Casualties of War (film): Important film, but MJ Fox is not believable in his role

Ever since Back to the Future was released back in 1985, I have been a fan of Michael J. Fox. I remain steadfast in the opinion that he is a great actor.... kinda. Because of how great he was and how perfect for the role he was in BTTF this has lead me to believe that almost anything else that he is in, he just can't really be taken seriously in any role other than "Marty McFly." This isn't to suggest that I think he is a bad actor, he definitely isn't, but just because someone knocks it out of the park in one role doesn't mean they are going to be good in just anything that they are involved in. This is why I think that while this movie was and is important and is a good film, it likely would have been better had it not had Fox in the cast.

src

Let me be very clear about this right out of the gate: This is not your typical Vietnam War film and it is also extremely graphic in a very different way than you would expect most war or even horror films to be. This is what makes this film so important. Without giving away too much, which is probably encapsulated in the trailer which I have not yet watched, this movie is about the horrors of war and how it, specifically the Vietnam War, turns the people in it into animals who no longer see their opposition as human. The soldiers feel as though they can do whatever they want to anyone who is not on their side with impunity and see no harm and feel no moral obligation to treat them as fellow humans.

I'm not talking about soldiers wearing the uniforms of the opposing nation, I'm talking about people that simply share the same nationality, language, or culture of the enemy.

There are fantastic performances by everyone in the main cast including John C. Reilly who was at that point in his career still searching for where he belonged. He is actually a pretty fantastic serious actor and I don't believe I have ever seen him in this sort of role. Because of his work with primarily Will Ferrell, I can't really take him seriously as an actor despite the fact that this was many years before those two knew one another and it was years before I think almost anyone even knew who Will even was.

src

This is a very important story and it is a true story to boot and normally, that sort of thing would really appeal to me. This movie DID in fact appeal to me but there was a couple of problems in the execution that kind of made it, how do I say this, "less than perfect." I am nitpicking here but I also say this as someone that really appreciates Michael J. Fox. He simply isn't believable as a soldier. For one thing he is too small, not that soldiers can't be small or anything but it doesn't exactly suit him. Also, as a babyface of an actor, him acting tough towards anyone seems out of place and I just kept expecting Dr. Emmett Brown to turn up and get him out of there at any time.

src

While not exactly on a Tom Cruise level or anything, they do use some camera tricks such as positioning of actors to conceal how short Fox actually is. Standing directly next to John C. Reilly in the first picture, you get an idea about how small Fox actually is.

The crisis of conscious and the levels of authority in the military are on full display in this film and I think that it is important for people to see this film because of that. Those of us that have never served in the military have an enlightened idea about what it is actually like to be in a war situation and how the chain of command is something that absolutely must be respected, even if the person that outranks you is definitely in the wrong.

Another problem I had with this movie was the extremely lackluster special effects that take place with the mortar attacks early on in the film. I understand that it was 1989 but these explosions looked more like fireworks than actual bombs and personally, I would have preferred they just be implied rather than shown in such a cheap manner.

src

one thing that I find intriguing about this film and would like to know more about is that Michael J. Fox is known for being a very kind and wonderful person to work with whereas Sean Penn is known for being an insufferable asshole both on and off the set. Since Fox was the lead actor in this, I wonder if Penn took this as a slight and was extra mean to Fox while filming. There have been a lot of reports that Sean Penn is downright horrible to costars and definitely doesn't like being upstaged, so I would imagine that there were some "incidents" on set while filming.

Sean tries to steal the scene in any scene that he is in and well, that is expected of him. There is no denying his acting caliber and he is part of a very small select group of people that can do almost anything very well. No disrespect meant to Fox, but he is not in this category.

Should I watch it?

I think so, yes, especially if you enjoy war movies. This isn't your typical "go USA!" type of film but rather, it explores a darker side of warfare that probably happens a lot more than is reported. This movie will be very disturbing to a lot of people though so do not watch this with your kids unless you want to have to answer a lot of very difficult questions.

Casualties of War was a box-office failure, losing nearly $10 million before accounting in promotional expenses. I can't say why that is because it was mostly well-received by critics. It may have had something to do with the very disturbing elements that are portrayed in the movie as well as the fact that for a combat movie, there isn't actually much combat taking place.

I enjoyed it, but had my issues with it. Regardless, I think this is a movie worth seeing

_{HBO Max or "Max" has this for free as part of their streaming service. Almost all other major services have it for rent for a small fee}