appygrl66 offers this stuff with condition New, new for:

Price : $13.49 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

therecordtrack from IL, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $13.99 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

cesarmusicwarehouse from CA, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $14.94 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

movierevolution offers this stuff with condition New, new for:

Price : $14.94 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

Terry Hansen offers this stuff with condition New, new for:

Price : $15.35 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

bestmovies_at_lowestprices offers this stuff with condition New, new for:

Price : $15.43 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

bestmovies_at_lowestprices offers this stuff with condition New, new for:

Price : $15.44 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

bestmovies_at_lowestprices offers this stuff with condition New, new for:

Price : $15.75 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

Amazon.com offers this stuff with condition New, new for:

Price : $17.99 Usually ships in 24 hours

RoyalBlueSundance offers this stuff with condition New, new for:

Price : $19.75 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

What our customer's say!

"Pretty good movie", The story is pretty good and the acting is also, though Black Hawk Down is a better movie overall.

"Contradictions Blur", It is its contradictions that make Tears of the Sun challenging to judge and which no doubt account for the wide disparities in opinion. On the one hand are the pitfalls of corny dialogue, logical stretches, and a weak performance by Willis. On the other hand is the drama of the faintly addressed but seething issues of human rights, multilateralism, and the limits of military power. Tears doesn't deal with these complexities with the finiteness of a film like Platoon, nor does it possess the visual beauty of a film like The Thin Red Line. To its credit, there are fine performances by Monica Bellucci and others, and the film avoids the condescending and even racist view of Africans in Black Hawk Down. But most significantly, and not to give anything away, viewers should look for a single scene that is as brutal, vengeful, compassionate, and poignant as any in the finer combat films. Perhaps Tears doesn't quite reach the nobility its script aspires to, but this successfully done, difficult, and powerful scene is redemptive of the effort and leaves the viewer with an image--and something to thing about--he'll recall long after seeing the film.

"Price of conscience", Like BLACK HAWK DOWN, TEARS OF THE SUN is ultimately a Hollywood action film with a strong military basis. But like BLACK HAWK, I highly recommend it for its outstanding production values and as-good-as-you're-likely-to-get portrayal of the difficulties of direct action intervention in African ethnic cleansing.

TEARS lacks BLACK HAWK's tight, no-nonsense script, but Antoine Fuqua has crafted a visually beautiful, and his control over the long-take, wide-angle action sequences is flawless. Despite its intentions to be politically meaningful, TEARS is at its best when the bullets are flying. The sets, scenery (with Hawaii filling in for Nigeria) and costumes are all impeccable. And this extended, director's cut is better paced and more fleshed out with regards to backstory.

Bruce Willis leads a solid cast, and even when the script is failing them, he and his squad of Navy SEALs share a genuine chemistry on screen, both in tactics and personality, that you couldn't fake with lesser actors. Monica Bellucci, though an exceedingly talented actress, stumbles with her English lines.

Though it will ultimately be dismissed as right-wing, "Republican" propaganda (just like BLACK HAWK), TEARS is ultimately too noble in its intentions (naive, even), to stoop to that. Willis and his soldiers, like the best of Frank Miller's heroes, are out-gunned and out-numbered, and still try to do the right thing. It makes the film's finale emotional, even despite its stilted writing.

"Neither really good nor really bad, but worthwhile for a few reasons", "Tears of the Sun" (2003) tells the story of a squadron of Navy Seals led by Bruce Willis who are on mission in Nigeria to remove a beautiful American doctor (Monica Belucci) from a Christian village before evil Islamic militants move in and annihilate 'em all. Belucci insists that "her people" go with them. Willis initially refuses but later has a change of heart. Since there are too many to remove via helicoptor they have no choice but to lead 'em out on foot to the Cameroon border. Will they make it out alive?

I remember seeing a scene or two while channel surfing a few years ago and it perked my interest. What I saw had an ultra-serious vibe and seemed to have depth as well. It looked like my cup of tea because I'm a huge fan of the original "Apocalypse Now." The icing on the cake is the presence of Monica Belucci, who's definitely one of the most beautiful women to ever grace God's Earth. Seriously, her face is incredible!

Well, I've seen it twice now and, despite all the positive items it has going, I can't help but find it kinda disappointing. I've already listed the positives so allow me to cite what doesn't work:

After seeing the film twice now I only remember two characters -- Willis and Belucci. Every other character is totally forgettable. This isn't the case at all with, say, "Apocalypse Now" wherein the viewer knew and remembered every single member of Capt. Willard's team after seeing the film once, not to mention the major peripheral characters. Another good example would be "Last Of The Mohicans" (1992), which has a similar theme (i.e. good people being chased through the forest by evil villains).

The mistake of "Tears of the Sun" is that it jumps right into the thick of the jungle story without allowing the viewer to get to know anyone. As already noted, the theme is heavy and the vibe is fittingly serious, including the score, but because we aren't emotionally tied to the characters the picture comes across too heavy-handed and melodramtic.

I should also add that the 2-hour film is fairly slow moving and that the big-action sequence doesn't take place until the finale. The problem with this "exciting" climax is that the viewer, once again, doesn't care what happens at this point because we don't really know the characters and therefore have little emotional attachment. I just got done watching the ending and I was quite bored -- lazily strumming my acoustic guitar, looking around the room, etc.

Although the story takes place in Nigeria the picture was obviously shot in Hawaii. The difference in geography is enough that the film loses points for realism, but who can deny the beauty of Hawaii? So maybe it gains the points back.

The Director's Cut merely adds the deleted scenes from the Special Edition dvd to the film. In other words, unless you absolutely love the film it's not necessary to buy the Director's Cut; just watch the deleted scenes. Speaking of the deleted scenes, there's one quietly potent scene where a black American talks with a black Nigerian. It has great dialogue and should have never been cut.

BOTTOM LINE: "Tears of the Sun" has some attributes, including the ultra-serious vibe, cinematography, score and Monica Belucci. But this is far from a good film. At the same time, it's not bad. It's just okay. Check out "Rambo" (2008) if you want to see the same theme done in an effective manner.

PERSONAL GRADE: C

"Tears of the Sun on Blu-Ray", Tears of the Sun is one of the best war movies I have seen years. It is amazing how real a movie becomes on Blu-Ray.

Read this reviews before You buy...

"An excellent depiction of Africa's troubles", This is a down-to-earth, brutal portrayal of the nature of Africa's troubled past, present, and future. True, Bruce Willis' portrayal may initially seem overly dramatic, and that is the nature of films. However, and despite the fact that I am not a Willis fan, the portrayal is on the mark for this type of film, and certainly that particular role.
The movie is reminiscent of Richard Burton's "The Wild Geese," but is much more graphically violent and reflective of the true nature of the African socio-political dilemma.

But what made the film personally meaningful was the graphic realism of what occured in the story, and I emphasize the term "real." There will be viewers who will insist that the violence is over-stated, but even the opposite is true.

I was in the Congo in November 1964, specifically at Kisangani, and was a member of one of the military units that attempted to extricate and save the lives of the missionaries, nuns, and priests there. Having failed to do so was one of the most wrenching experiences of our collective lives. That experience did expose all of us to the most graphic examples of "man's inhumanity to man," and believe me, the film should provide a realistic view of the unfortunate, convoluted nature of a large part of Africa to this day.

Yes, I highly recommend the film, though I am certain that it will be very, very quiet around the TV set while you are watching a tale that will definitely fire some emotions.

"A Movie So Exemplary It Invokes Political Divisiveness And Critic Stereotyping", In this steeply underrated movie, stereotyping, along with strongly evoked political opinions, have clearly denigrated and mis-maligned the exemplary movie, "Tears of the Sun," into a mediocre movie that "offers nothing new to the military action genre...." That viewers even perceive of this magnificent film as a military action genre movie, is nothing short of inexcusable--"Tears of the Sun" is drama at it's best. Moreover, the unfortunate type-casting of Bruce Willis as merely an action genre actor apparently blurs the perception of both fans and critics alike. Indeed, such misconceptions of Bruce Willis are long standing, in spite of his resume in similar films (e.g., "In Country"--see my review of this film under this title) and comedy (e.g., "Moonlighting;" "Sunset Boulevard"). Yes, the movie includes military (Navy SEALS) characters and depicts military special operations and guerrilla/rebel/(terrorist) actions, BUT that is NOT what the movie is about!

This is a character driven drama film, with superlative acting on the part of Bruce Willis, Monica Bellucci, and the rest of the cast--which includes actual Nigerian refugees playing the Nigerians. This is a movie about individuals, their personal characteristics, extenuating hardships and events, organizational (military and otherwise) codes of conduct, and the decisions made as a result of their interactions. AND it is a movie about politics, political agendas, and how they translate into reality for individuals--and their doing the right thing.

For Lt. Waters (Bruce Willis) the "reality" is his assigned rules of engagement (engage only if fired on) and his assigned mission--securing Dr. Lena Kendricks (Monica Bellucci). However, in forcing Dr. Kendricks to leave (in violation of her constitutional rights) and get onto the helicopter, in leaving refugees behind (that he'd told he was evacuating), and in seeing (yet again) what the "rebels" have done to the Mission (where Dr. Kendricks was working), a "transformation" that even Lt. Waters does not understand is invoked--although the viewer may see him humanizing the events he finds himself in. Moreover, while moving to the evacuation site, Lt. Waters finds himself in a situation of having to "fluidly assess" his rules of engagement: he kills a straggling "rebel" soldier to prevent his men (along with the doctor and the refugees) from being fired upon. Thus, while his mission is to secure the "package" (Dr. Kendricks) and the rules of engagement are to engage only if fired on, events force Lt. Waters to subjectively (in military jargon, "fluidly assess" the situation), rather than objectively, interpret the intent of his mission and his ordered rules of engagement. And so, as they evacuate, Lt. Waters makes another decision--based on the interaction of the reality at hand and his apparently "newly found conscience"--to turn the helicopter around. In doing so, Lt Waters is "fluidly assessing" his mission and rules of engagement: the mission now is Dr. Kendricks and her "luggage"--the refugees; his rules of engagement become whatever is needed to protect the mission. This decision then further interacts with future factors, pushing Lt. Waters to make more and more subjective decisions, each of which seriously challenges his (and others) interpretation of his mission, and his interpretation of his rules for engagement.

As the lines of interpretation blur for Lt. Waters, the interactions of his self, his mission, and his decision increasingly personalize events as they unfold. In turn, each decision he makes, along with his increased personalization, effects the men of his command, and they too begin to personalize the "mission" and their understanding of what needs to be done (and, ultimately, sacrificed) as events occur. The personalization process recedes eventually into individual politics, as portrayed when Lt. Waters calls his men together, briefs them, and tells them to speak their minds. In Lt. Waters' fashion, he is seeking to establish a common political agenda with that of the "mission" (Dr. Kendricks and "her" people) and the rapidly fluidly changing rules of engagement.

For Dr. Lena Kendricks (Monica Bellucci) the "reality" is her oath as a doctor/humanitarian and her mission to protect "her people," the refugees--and in particular the last surviving hereditary leader of the previous ruling ethnic group. In being forced to leave the Mission, she challenges Lt. Waters', and his men's, objectivity and sense of "reality", by flaunting and demanding acknowledgment of the Nigerians' "reality" and the politics of Nigeria--including the agenda of genocide. Her refusal to leave the "able" refugees behind at the Mission and her outrage in learning that Lt. Waters lied to her, along with her inability to make her own choices, leaves her vulnerable, helpless and mistrusting. But, Lt. Waters' killing of the "rebel" soldier, which both horrifies and angers her (because he didn't kill them all), forces Dr. Kendricks to recognize the severity of the situation. So, when Lt. Waters does return, she subjectively assess the situation, and makes the decision to withhold information and constantly argue with the soldiers, hoping to bring sanity where there is none. As events unfold, Dr. Kendricks comes to personalize Lt. Waters and his men, subjectively softening her angst, but not her mistrust, of the soldiers and their potential sacrifices. When a "mole" is discovered and shot fleeing, she is once again faced with a decision: to tell or not to tell Lt. Waters about the "special" refugee. Her failure to tell brings her fidelity into question, both for herself and for Lt. Waters and his men. A fierce ambush that inflicts casualties to both soldiers and refugees results in Dr. Hendricks' decision to alter her subjective perspective of the situation, becoming more vocal in pushing the refugees forward and doing whatever she can to protect everyone. When soldiers are hit or do extraordinary tasks, she personalizes them as if they were "her" people. In doing so, so do the Nigerians personalize their perspective of the soldiers and their "reality," picking up weapons to help defend themselves and others. In Dr. Hendricks' fashion, she is also seeking to establish a common political agenda with her humanitarianism and more encompassing mission to protect everyone, and Lt. Waters' political agenda.

As for complaints I have seen in other reviews, I have a few rebuttals. First, while I have seen many of Bruce Willis' and Antoine Fuqua's movies, I do not understand the complaint that there is an "all too familiar cast, (right down to Tom Skerritt as the "Captain")...." Even if some of the cast have been in other movies together, how does that detract from their performances in "Tears of the Sun?" They are all solid in my opinion. Second, as for make-up appearing to be "halloween funny," I can honestly say that I only notice make-up when it interferes with the actors performance, which was not the case in this movie. Conversely, I did feel that the face camo at the beginning was far better than most movies, and seemed to "wear" off as it normally would (based on my personal military experiences). Third, with regards to the combat scenes, I can honestly say that this is the first movie I can recall, where the ambushed soldiers did exactly what they would do in combat. Granted, for filming purposes they walked rather than ran (which would have made the scene last seconds not minutes) and the soldiers were bunched up too tight so they would all fit in the lens. But, otherwise I felt this was very well done; as were most of the other "battle" scenes. Fourth, with regards to the comment that the movie is "Apalling [sic] racist claptrap," which in "[h]aving chosen to set it in a real country, Nigeria, the movie then proceeds to play Nigerians as 'bad, evil' people who will commit atrocities because they can;...." As a person who abhors discrimination and stereotyping of any individual or group, I saw nothing that was "appalling," "racist," or performances that simply portrayed Nigerians as "'bad, evil 'people." I did see Nigerians acting like Nigerian refugees, some of which were excellent performances. Yes, the so called "rebel" soldiers were shown as being one-dimensional and performing "outrageous" acts of terrorism, crime, and genocide. But the reality is unfortunately simple: mutilation, rape, dismemberment, torture, murder and other unthinkable acts are committed in "war," as well as other times; and often by all sides involved. And they have happened in Nigeria, just as they have occurred in the US (e.g., see my review of "Soldier Blue") and all other countries. That said, it is unfortunate that there was not enough time allowed to enhance the one-dimensional portrayals of the "rebels." For example, many of the so called "rebels" were probably also victims of violence and forced into the military, and as such were acting in the only way they knew how. For a better understanding of this process, I strongly recommend "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," by Paulo Freire and Myra Bergman Ramos. Lastly, with regards to any criticism that the film is "jingoism" (advocacy of warlike foreign policy), "sword rattling," "militaristic," or some other form of propaganda, I can only ask "what hole are you hiding in?" Please try to remember that "Tears of the Sun" is a character driven FICTIONAL drama that is about politics, political agendas, and how they translate into reality for individuals--and the decisions they make in the moment.

Update--1 July 2008: If this review was not helpful to you, I would appreciate learning the reason(s) so I can improve my reviews. My goal is to provide help to potential buyers, not get into any arguments. So, if you only disagree with my opinion, could you please say so in the comments and not indicate that the review was not helpful. Thanks.

"Superb movie", The tears of the sun is a superb movie.
Excellent soundtracks, history and performance actors.

"Great picture and sound", I'm a fan of Bruce and this one is a my favorite movie too. This Blu-ray Dise is worth the price. The sound is great too.

"One hell of a good war action movie!", Last week, including the weekend, I watched three great war action movies on television, namely:

1) 'Black Hawk Down', starring Josh Hartnett, Tom Sizemore, Eric Bana;

2) 'Behind Enemy Lines', starring Owen Wilson, Gene Hackman;

3) 'Tears of the Sun', starring Bruce Willis, Monica Bellucci, Tom Skerritt;

The first movie was based on an actual event that took place in Mogadishu, Somalia on the African continent in October 1993 during the Clinton presidency.

The second movie was apparently a fictional adaptation of an actual event that supposedly took place during the Bosnia-Serbia conflict.

The third movie was more of a fictional account that had the starvation-ravaged Nigeria caught in an ethnic civil war as a background setting.

In the war action movie, 'Tears of the Sun', directed by Antoine Fuqua (behind 'The Replacement Killers', 'The Shooter', 'King Arthur'), Lt. A K Waters (Bruce Willis) led an elite team of Navy SEALs into Nigerian territory to retrieve an American 'Doctors Without Borders' physician, Dr. Lena Kendricks (Monica Bellucci), who was tending victims of the ongoing ethnic civil war at a Catholic mission in a remote village.

It was meant to be a simple, straight-forward extraction.

They were under strict orders from their commanding officer, Capt. Bill Rhodes (Tom Skerritt) to remain disengaged from the conflict on the ground.

[The democratically elected Nigerian government of Samuel Akuza was overthrown by a ruthless military dictator, who was determined to wipe out the entire ruling family.]

Unfortunately, Lt. Waters did not realised that he had to deal with a tough cookie like Dr Kendricks, who demanded that the team also rescued some seventy refugees at the mission.

Lt. Waters & his team witnessed the extreme brutality of the rebels under the military dictator, & was immediately won over to Dr Kendrick's cause, & placed their own lives at risk by agreeing to escort the refugees on a perilous trek through dense jungle to reach the border with Cameroon.

They were pursued relentlessly by the rebels, under the command of a sadistic Col. Sadick, & were confounded until they discovered that, among the refugees, was the sole survivor of the country's previous ruling family, whom the rebels had been ordered to eliminate at all costs.

Lt. Waters had to weigh the life of one seemingly important man against their own & the refugees they were obliged to protect.

The rest of the movie traced their daring exploits through the dense jungle & open fields to reach the border, with the ruthless rebels on hot pursuit.

Frankly speaking, for me, this was one thought-provoking movie that truly portrayed what ethnic cleansing as well as wartime atrocities might really be like.

What I like about the story was that, Lt. Waters, a hardened military veteran, defied orders from his superiors. He did what he thought was the right thing to do. It was a judgement call he could not refused at all.

Contrary to military protocol, he also gave his men a chance to have a say.

I particularly like what one of the team members, James Atkins (Cole Hauser) said in response: "I can't look at them (the refugees) like package anymore. I'm gonna get them out or I'm gonna die trying."

Also, the Navy SEAL team members did not always agree with Lt Waters, & yet they remained loyal to him anyway.

The last segment of the movie was gritty & poignant.

Lt. Waters, with three Navy SEAL team members, all badly wounded, & Dr Kendricks, plus a small number of refugees, including the important Azuka heir, eventually survived the ordeal, as they finally crossed the border with Cameroon.

I was really touched when one of the refugees, with tears in her eyes, said to Lt. Waters: "I will never forget you...God will never forget you."

I reckon the ending quotation at the epilogue of the movie truly sums up my emotional sentiments about this movie: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing," attributed to Edmund Burke.

Again, I must say, despite minor technical flaws in the story, this is one hell of a good war action movie to watch.

It was a sobering thought to watch Bruce Willis in one of his toughest & sombre roles. In his other movies, e.g. the 'Moonlighting' television series as well as the 'Die Hard' movie quartet, he was always the wise cracker. In this movie, he was a very fine actor. Just look at his expressive eyes.

As for Monica Bellucci, she was a totally different person, unlike her sexy vivacious persona in her other movies, e.g. the two Matrix sequels.

To sum up all the three war action movies in the foregoing posts, I want to take this opportunity to share with readers a dedication statement I had learned - & remembered - since my secondary school days. It came from Sir Winston Churchill, the wartime British Prime Minister:

"Never in the field of human conflict, have so many owed so much to so few."

So, dear readers, please go & watch the three foregoing war action movies. You will be delighted.