Courage Under Fire (2001, DVD)

Once again, I have found a movie in which I liked the book better. This is not unusual because I usually find that I enjoy the book version better than the movie (e.g., Jurassic Park, Silence of the Lambs, etc.). And in this case, the book wasn't the "on the edge of your seat" type anyway. But the book did manage to portray a good deal of intrigue and a secondary plot that were just missing in the movie.

Nat Serling, a washed-up colonel is given the assignment by his commanding officer to investigate a medal of honor candidate. The issue is somewhat touchy, politically, as the recipient is a woman, the first ever to receive the medal. Nat's assignment is to investigate the incident in which she displayed the qualities for which she deserves the medal. But once Nat starts investigating, facts don't jibe and cover-up seems obvious. Ordered to back off, Nat continues to investigate on his own.

Both the book and the movie use flashback sequences to tell the story of what happened to the troops out in the desert of the Persian Gulf War. But the movie doesn't use near enough of them to adequately tell why the "discrepancies" that Nat finds are significant. There aren't nearly the amount of interviews with the woman's fellow officers to help the viewer get a sense of what the "big mystery" is.

In the book, the secondary story, which is barely touched on in the movie, is Nat's personal quest to redeem himself for accidentally shooting his own men in a tank battle in the Persian Gulf. The movie does open with the scene of the tank battle, but its relevance isn't really ever revealed. Also, in the book, Nat has a personal struggle going on with his wife. There is not a hint of it in the movie. I felt this secondary plot lent a better portrayal of Nat as a man and rounded out his character. This is completely missing in the movie.

The second major thing I have to mention is--Meg Ryan. Normally I like just about everything she has done. But I have to say I didn't like her in this role at all. Fortunately, her appearance is very small since the movie didn't make use of the flashbacks enough. We never see her "alive," but only in memories of the soldiers. She portrays a hard-a** chopper pilot with a rough voice and a Texas accent. The way she acted and yelled at her fellow soldiers just didn't endear her character to me at all. I didn't even care if she got the medal.

Other than the flashbacks, there is no action in this movie. It is largely based on Nat's investigation, so it is limited entirely to having conversations with people and driving around to meet those people. If there had been less than stellar actors in this, the movie would have been entirely forgettable. At one point, Nat is officially removed from the investigation because he's stirring up a hornet's nest. Yet you never feel like he's under any political pressure or that his career is in jeopardy.

I saw the cut version on network TV, but didn't notice that there was a huge amount of swearing that had to be bleeped. There were no sexual overtones or gruesome violence in it, that teenagers couldn't handle. I rate this for teens only because of the complexity of the subject matter, not really for inappropriate content.

If you like military movies, this may be up your alley. But you probably should stick to "Hunt for Red October," and the like. However, if you've read the book, but not seen the movie, I advise you to skip the movie. You're sure to be disappointed.