Tweet
Wow, where did this gem come from? I went into this movie with negligible expectations, and thought it was very, very strong.
Ben Foster (bad guy henchman in "3:10 to Yuma") plays an Army Sergeant who comes home wounded from Iraq combat, and is paired up with a Captain (Woody Harrelson) to do casualty notification to the next of kin of soldiers killed in combat. The two of them grow and change through this overwhelming duty.
I draw many comparisons with "The Hurt Locker". Whereas many current war movies either glorify or condemn war with a political agenda, the essence of this movie and The Hurt Locker is the people--the soldiers, the humanity, and the psyche. Naturally, the duty depicted in this movie is a horrible, terrible assignment. I really felt the depths of the actors' souls in this one, the soldiers and the next of kin. I was ripped apart by several of the scenes. This was not easy to watch. Hurt Locker is more action and mostly about the men actively on combat deployments. The Messenger is about some of the effects back home.
Harrelson does an excellent job, and where the heck did Foster come from? The roles I've seen him in previously were so superficial by comparison, but he does an excellent job stepping up to this deep role.
Some of this movie and it's true meaning of soldiers' and families' souls affected by combat could only fully be understood by those who have been affected by combat themselves. But I very much appreciate that this movie and The Hurt Locker seem to make an honest attempt to depict that affect on the human condition to the mass public in an honest manner, whether it ends up being understood or not, without trying to sneak in personal/political agendas about war itself.
Troubling movie to watch, emotionally difficult to go through, but for those that are up for it, I found this to be an excellent movie.
:4: out of :5:
(since I made the comparison, if I remember, I gave The Hurt Locker :45: out of :5: )
Ben Foster (bad guy henchman in "3:10 to Yuma") plays an Army Sergeant who comes home wounded from Iraq combat, and is paired up with a Captain (Woody Harrelson) to do casualty notification to the next of kin of soldiers killed in combat. The two of them grow and change through this overwhelming duty.
I draw many comparisons with "The Hurt Locker". Whereas many current war movies either glorify or condemn war with a political agenda, the essence of this movie and The Hurt Locker is the people--the soldiers, the humanity, and the psyche. Naturally, the duty depicted in this movie is a horrible, terrible assignment. I really felt the depths of the actors' souls in this one, the soldiers and the next of kin. I was ripped apart by several of the scenes. This was not easy to watch. Hurt Locker is more action and mostly about the men actively on combat deployments. The Messenger is about some of the effects back home.
Harrelson does an excellent job, and where the heck did Foster come from? The roles I've seen him in previously were so superficial by comparison, but he does an excellent job stepping up to this deep role.
Some of this movie and it's true meaning of soldiers' and families' souls affected by combat could only fully be understood by those who have been affected by combat themselves. But I very much appreciate that this movie and The Hurt Locker seem to make an honest attempt to depict that affect on the human condition to the mass public in an honest manner, whether it ends up being understood or not, without trying to sneak in personal/political agendas about war itself.
Troubling movie to watch, emotionally difficult to go through, but for those that are up for it, I found this to be an excellent movie.
:4: out of :5:
(since I made the comparison, if I remember, I gave The Hurt Locker :45: out of :5: )
Comment