The day after they get the word they'll go home in two weeks, a group of soldiers from Spokane are ambushed in an Iraqi city. Back stateside we follow four of them – a surgeon who saw too much, a teacher who's a single mom and who lost a hand in the ambush, an infantry man whose best friend died that day, and a soldier who keeps reliving the moment he killed a civilian woman. Each of the four has come home changed, each feels dislocation. Group therapy, V.A. services, halting gestures from family and colleagues, and regular flashbacks keep the war front and center in their minds. They're angry, touchy, and explosive: can a warrior find peace back home?
Genre(s): Action, Drama, War
Runtime: 106 minutes
Rating: 5.6/10 (4,775 votes)
Release Date: 15 December 2006
Country: USA, Morocco
Languages: English, Spanish, Arabic
Company: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)
Sound: Dolby Digital
MPAA: Rated R for war violence and language.
Director(s): Irwin Winkler
Producer(s):
Zakaria Alaoui – service producer: Morocco
Rob Cowan – producer
Boaz Davidson – executive producer
Danny Dimbort – executive producer
Randall Emmett – producer
Michael P. Flannigan – executive producer
Brian E. Frankish – line producer (as Brian Frankish)
George Furla – producer
Avi Lerner – producer
Julie Milstead – associate producer
Trevor Short – executive producer
John Thompson – executive producer
Charles Winkler – associate producer
Irwin Winkler – producer
Writer(s):
Mark Friedman – (screenplay)
Mark Friedman – (story) &
Irwin Winkler – (story)
Cast:
Samuel L. Jackson – Will Marsh
Jessica Biel – Vanessa Price
Brian Presley – Tommy Yates
50 Cent – Jamal Aiken (as Curtis Jackson)
Christina Ricci – Sarah Schivino
Chad Michael Murray – Jordan Owens
Victoria Rowell – Penelope Marsh
Jeffrey Nordling – Cary (as Jeff Nordling)
Vyto Ruginis – Hank Yates
Sam Jones III – Billy Marsh
Music: Stephen Endelman
Tagline: Coming home is the real battle.
Recommended Links
Archives
This is clearly a film which divides audiences. I think it has virtueswhich are easily overlooked. It is actually rather a simple, restrainedfilm with few pretensions. It characters are ordinary and recognisableand their struggles are easy to identify with and entirelycomprehensible. Because it is so simple, it is easy to see it asclichéd, but I don't think it is. Ordinary people under stress usuallydo respond in fairly predictable ways and express themselves in fairlystereotypical language. The script acknowledges this, but stillpresents the characters with great sincerity.
I don't think it is a particularly political film, though is probably alittle more pro- the war than we in Europe would generally like (thishasn'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 orwrong, but to explore the experience of normal contemporary individualsin the aftermath of the shock and horror when they come home. Nothingvery original, perhaps, but sensitively done. I felt a lot for all ofthem.
This movie is too extreme in its depiction of returning vets. To besure some do not integrated well back into society, and none quite asbefore, but most do not end up in the constant and extremecircumstances depicted in this film: as emotional basket cases ready toexplode. It's as if everyone who returns becomes a maniac, which isridiculous. In fact, most legitimate studies have shown just theopposite: their level of criminality, for example, after returning isless than the public they left.
This is not to minimize the difficulties vets have, especiallyamputees. But this makes vets appear to be crazy people, virtually outof control, which is absurd and which doesn't engender the kind ofrespect for their sacrifice and for the honor they deserve for servingtheir country — and in fact for returning here and being positivecontributors to society, in the wide majority.
In all, this movie is too cliché and what you would expect from thosewho seem to oppose only wars their chosen political parties don't startor often try to blame on someone else. No one argues that war isanything but awful. Then again, it's actually moving that so many vetsreturn and resume productive lives — not as crazies who take hostagesand smash up things all day.
Is there no place for this movie? It has its place as an overlynegative portrayal of returning vets, whatever the war. Our times arehighly political and reactions to Iraq are what are to be expected.(Unless, you talk about a war like Bosnia and the thousands of Serbswho died in US bombings, but we can't mention such things.) You shouldwatch this movie, just don't accept it at face value.
"Home of the Brave" is as fair and balanced as Fox News. The filmmakersdon't like war. Neither did the makers of "Apocalypse Now" "The DeerHunter" or "Mash".
This is a more simple (but equally profound) film about returning homeafter experiencing the unreality and trauma of a questionable war. Thescreenplay, directing and acting are all strong and this is a polishedfilm that will not be praised by everyone. It is not a lot of fun towatch.
John Wayne went to Japan years ago to cheer up the soldiers who hadfought in the battle of Okinawa. He was met by a collective "thousandyard stare" and told to go back to Hollywood. If those soldiers hadlater made a movie about coming home after the war, it would have beensomething like "Home of the Brave" and it would have been banned — thefilmmakers would have been branded as commies and blacklisted.
This movie at least proves we have made some progress. Like it or not,you have to appreciate the fact that the movie is well-intentioned andthat our soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere are defending the right to makeand distribute such movies (as well as to secure a steady flow of oilfor our Hummers).
The main thing I didn't care for in this movie is that all the soldiersdepicted that return home are all messed up emotionally and some ofthem mentally. I guess it would not have been interesting enough to atleast have one normal person. I just don't think it's a fairrepresentation.
The movie seemed more like a made for TV movie since a lot doesn'thappen. It's OK for what it is, but just don't believe this is how allsolderers turn out. Sam Jackson plays a doctor that returns home to hisfamily and becomes a drunk and is just distant. Jessica Biel plays amom whom returns with an amputated hand. She acts all dependent anddoesn't want anyones help, but eventually accepts help. And BrianPressley whom I've never heard of before plays Tommy, a guy who saw hisbest friend die and just feels like he needs to go back. And 50 centplays Jamal, the really messed up mentally soldier whom you know isgoing to do something crazy.
As for Brian Presley, I've never seen him before this, but he sure washot and I hope to see him starring in more movies. He definitely hasthe looks.
FINAL VERDICT: Not to great. It just depends if this sort of topicinterests you as to whether it's worth seeing.
As a Retired Marine and a Vet Rep with one of the National ServiceOrganizations, I find who ever wrote the review of the movie extremelyinept when considering the people coming home from the war. Rates ofTBI and PTSD are going through the roof by those who just "deal withit". Ever been in combat buddy? Doubt it. Look at the suicide rates.
The effect is not always seen right away. Sometimes it comes back tohaunt the Vet and their families years down the road. Many times theydon't even realize what's happening. Don't brush it off. The extremesin the movie happen daily and not just from this war. We want to beaccepted and be normal. But our experiences have changed us. We don'twant your sympathy. We don't want a hand out. We just want to get ourlife back to the way it was. Which is not going to happen. Try tounderstand what it's like and don't smear the ones hurting.
USMC VET
I write the following as a Canadian on June 20 2008. Looking at thevoting statistics as an ex-professor of Statistics, I noticed a strangephenomenon. 1-) The voting is spread out between '0' (worst) at 12.1%and '10'(best) at 12.9%, the average being 5.6 This is already anindication that something is wrong. 2-) The strangest discrepancyoccurs in the way women voted. There seems to bee a double generationalgap here. Women under 18 gave the highest average rating of allcategories at 7.6, women aged 45 or more gave the second highestaverage rating of all at 7.4. But it is the women aged between 30 and44 who gave the lowest average rating of all, at 4.6. What gives? Is*this* the 'ME' generation? The fact that the women aged 30-44 are themost likely to be rearing children is, to me, *very* worrying. Clearly,there are still unresolved social problems within American society, butI am not an sociologist and hesitate to propose an explanation forthis. It does seem, however, that the discrepancy has something to dowith the race problem AND with the war in Irag AND that there seems tobe an interplay between these two problems. I gave the film a rating of'8'. That is perhaps a bit high, from a strictly cinematic viewpoint.What I liked to most is that the film reminded me of one of my favoritedictums, namely that,
"Gratitude is something one gets for services not rendered YET." Takecare.