L'ultima alba

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Tears of the Sun" is a thrilling, emotional ride based on real events. The film is not without flaws. There are a few character flaws, questionable character decisions, minor errors in editing and sound, and there could be one or two issues with historical accuracy, but this is a movie, not a documentary. And they do a great job telling a story about how humanity can be at its worst, as well as at its best, and that good always triumphs over evil. It's got more feel to it than most standard Hollywood action films, and while there is action, there is also drama, war horror, and emotions. It is not one to dismiss, nor be ridiculed. It feels honest, and is an entertaining, as well as though-provoking movie.

Now I will add my counter-arguments to some of the most common negative reviewers:

• "Typical Hollywood narrative"

While many Hollywood films have proven in the past to have made MANY mistakes in story-writing, one thing they are effective in doing is using data of all sorts that help generate formulas that in turn create effective stories that are received as positively as possible, and that will generate the most profit, while maintaining numerous other variables. In short, if a generic plot formula works, no point in not using it. It is presumptuous when people attack the story of a Hollywood movie, by claiming it to be a dull, and stale cliche. Because you can usually find other movies that have received outstanding reviews and overwhelming praise that follow similar, if not close-to-exact, plot structure. Take "Saving Private Ryan" for example. There are several plot elements in that movie that are nearly identical to this movie, yet I guarantee many negative reviewers of "Tears of the Sun" have given glowing reviews to "Saving Private Ryan." This hypocrisy is not relevant to all, or possibly even most of those who gave a harsh critique to this film's plot, but it definitely applies to some.

-"The Americans have to be the heroes yet again" Why not? Americans have been heroes many times in real history. What's so wrong about the nation that creates movies, whether basing them on real events or not, to depict the protagonists as heroes with that nation's origin? EVERY country that generates movies does this. There is nothing wrong with a nation's pride being a focal point in cinema, as long as it's in good taste. Additionally, yes this film is based on a Canadian task force. But the actual events in the story is fictional (events of the direct story = fictional, events of the surrounding story = non-fictional), so there's no problem creating a fictional task force that's American, during a historical conflict.

-"A handful of soldiers cannot overtake a whole army" This is an easy one to counter. Let's list how many ways a small American squad can handle a small army: 1. Training. The Navy SEALs had far more extensive training, and knew how to operate well as a small group, which is easier to control and engage with than an army. Selection is also a point here. Only the best can be Navy SEALs, and I'm sure the rebels added anyone who supported their cause to their ranks. 2. Technology & gear. The SEALs had it all, the rebels had AK47s and blades. The SEALs had communication equipment that kept them all operating simultaneously and with minimal effort. Their weapons were well maintained, and thus more accurate, while the rebels no doubt did not take nearly as good care of theirs, which would result in much less effective firepower (and AK47s are already a fairly inaccurate rifle, which were the most common rifles used by the rebels). And don't forget, they had some help in the end. 3. Willpower. After seeing what the rebels are capable of, the American soldiers, along with the Ibo people, had more to fight for. That can make, and has made, a difference. 4. History. There are MANY accounts of a small group of people, even sole individuals, who have stood their ground against many hostiles. In some of these true and confirmed events, those heroes who stood their ground also came out alive. In all of them, they were heavily outnumbered. A few examples are: July 18, 1918 where 5 American soldiers held against more than 60 Germans, killing 22 and capturing 40, . Thus, based on history alone, the efforts of the SEALs depicted in "Tears of the Sun" could be justified.

'Tears of the Sun' is still one of my favorite war movies - not necessarily because of the war elements, but due to the humanistic element, and the amount of emotion the film contains. (Although strictly speaking this is not a war film as such, I suppose).

This is also the time still when Bruce Willis was actually leading a film, and not making small appearances only, yet with his name written bigger than the film's title on the poster. Willis makes a credible hero, with very good character development. The rest of the cast were very good, as well, and the characters didn't have the cliched introductions like most war movies do.

'Tears of the Sun' is refreshingly without comic relief or a romance interest. It is a fast-paced action thriller with feeling. The finale is stunning. This is an incredible film.

Would I watch it again? Yes, and again, and again.

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.