Home of the Brave

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

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.

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!

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

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.