Courage Under Fire
3/4
Starring: Denzel Washington, Meg Ryan, Scott Glenn, Michael Moriarty, Lou Diamond Phillips, Matt Damon
Rated R for War Violence and Language
People are obsessed about the search for "truth." What really happened on 9/11? What really happened to JFK? Whether you're a witness, a historian or a conspiracy theorist, you want answers. Sometimes, the truth is indisputable (for example, the World Trade Center towers did fall on September 11th, 2001, and cost thousands their lives). Often times, it's less clear. For Lieutenant Colonel Nat Serling, finding the truth about what happened to Captain Karen Walden will allow him to put his demons to rest.
And boy, does Nat have some demons! During the Gulf War, Nat gave an order to fire on an enemy tank, not knowing that it was one of his own. Even worse, it was his best friend's (Tim Ransom) tank and he was killed. Fortunately (although Nat doesn't see it that way), the whole event was covered up, sparing him and the Army a lot of humiliation. Now that the war is over, the Pentagon is doling out medals. Nat is assigned to investigate whether a helicopter pilot's actions deserve recognition for the Medal of Honor. It seems ordinary enough until Nat finds out that the pilot is a woman. Nat begins investigating, but he's facing brick walls at every turn from the soldiers who could make or break her case. Everyone wants her confirmation to get through, but the more Nat investigates, the more he begins to realize that finding out what really happened could make the memories of the friendly fire incident go away.
"Courage Under Fire" is a mix of the good and the not so good. The good is the story. It's a good mystery and effectively presented. Director Edward Zwick, who is at home in these types of movies (he later directed "The Last Samurai" and "Blood Diamond") tells his story without a whiff of exploitation. This isn't a seedy pulp thriller like "The General's Daughter." It takes the subject matter seriously.
The bad is the acting. Denzel Washington is fine, although this isn't one of his best performances. Washington does his job and doesn't walk through it, but his role is less meaty than one would hope for the actor's considerable talents. Meg Ryan is good, but due to the fact that she's only shown in flashbacks (Walden died during the incident) and that she acts based on the soldier's memory of the events, there's not much for us to latch onto. Matt Damon is effective as a skittish soldier (he lost 40 pounds for the role), but Lou Diamond Philips, who has never been an especially good actor, is terrible.
Thematically, the film is on shaky ground. Critics have touted its exploration of what is truth, honor and so on. They are touched on, but not explored very thoroughly. Part of the reason is that the connection between Walden's story and Nat's guilt is so tenuous. Had this connection been better formed, it would have had a bigger emotional punch.
The ending is also questionable. While it's nice that both stories are tied up, I'm not sure that that's the right approach for the film to take. If a movie is about the ambiguous nature of truth, then the film should stick to it. If you don't have the guts to have an open ending, at least have something substantial to say about your topic.
Still, I liked the movie. It's worth seeing. Not as good as you hope, but it's still well worth the two hours one would spend watching it.
Starring: Denzel Washington, Meg Ryan, Scott Glenn, Michael Moriarty, Lou Diamond Phillips, Matt Damon
Rated R for War Violence and Language
People are obsessed about the search for "truth." What really happened on 9/11? What really happened to JFK? Whether you're a witness, a historian or a conspiracy theorist, you want answers. Sometimes, the truth is indisputable (for example, the World Trade Center towers did fall on September 11th, 2001, and cost thousands their lives). Often times, it's less clear. For Lieutenant Colonel Nat Serling, finding the truth about what happened to Captain Karen Walden will allow him to put his demons to rest.
And boy, does Nat have some demons! During the Gulf War, Nat gave an order to fire on an enemy tank, not knowing that it was one of his own. Even worse, it was his best friend's (Tim Ransom) tank and he was killed. Fortunately (although Nat doesn't see it that way), the whole event was covered up, sparing him and the Army a lot of humiliation. Now that the war is over, the Pentagon is doling out medals. Nat is assigned to investigate whether a helicopter pilot's actions deserve recognition for the Medal of Honor. It seems ordinary enough until Nat finds out that the pilot is a woman. Nat begins investigating, but he's facing brick walls at every turn from the soldiers who could make or break her case. Everyone wants her confirmation to get through, but the more Nat investigates, the more he begins to realize that finding out what really happened could make the memories of the friendly fire incident go away.
"Courage Under Fire" is a mix of the good and the not so good. The good is the story. It's a good mystery and effectively presented. Director Edward Zwick, who is at home in these types of movies (he later directed "The Last Samurai" and "Blood Diamond") tells his story without a whiff of exploitation. This isn't a seedy pulp thriller like "The General's Daughter." It takes the subject matter seriously.
The bad is the acting. Denzel Washington is fine, although this isn't one of his best performances. Washington does his job and doesn't walk through it, but his role is less meaty than one would hope for the actor's considerable talents. Meg Ryan is good, but due to the fact that she's only shown in flashbacks (Walden died during the incident) and that she acts based on the soldier's memory of the events, there's not much for us to latch onto. Matt Damon is effective as a skittish soldier (he lost 40 pounds for the role), but Lou Diamond Philips, who has never been an especially good actor, is terrible.
Thematically, the film is on shaky ground. Critics have touted its exploration of what is truth, honor and so on. They are touched on, but not explored very thoroughly. Part of the reason is that the connection between Walden's story and Nat's guilt is so tenuous. Had this connection been better formed, it would have had a bigger emotional punch.
The ending is also questionable. While it's nice that both stories are tied up, I'm not sure that that's the right approach for the film to take. If a movie is about the ambiguous nature of truth, then the film should stick to it. If you don't have the guts to have an open ending, at least have something substantial to say about your topic.
Still, I liked the movie. It's worth seeing. Not as good as you hope, but it's still well worth the two hours one would spend watching it.
Comments
Post a Comment