Run time: 117 mins
In Theaters: Friday 12th July 1996
Distributed by: Columbia Pictures
Production compaines: Fox 2000 Pictures
Contactmusic.com: 2.5 / 5
Rotten Tomatoes: 85%
Fresh: 45 Rotten: 8
IMDB: 6.6 / 10
Director: Edward Zwick
Producer: John Davis, Joseph M. Singer, David T. Friendly
Screenwriter: Patrick Sheane Duncan
Starring: Denzel Washington as Lieutenant Colonel Nathaniel Serling, Meg Ryan as Captain Karen Emma Walden, Lou Diamond Phillips as Staff Sergeant John Monfriez, Matt Damon as Ilario, Michael Moriarty as Brigadier General Hershberg
I'm not saying the Gulf War was a bad, or unjust, operation. It's more of a joke than anything else, and that's why when a film comes out attempting to glamorize the war and make heroes out of fictional soldiers and fictional events, I greet it with a bit of skepticism. Courage Under Fire (just out on DVD) is the first real Gulf War movie. It probably won't be the last.
Keeping in mind that this is all make-believe, the film's story is this. Karen Walden (Meg Ryan) was a helicopter pilot, shot down during a rescue attempt which turned into an ad hoc offensive. Stranded in Iraqi territory overnight, Karen and her crew fended off the enemy until a morning rescue saved them all -- except her.
Or so the story goes. Because of her courage, Karen is being considered for the Medal of Honor, and Serling (Denzel Washington) is on the investigatory case. All seems well until another side of the story surfaces, mainly told by one Monfriez (Lou Diamond Phillips), who says Karen was a coward and that the whole thing is a sham. We see the events (over and over and over and over) from about six points of view, each time with a twist of some sort. On top of that, Serling is fighting his own demons due to a little incident where he blew up a friendly tank -- on accident -- and this incident is played over and over as well.
Where to start with the litany of things that bothered me about Courage? For one, who cares about this story? The characters are not compelling, and Karen is so obnoxious and Ryan's performance is so horrible that I was glad she was dead. (Don't get me started on Ryan's faker-than-fake Southern accent: "Peeyick 'iiiyem uhhhhp!" (Pick him up!)) Serling's subplot has very little to do with the rest of the story. And the whole thing is just pointless, coming off as propaganda, glamorizing war and the military. Please do not believe the hype.
Then again, the movie is quite pretty. The story, while poor, is well-told at least, and Washington's performance is good, as usual. Comparisons to Rashomon are a bit out of place, but not out of the realm of reason. And I had a lot more fun looking at the local scenery and locations (the movie was largely shot in Austin) than anything else.
I guess the case for Courage Under Fire is that it is exposing this abstract "truth" of how Americans were killed by friendly fire in the Gulf War. Is that truth? If so, it's one we already knew.
Would you give this chick a medal?