free counter with statistics Home of the Brave | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

homeofthebrave.jpg


Paving the Road to Hell

Home of the Brave / John Williams

Film Reviews | December 20, 2006 | Comments (17)


Like a movie about a cop on the verge of retirement, Home of the Brave begins by painting targets on the chests of its characters, a group of National Guard soldiers in Iraq who are told they’ll be heading back home … in two weeks. Oh, dear. After learning the good news, Vanessa (Jessica Biel) actually starts talking about how much she misses her young son. Brave’s the right word for someone who so blithely tempts the gods of Dramatic Comeuppance.

Soon, the group is sent on a humanitarian mission (“some good ‘hearts and minds’ shit,” according to the superior who assigns it), an undertaking the audience can see going horribly wrong sometime while talking to the babysitter before leaving for the theater. It ends in pretty spectacular fashion, with a roadblock and an ambush. Despite a few too many slow-motion shots, it’s easily the most effective sequence in the movie. It doesn’t hurt that, for those five minutes, no one talks much.

Vanessa loses a hand in the attack, but she’s saved from death by a quick-acting medic named Will (Samuel L. Jackson). It’s a harrowing, graphic scene, and for a minute I wondered if Home of the Brave was going to exceed my expectations. Before long, though, the soldiers returned home, to Spokane, Washington, and my expectations returned to the dank cellar from which they had crawled. In Spokane, the movie somberly surveys the domestic battlefields that await Vanessa, Will, and two other primary characters scarred by events that occurred while they pursued insurgents after the ambush — Tommy (Brian Presley), who witnessed the death of a close friend, and Jamal (50 Cent, here modestly billed as Curtis Jackson), who accidentally shot an innocent woman.

It’s likely that every American at this point has a fairly strong opinion, one way or another, about America’s continuing presence in Iraq. Every American, that is, except for screenwriter Mark Friedman. This is his first effort, and it suffers mightily from his inability to conjure any dramatic complication or progression once the soldiers are back in the States. His script might as well have been a two-sentence acting exercise: “Look and behave like you just got back from war. Now do it for 90 minutes.” Attempts at political commentary are particularly awkward, as when Tommy relates a tender story about an Iraqi child and a U.S. soldier, and his friend says “Wait, I thought they all hated us.” Tommy pauses, wistfully stares into the distance and says, “Not all of ‘em. …”

The movie deals with Tommy’s depression (his father — a no-nonsense mechanic, natch — wants him to become a cop and discourages him from attending therapy sessions, since they’re for “pussies”), and it gives 50 Cent a couple of extended scenes (in which he doesn’t embarrass himself, but I don’t think he has to set the alarm for the morning Oscar nods are announced). Mostly, though, we follow the fate of Will and Vanessa.

Jackson does what he can with a role that’s several leagues beneath him. He has to utter generic bitter lines to his wife (“You want us to come back like nothing happened”), his angry son, and eventually his therapist.

It’s Biel who surprised me. From my previous brief exposure (and from the first five minutes here, come to think of it), she seemed to share both the complexion and the acting chops of a mannequin. And while I’m sure there are stunningly beautiful soldiers out there, she seems more than a bit miscast. Still, she’s not bad, despite being hamstrung by the same script everyone else is working from. In one wordless scene, attempting to unbutton her uniform with her new prosthetic hand, ending up slumped at the foot of the bed, alternately angry, confused, and pleading, she’s actually quite good.

In the end, though, I couldn’t convince myself (I took a couple of days to try) that Home of the Brave deserves to be judged with more leniency than any other lemon. Inarguably, it has better, nobler intentions than countless movies that should have gone straight to DVD or Lifetime, but like all of its brethren, it’s a smorgasbord of stilted, unintentionally hilarious dialogue. There’s a bizarre scene in which Jackson takes time out from a pretty serious episode of DUI to pick up a few unknown gardeners and take them home for Thanksgiving dinner. He then launches into a speech and an ensuing act of violence at the dinner table that are so over the top they rival a scene in Deep Blue Sea, in which his character delivers a passionate, terribly written speech about the violence of nature (“You should see ice. It moves like it has a mind.”) before being suddenly, violently devoured by an animatronic shark.

But my favorite moment in Home of the Brave comes when Vanessa is confronted by a boyfriend who she’s had trouble feeling comfortable with since returning home. After she tells him it’s essentially over between them, he says, “I guess it only takes one good hand to push people away.” That laugh (which I suppressed, for civility’s sake) might have been a good moment, but I don’t think it was intended to be the best thing I took away from the film (or the scene, obviously).

I suppose there are people who still need it proven to them that war leaves deep scars, and that support of our troops is important whether or not we agree with a particular war, and that CGI can make it look like Jessica Biel really doesn’t have a right hand. Those people should go see this movie, because those are important things to learn. But I assume most of you know them already, so I suggest you take the $10 you might have spent on this ticket and put it toward a holiday gift to a real-life soldier.

John Williams lives in Brooklyn. He’s an editor at Harper Perennial and a freelance writer. He blogs at A Special Way of Being Afraid.


Oh, Food. Wonderful Food, Marvelous Food, Glorious Food. Food, Glorious Food! | Pajiba Love 12/20/06



Comments

"I guess it only takes one good hand to push people away."

Ha! I loved that line. When I see this movie on Lifetime in 6 months I will look for that.

Posted by: Blackcapricorn at December 20, 2006 1:48 PM

"... so I suggest you take the $10 you might have spent on this ticket and put it toward a holiday gift to a real-life soldier."

Amen brother!

Great review, maybe I'll tivo it on Lifetime.

Posted by: Jenn at December 20, 2006 2:09 PM

I can't wait until the guys at Mister Sinus show this at Alamo Drafthouse.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, ask Dan Carlson. I'm pretty sure he'd know.

Posted by: Cheryl at December 20, 2006 3:00 PM

Oh, Fiddy-cent is in it I'm so NOT there, I don't care if it's the next Citizen Kane. This bullshit casting needs to stop.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 20, 2006 3:22 PM

>

Dialog like this makes me CRINGE. Sheesh, you couldn't be more derivative if you made a conscious effort.

Sadly, there is a great opportunity in movies like this, and you don't even have to make a political statement. It could simply have made a statement on how trauma affects our lives. Instead, it smacks of schmaltzy sentimentality and manufactured tragedy.

And we need a permanent ban on lines delivered in hushed tones, while gazing thoughtfully off screen. Fuck, David Caruso has made a career out of it and it... must... STOP.

Posted by: TK at December 20, 2006 4:08 PM

and my expectations returned to the dank cellar from which they had crawled.

Hilarious.

Posted by: Tina at December 21, 2006 2:36 AM

Your expectations would stop spoiling if you didn't store them in a damp cellar.

Posted by: Matt 2.0 at December 23, 2006 2:40 PM

I had to pause Roy Orbison in the middle of "Dream Baby" on my Itunes just to see that clip of Sam Jackson getting chomped, but it was worth it! Can Pajiba do a whole Best Movie Shock Scenes page sometime?

Re "Home of the Brave", I've heard that 50 Cent sucks balls, which already is my estimation of his "musical talent". Biel wasn't bad in "Yulee's Gold" with Peter Fonda a couple of years ago so I'm not surprised she still has some chops.

Posted by: Matt at December 23, 2006 9:05 PM

Biel trying to button a shirt one-handed sounds hot to me, right matt

Posted by: pasadenamike at December 24, 2006 12:11 AM

Hey, Jessica Biel's not so bad. She was fine in Ulee's Gold, not bad in the Illusionist. She's all right.

Posted by: FootFace at December 26, 2006 2:28 AM

Jackson does what he can with a role that's several leagues beneath him.




There are parts that are beneath Samuel L. Jackson? Wow. You certainly wouldn't know it from the way he chooses roles..

Posted by: Graham at December 28, 2006 7:36 PM

People seem to keep confusing the difference between the fact that the men and women serving in Iraq are there because they chose to be, and the, mostly, men who served in Vietnam were drafted. I have more respect for men who had even less choice in the matter and had to participate in the atrocities of a fabricated war than for people who choose to get involved in a sham like this current war. I just will not support these troops.

Posted by: New Millenium Craka at December 29, 2006 5:12 PM

I agree with you, New Millenium Craka, that there is a very real difference between the tragedy of the Vietnam draft, and the voluntary service of soldiers of the current war.

However, the majority of soldiers come from lower economic classes, and for many, the military is an opportunity to make a life for themselves. Many would have few opportunities otherwise.

Many citizens go into war with a true and pure belief that they are doing good for people all over the world. They do not consider this conflict a sham, though the general public (myself included) sees this particular war, or rather the reasoning behind it, as such.

I'll support the troops, because they are pawns in a war controlled by an administration full of men who have no discernable military experience. Men who, through their wealth and various family connections, found ways of getting out of the conflict in Vietnam. (While their less financially blessed peers got their limbs blown off.)

Perhaps I would be more supportive of the current conflict if our commander in chief was a man who spent the Vietnam war actually in Vietnam. As opposed to a man whose father arranged for him to spend the war in inactive reserves in Colorado.

Ok, I'm done with my comment, which upon reflection was totally unrelated to the film, or the film review. Eh, bygones.

Posted by: Sarah at December 30, 2006 12:59 PM

"I suggest you take the $10 you might have spent on this ticket and put it toward a holiday gift to a real-life soldier."

That having been said in the actual review, I don't see how your comment/reflection can can be unrelated to the film review. In response to one of the statements shoring your support for these troops you said, "However, the majority of soldiers come from lower economic classes, and for many, the military is an opportunity to make a life for themselves. Many would have few opportunities otherwise." I may catch some flack for this, but, and I wanna be sure I understand what you're saying here, are you saying it is a sufficient rationalization to say, "It's okay to use remote control not-"smartbombs" killing women and children in the process, including schools and hospitals", is a fair exchange so that someone can "make a life for themselves"? I mean I just want to be sure that's your reasoning here. Because I honestly can't get behind that. Maybe I'm a warped individual for thinking so, but I just can't get on that bus.

Posted by: New Millenium Craka at December 30, 2006 1:25 PM

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I did not say I agree with all the actions taken by soldiers. Certainly war is an ugly event with a costly end. (Though we all know there is no real end to war)

The number of innocent lives lost greatly outnumbers the lost lives of soldiers. However, I will not place the blame on them for the situations they find themselves in. The blame belongs on the heads of the administration which put them in these situations. The same administration which chooses cost-effeciency over morality.

I'm not saying these soldiers do not have a choice, or that they must do as they're told (after all, this is not a dictatorship) But I also know that few soldiers takes his/her duty lightly. And even fewer soldiers feel good about killing innocent Iraqi civilians who did not ask for this war. Of course there are unfortunate exceptions to that soldier rule. There are of course soldiers who kill civilians in cold blood for the joy of it, and they should always be held accountable for those murders. But I do not believe they belong in the same league as their commrades who have better intentions when they sign up for war.

However, in my opinion (which I realize does not amount to anything, nor is it more valid than yours), I believe your anger is directed at the wrong group of individuals.

We need to hold the administration responsible, not the soldiers. Lest we have another post-Vietnam, spitting on soldiers as they return home, era.

Posted by: Sophia at December 30, 2006 9:41 PM

Although most of us would like to think that the citizens who volunteered to go to Iraq are from all social classes, a great percentage of them are from the working class and lower socio-economic classes. Joining the army reserves gives them more economic opportunity, in other words, they get money to pay for college after a couple of years of service. I don't understand why that's so hard to believe, it's pretty much why they target certain individuals from certain socio-economic backgrounds as well as from certain ethnicities (i.e. black and Latino). With the way the economy is going, people with even their MA's are having trouble finding a job, thanks to this Administration and their selfish and unholy ways...

Posted by: Gina at January 5, 2007 7:44 PM

i would like to no when this rfilm comes out

Posted by: grant gwyn at February 19, 2007 7:21 AM