blastoise1 I have been looking up movies on this site and sort of trusting the masses and I have to say I am disappointed to see this movie getting such a rubbish rating and now feel like I probably should have just watched the other movies to find out for myself, rather than trusting the ratings.I personally can say that this is one of the best movies I have ever seen in my life. The other people who watched it and hated it, must like super boring movies or where having a bad day when they watched it, I really can't understand how they could give it 1 star.Anyone who likes war movies, and empathises with soldiers, will get the message and enjoy the movie. Top class.

wildcats76 Sorry folks. Iraq was not Vietnam. A jungle in Southeast Asia is very different from an open desert in the middle east. That's not to belittle what our soldiers went through, but I think Vietnam was a bit more unpredictable and freaky, given the terrain.We have deserts in America. We don't have jungles.Why not include at least one veteran who adjusts well to life back home? I'm sure there are plenty. It would provide balance.Other than the one substantial event at the end of their tour, was the rest of their experience over there so terrible? Some reviewers have said that this is not an anti-war movie, but I think it is. You hear so many characters questioning our motives, but not many, if any, effectively defending them.All the characters do is feel sorry for themselves. It gets tiresome. Why didn't the Director and Writer notice this? Where's the gratitude? For their health, their lovely town and families, and their employment?Bush laid out at least 17 concrete reasons to go in there, and it all fit the concept of the War on Terror, with or without WMDs. What character says that? Why the hell did you volunteer, if you didn't believe in the cause?Why do a movie, unless you can offer something unique? A different take on things, a different performance, a different style? Melodramatic music, flashbacks, heaviness, mediocre acting. It's all been done before. Stay away from this one.

JoeytheBrit Sincerity oozes from every scene of The Home of the Brave, but it can't disguise a rather routine story that has been told many times before. Essentially an updating of The Best Years of Our Lives, the film follows the trials of three veterans of the Iraqi occupation as they struggle to adjust to life back in civvy street. Jennifer Beils returns home minus her hand, Brian Presley is haunted by witnessing the death of his childhood friend while on duty, and surgeon Samuel L. Jackson is guilt-stricken by the lack of emotion he felt when he failed to save the wounded soldiers on his operating table. Like Harold Russell, Biels struggles to come to terms with the loss of her hand (although the hook has been replaced by a chunky looking prosthetic), which costs her a relationship, and like Dana Andrews, Brian Presley returns home to find his job has been given to someone else and finds employment in a low-paid job (ticket clerk at a multiplex instead of Andrews' soda jerk). In easily the least convincing storyline, Jackson seeks refuge from his feelings in alcohol.The film's script can best be described as prosaic, with a couple of high-points standing out from the alarming reliance on familiar phrases and sentiments. The scene in the vice-principal's office is well played, and there are a couple of insightful moments, but everything looks too familiar, as if the film has been cobbled together as a kind of homage to the best of previous 'coming home' movies.While no one questions the bravery and dedication of the troops from all countries in places like Afghanistan and Iraq – and there is no suggestion that this film is anything other than a genuine attempt by the makers to depict how it feels to find yourself a stranger in your own land with emotions you can't control or understand – you can't really hope to create a successful film if you're not prepared to allow it to embrace the bigger picture. I wonder how many people return from these places feeling betrayed by their leaders, and that they've been used by their country for reasons other than altruistic. The idea that the war in Iraq is about America's need for oil, and the questions arising from the States' heavy involvement on the world stage and the perception such an involvement gives rise to amongst its own population and people around the world, is only briefly alluded to – and even then by a troubled juvenile who is ostensibly rebelling against his parents.

rockdalecop I don't like being so negative, but my God, this was bad. I should have researched this before I bought it. It started good. Some nice action and good stuff going on. Then it turned into Lifetime's Movie of the Week. I wanted to see Samuel Jackson kicking ass and taking names. But instead all I got was him drinking and kicking his annoying teenager son in the ass which as annoying as he was, it was nice. Then the other 3 soldiers were boring too. All this was, was a "remembering" the war and how screwed up life is now for them. It reminded me of Dead Presidents in a remote way. But Dead Prsidents was way better. Curtis Jackson is as annoynig as an actor as he is a rapper. This is good if you want film to watch and think "wow, those guys have it really bad". Certainly not for action fans.