ShareThis Page
Movies/TV

Review: Adrenaline-fueled '12 Strong' explores how and why men fight

| Thursday, Jan. 18, 2018, 10:06 a.m.

If you're doing your job right in the U.S. Special Forces, it likely means no one will ever know. It's a tough, elite and highly classified position, where acts of incredible heroism never get the ticker tape parade, and that's kind of the point. These soldiers are supposed to slip into and out of secret missions without making the evening news.

"12 Strong" tells just one of those extraordinary stories, fought in the mountains of Afghanistan in the winter of 2001.

The film is based on Doug Stanton's book "Horse Soldiers," which describes one of the ways a special forces team adapted to the rugged landscape of Afghanistan — on horseback, like the Afghani warriors with whom they embedded — while battling the Taliban in the shadow of 9/11.

Directed by Danish photojournalist Nicolai Fuglsig, with a brisk, efficient script by "Silence of the Lambs" screenwriter Ted Tally and "The Town" screenwriter Peter Craig, "12 Strong" unfolds as a procedural, taking protocol and bureaucracy swiftly in stride.

The men simply execute the mission. They don't ask too many questions, and they train their minds on personal vendettas and the reasons they have to go home.

Chris Hemsworth stars as Mitch Nelson, a highly-trained new captain who's never seen war. He impresses the higher-ups enough to send his team, Task Force Dagger, to embed with the Afghani General Dostum (Navid Negahban), who's been fighting the Taliban as part of the Northern Alliance. The task is to call in airstrikes on the Taliban, while fighting through an unforgiving territory.

Nelson promises he can do it in three weeks with 12 men, which would require an enormous amount of trust, goodwill and generosity on the part of Dostum.

The two make an interesting and eventually inseparable pair. Dostum, who started fighting the Russians at age 16, is the aging lion, who declares the young upstart Nelson doesn't have "killer's eyes."

The fundamental difference between the two men? Nelson's men are fighting for what they have on earth, fearful of death, while Dostum's people fight for their rewards in heaven, willing to embrace death, because their situation on earth is pretty hellish as is.

Fuglsig brings an eye for systems and detail to the film, but this is a Jerry Bruckheimer production after all, and he never skimps on the bombastic pyrotechnics. The blistering firefights are increasingly brutal to the point of numbness. "12 Strong," which is sometimes a profound philosophical and existential examination of what it means to fight for something, is also a ferociously action-packed war film. The details of the who, where and what often get lost and muddled in the thundering explosions.

While it focuses on the personal reasons to go to war, it doesn't truly interrogate the larger ones. We're given motivation to hate the Taliban with that tired screenwriting trope, a perfunctory scene of violence against women, which is to justify the airstrikes the Americans call in again and again. The only sly political commentary are a few cracks about how short they expect the war to be, and a few warnings about nations who have come before.

It never delves deep enough to examine the larger involvement of the U.S. and those ramifications, but "12 Strong" manages to infuse heart and character into this adrenaline-fueled war film, exploring how and why men fight.

Katie Walsh is a Tribune News Service writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me