are left with a misplaced patriotism. The message is strong: the delivery of it is shaky. Grady Harp
Accurately portrays the struggles of Wounded Warriors and the civilians to whom they return
SeriousJest22 March 2012
I deployed to Iraq as a Marine, and later specialized in Wounded Warrior issues. Additionally, many of my friends have suffered long-term effects from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, this movie was pretty much must-see for me as soon as I read the description.
The film accurately depicts many of the struggles that Veterans face upon their return from deployment, or discharge. Jackson and Biel did an especially great job conveying their frustrations with non-verbal acting...often, it's what a Veteran can't say that is the worst burden of all. Jackson and Biel managed to wear these emotions appropriately and do Veterans justice, which is not an easy task. Jackson's role was particularly important, as he illustrated that PTSD is immune to rank and MOS...while this is not even close to my favorite movie that he's been in, it is one of his best performances. 50 Cent was pretty decent, as well, bouncing appropriately between rage and frustration, and passionately delivering script about Veterans' demons like it was a hot verse from a new hit song.
Just as important as the Veterans in this movie were the civilians surrounding them upon their return. The film depicts a realistic gamut of interactions, from silly, potentially insulting questions to genuine concern, frustration, and communication barriers. Rowell stood out, ably playing one of the most-unsung heroes of the war, the military wife.
Beware, though: after an initial burst of action in the beginning, the pace slows down a great deal, and the movie's focus turns more to character development and examining Veterans' problems, rather than to plot development and resolution. Thus, this film has much more value as an insight into Wounded Warrior issues than as a good story with a well- defined plot. Additionally, I didn't care much for Presley or Murray in their roles; their pixie-like features, tweezed eyebrows, and soft mannerisms were not the right fit for their blue-collar, combat-hardened roles, in my opinion. Maybe they should stick to shows like General Hospital and One Tree Hill...
For more no-holds-barred reviews and a kickass podcast, check out www.livemancave.com
The film accurately depicts many of the struggles that Veterans face upon their return from deployment, or discharge. Jackson and Biel did an especially great job conveying their frustrations with non-verbal acting...often, it's what a Veteran can't say that is the worst burden of all. Jackson and Biel managed to wear these emotions appropriately and do Veterans justice, which is not an easy task. Jackson's role was particularly important, as he illustrated that PTSD is immune to rank and MOS...while this is not even close to my favorite movie that he's been in, it is one of his best performances. 50 Cent was pretty decent, as well, bouncing appropriately between rage and frustration, and passionately delivering script about Veterans' demons like it was a hot verse from a new hit song.
Just as important as the Veterans in this movie were the civilians surrounding them upon their return. The film depicts a realistic gamut of interactions, from silly, potentially insulting questions to genuine concern, frustration, and communication barriers. Rowell stood out, ably playing one of the most-unsung heroes of the war, the military wife.
Beware, though: after an initial burst of action in the beginning, the pace slows down a great deal, and the movie's focus turns more to character development and examining Veterans' problems, rather than to plot development and resolution. Thus, this film has much more value as an insight into Wounded Warrior issues than as a good story with a well- defined plot. Additionally, I didn't care much for Presley or Murray in their roles; their pixie-like features, tweezed eyebrows, and soft mannerisms were not the right fit for their blue-collar, combat-hardened roles, in my opinion. Maybe they should stick to shows like General Hospital and One Tree Hill...
For more no-holds-barred reviews and a kickass podcast, check out www.livemancave.com
Not all vets come home completely messed up
MLDinTN9 June 2008
The main thing I didn't care for in this movie is that all the soldiers depicted that return home are all messed up emotionally and some of them mentally. I guess it would not have been interesting enough to at least have one normal person. I just don't think it's a fair representation.
The movie seemed more like a made for TV movie since a lot doesn't happen. It's OK for what it is, but just don't believe this is how all solderers turn out. Sam Jackson plays a doctor that returns home to his family and becomes a drunk and is just distant. Jessica Biel plays a mom whom returns with an amputated hand. She acts all dependent and doesn't want anyones help, but eventually accepts help. And Brian Pressley whom I've never heard of before plays Tommy, a guy who saw his best friend die and just feels like he needs to go back. And 50 cent plays Jamal, the really messed up mentally soldier whom you know is going to do something crazy.
As for Brian Presley, I've never seen him before this, but he sure was hot and I hope to see him starring in more movies. He definitely has the looks.
FINAL VERDICT: Not to great. It just depends if this sort of topic interests you as to whether it's worth seeing.
The movie seemed more like a made for TV movie since a lot doesn't happen. It's OK for what it is, but just don't believe this is how all solderers turn out. Sam Jackson plays a doctor that returns home to his family and becomes a drunk and is just distant. Jessica Biel plays a mom whom returns with an amputated hand. She acts all dependent and doesn't want anyones help, but eventually accepts help. And Brian Pressley whom I've never heard of before plays Tommy, a guy who saw his best friend die and just feels like he needs to go back. And 50 cent plays Jamal, the really messed up mentally soldier whom you know is going to do something crazy.
As for Brian Presley, I've never seen him before this, but he sure was hot and I hope to see him starring in more movies. He definitely has the looks.
FINAL VERDICT: Not to great. It just depends if this sort of topic interests you as to whether it's worth seeing.
Of some quality
Cristi_Ciopron10 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
HOTB is a movie I will warmly recommend to my philistine friendsit is the simpletons' drama ,art for those unable to taste art. It is junk, war exploitation, an artificial, derivative, tricked product . Highly moralizing also, and unpleasantly patronizing. It is a whole of clichés stupidly assembled by a hack. Selfrighteous drama, wholly tricked and phony. Everything is counterfeited. I liked the first scenesthose set in Irak. Those who delight in JAMES BOND and STAR WARS and STAR TREK and other such garbage will hail HOTB as a remarkable dramaremarkably psychological. On the other hand, I have seen far worse stufffar more banal and boring. One thing is certainfor most of its time, HOME OF
is not boring. Jackson's performance is wrong; yet it is true the man was given crap to begin with. There are a few mildly atmospheric scenesall involving Presley (I guess this might be the name, since it's the only one of the four leads that I had not previously heard about
). This are the two good thingsthe introductory war Irakian scenes; and some of Presley's scenes (Presley's role, quite ineptly played, was nonetheless written as a sort of updating of the Dean/Brando '50s parts something certainly more appealing than the exhausted Vietnam syndrome
).
The most embarrassing scenes are those of Jackson's initially ideal family ,that brusquelyor gradually, in the writer's intentions --becomes gravely _disfunctional and explosive.
HOTB erects a small shrine for an Irak war syndrome. It will certainly impress unpretentious viewers. My main reason for seeing it was Jackson's presence (this is not meant as an excuse!). I enjoyed some things, and do not dismiss the flick altogether.
A short list of worse flicksCRASH, the newer Pacino and De Niro films, Van Sant's films, etc. .I would have liked better a HOTB with Presley's role much extended, widened, explored,and,if possible,with a more _neurosed actor, with many atmospheric city scenes. (Maybe even Presley is not absolutely badonly much below his role.) It's not a honest movie, yet it's not _un-endearing either. It's drama unintentionally turned to rubbish melodrama. To dream on, dear reader, this flick would of greatly benefited from some musical _psychedelismthe liquid, fluent psychedelic unseen landscapes .
The only story more than barely sketched is that of B. Presleyand it's a suggestive, quite interesting one. We find out practically nothing about Mme. Biel' and 50 Cent's characterstheir previous life, etc., while Jackson's scenes are embarrassingly schmaltzy. Schmaltzy charm-less melodrama.
HOTB is much better than rubbish like CRASH (so wisely termed by an IMDb writer, 'chicagoelise'which I am glad to quote hereto be a sincere piece of trashviz.:" would gladly, if not delightfully, accept 1,000 movies this adorably bad (she originally meant a new Craven shocker) over 1,000,000 sincere pieces of trash like "Crash", "Million Dollar Baby", "The House of Sand and Fog", and "Gladiator". Without disasters like "Red Eye", "Showgirls", and, ironically, "Crash" we wouldn't have had a basis of 'truly awful' with which to appreciate genuinely good, well-made movies.").HOTB, more modestly, belongs to the same class of Hollywoodian crap masquerading as drama .HOTB is bad, enjoyable, recommended to all the philistines and softheads. Today it looks like Hollywoodian socalled dramas are only made for them. The collapse of the Hollywoodian drama.
The most embarrassing scenes are those of Jackson's initially ideal family ,that brusquelyor gradually, in the writer's intentions --becomes gravely _disfunctional and explosive.
HOTB erects a small shrine for an Irak war syndrome. It will certainly impress unpretentious viewers. My main reason for seeing it was Jackson's presence (this is not meant as an excuse!). I enjoyed some things, and do not dismiss the flick altogether.
A short list of worse flicksCRASH, the newer Pacino and De Niro films, Van Sant's films, etc. .I would have liked better a HOTB with Presley's role much extended, widened, explored,and,if possible,with a more _neurosed actor, with many atmospheric city scenes. (Maybe even Presley is not absolutely badonly much below his role.) It's not a honest movie, yet it's not _un-endearing either. It's drama unintentionally turned to rubbish melodrama. To dream on, dear reader, this flick would of greatly benefited from some musical _psychedelismthe liquid, fluent psychedelic unseen landscapes .
The only story more than barely sketched is that of B. Presleyand it's a suggestive, quite interesting one. We find out practically nothing about Mme. Biel' and 50 Cent's characterstheir previous life, etc., while Jackson's scenes are embarrassingly schmaltzy. Schmaltzy charm-less melodrama.
HOTB is much better than rubbish like CRASH (so wisely termed by an IMDb writer, 'chicagoelise'which I am glad to quote hereto be a sincere piece of trashviz.:" would gladly, if not delightfully, accept 1,000 movies this adorably bad (she originally meant a new Craven shocker) over 1,000,000 sincere pieces of trash like "Crash", "Million Dollar Baby", "The House of Sand and Fog", and "Gladiator". Without disasters like "Red Eye", "Showgirls", and, ironically, "Crash" we wouldn't have had a basis of 'truly awful' with which to appreciate genuinely good, well-made movies.").HOTB, more modestly, belongs to the same class of Hollywoodian crap masquerading as drama .HOTB is bad, enjoyable, recommended to all the philistines and softheads. Today it looks like Hollywoodian socalled dramas are only made for them. The collapse of the Hollywoodian drama.
A bad movie about post war life of veterans
PersianPlaya4081 July 2009
Director Irwin Winkler's look at post-war life for several Iraq war veterans, is neither totally convincing nor entertaining. Despite having some powerful scenes, which raised some good points from a psychological and political perspective, the film failed to paint a realistic picture, which allowed the audience to truly position itself in the shoes of the characters. As I watched the film I did not entirely believe Samuel L. Jackson or Jessica Biel's character, and both were unconvincing, especially Samuel L. Jackson who had some very good moments, but due to a lacking script, went over-the-top at times. (Brian Presley) was not bad, but having 50 cent in this film was a casting catastrophe. They should have made better choices in the casting, but then again, there was a lot of other flaws in making this film, which I admit, is a tough type of film to make, but this just felt rushed and not enough precision an effort put into producing, writing and creating an original and realistic film about post-ware life.
I thought the cinematography, editing and music did very little to help matters a just didn't engage me throughout the film. The opening sequence which takes place in Iraq is almost a joke, as at times It felt like it was in East LA, now I don't know where they filmed it, but that's not a good way to start off a film. Overall this film had potential but was a misfire in my book, and had it not been for a few good scenes, moral arguments and okay acting (at times), it would get an even lower score from me. 5/10
I thought the cinematography, editing and music did very little to help matters a just didn't engage me throughout the film. The opening sequence which takes place in Iraq is almost a joke, as at times It felt like it was in East LA, now I don't know where they filmed it, but that's not a good way to start off a film. Overall this film had potential but was a misfire in my book, and had it not been for a few good scenes, moral arguments and okay acting (at times), it would get an even lower score from me. 5/10
Home of the brave
didafetz9 October 2007
In fact I expected to see another patriotic movie about "the heroic, liberating" battles of the American army in Iraq, but I was surprised. I think the movie is extraordinary because of the aspect in which the war is revealed. Not about the victory or lose of battle on the field but losing the battle with yourself with your fears and traumas you cannot overcome for life. I think maybe this film is misunderstood to a significant extent by most people who had never been in the army, because they can never be aware of the shock and stress on the battlefield and the anti-social effect upon you when you are in the army and you don't think about daily problems, but you only struggle to survive and the only hope that keeps you going is one day to get home, see your family, friends, relatives. In the battlefield when your only dream and hope is to get home, you make it perfect and ideal in your dreams, and of course the next is step is the disappointment and depression when you get back and see that instead of sympathy for your suffers you meet hate, instead of gratitude you meet indifference. As in life people forget quick, everyone are forgotten, as all your friends you left in the desert. Maybe that is the strong point of the movie - the clearly universal human reveal of what war brings along and that the romantic and heroic is left behind the hatred and desperation. You are called no war hero - but war criminal. It is also not only government, institutions and army guilty about the war, but all society because it elected and supported this government. Some of my colleagues and some boys I don't know from our brigade, that never came home, and for all young men that never lived to see their home again I rate this movie 10. I think they deserve respect as humans, that went to fight for a cause, that they did not choose to fight for. Better fight for something than live for nothing. The history shall judge if their sacrifice was in vain.
underrated movie, based on its very low sales at least ...
Sherparsa16 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This movie's nothing like Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now and that kind of anti-war movies ... but it's certainly not pro-war either ...
in fact, it's not exactly anti-war in the traditional sense ... but it leaves it well to the viewer to decide for himself if war is bad or good or ...
the tv-movie style in which this movie's been made, makes it look and sound 'simple' at first ... and i believe that's what makes it a good show in that it's not trying to be a masterpiece, the way Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now are ...
don't get me wrong though: i love both of those two movies, epics! but this one not being an epic (on purpose perhaps?) doesn't mean it's not just as great ... maybe it could be a 'shocking' anti-war movie the way the other two are and then attract more viewers and sell high at the box office, maybe ... but i'm glad it's been made like a plain tv movie ... now it has even more impact i'd say ...
in fact, it's not exactly anti-war in the traditional sense ... but it leaves it well to the viewer to decide for himself if war is bad or good or ...
the tv-movie style in which this movie's been made, makes it look and sound 'simple' at first ... and i believe that's what makes it a good show in that it's not trying to be a masterpiece, the way Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now are ...
don't get me wrong though: i love both of those two movies, epics! but this one not being an epic (on purpose perhaps?) doesn't mean it's not just as great ... maybe it could be a 'shocking' anti-war movie the way the other two are and then attract more viewers and sell high at the box office, maybe ... but i'm glad it's been made like a plain tv movie ... now it has even more impact i'd say ...
Apologies are due
mrmatt141 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Some people in the movie business make movies they don't have to be proud of. They may do it for the paycheck, because it's a fun movie, or sometimes even to poke a little fun at themselves. The best examples of these (Snakes on a Plane, Miss Congeniality, Jurassic Park, or the better part of William Shatner's career) are fun, lightweight popcorn flicks that are good quality escapist fare that nobody has to feel bad about.
But then movies come along like Home of the Brave. Not only don't the minds behind this have a movie to be proud of, they owe an apology to the people they're trying to portray. If the movie's about alien mutant dinosaurs from Pluto coming to steal our rabbits, then a lot can be forgiven. If the movie is about the challenges that soldiers face coming home from a very real war, a more careful hand is required. Sadly, those careful hands weren't involved in this project.
It's a pretty compelling premise, and there is a lot of talent in the cast. Samuel L. Jackson tones it down a bit and (in a rare occurrence) underplays his role a bit. I never saw him as one to embody the "slow boil." 50 cent, for the few scenes he's in, is strong. Jessica Biel will probably get panned for her performance, in much the same way Christina Ricci was in Monster, because her character was *supposed* to be awkward, out of place, and painful to watch. Despite the fact it may be faint praise, I'd say it's probably the best work of her career. Brian Presley shows that he's been wasting his time on soaps and TV for far too long.
That's where the niceties stop. All this talent in front of the camera is wasted by a bad script, a worse directing job, and a story that was just fundamentally a bad idea.
***SPOILERS BEGIN***
We'll ignore the number of scenes that were totally blown by horribly clichéd dialogue and worse direction. Let's focus on the theme of the movie -- all soldiers who come back from Iraq are mentally unstable time bombs who are unable to re-integrate into society, at least at first. The white ones eventually find their way, and the black ones go for their guns and resort to violence. I kid you not -- that really is what this movie is saying.
The total lack of attention to detail is splashed across the closing frames in a quote from Machiavelli. "Wars begin where you will, but they do not end where you please." Nice quote, but this is from the same guy who said "Before all else, be armed," "It is better to be feared than loved," and "the end justifies the means." It sounds like I'm making a petty point, but it's illustrative of the lack of depth that this movie has.
***SPOILERS END***
I know enough people who have been to Iraq and back (or who are still over there) to feel insulted on their behalf. A subject like this deserves to be treated with respect, and this movie just doesn't do it.
But then movies come along like Home of the Brave. Not only don't the minds behind this have a movie to be proud of, they owe an apology to the people they're trying to portray. If the movie's about alien mutant dinosaurs from Pluto coming to steal our rabbits, then a lot can be forgiven. If the movie is about the challenges that soldiers face coming home from a very real war, a more careful hand is required. Sadly, those careful hands weren't involved in this project.
It's a pretty compelling premise, and there is a lot of talent in the cast. Samuel L. Jackson tones it down a bit and (in a rare occurrence) underplays his role a bit. I never saw him as one to embody the "slow boil." 50 cent, for the few scenes he's in, is strong. Jessica Biel will probably get panned for her performance, in much the same way Christina Ricci was in Monster, because her character was *supposed* to be awkward, out of place, and painful to watch. Despite the fact it may be faint praise, I'd say it's probably the best work of her career. Brian Presley shows that he's been wasting his time on soaps and TV for far too long.
That's where the niceties stop. All this talent in front of the camera is wasted by a bad script, a worse directing job, and a story that was just fundamentally a bad idea.
***SPOILERS BEGIN***
We'll ignore the number of scenes that were totally blown by horribly clichéd dialogue and worse direction. Let's focus on the theme of the movie -- all soldiers who come back from Iraq are mentally unstable time bombs who are unable to re-integrate into society, at least at first. The white ones eventually find their way, and the black ones go for their guns and resort to violence. I kid you not -- that really is what this movie is saying.
The total lack of attention to detail is splashed across the closing frames in a quote from Machiavelli. "Wars begin where you will, but they do not end where you please." Nice quote, but this is from the same guy who said "Before all else, be armed," "It is better to be feared than loved," and "the end justifies the means." It sounds like I'm making a petty point, but it's illustrative of the lack of depth that this movie has.
***SPOILERS END***
I know enough people who have been to Iraq and back (or who are still over there) to feel insulted on their behalf. A subject like this deserves to be treated with respect, and this movie just doesn't do it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
