お届け先を選択
すべての出品を見る

ティアーズ・オブ・ザ・サン [Blu-ray]

5つ星のうち4.1 2,804
仕様
価格
新品 中古品
Blu-ray 通常版
—
— ￥1,896
Blu-ray 通常版
—
— ￥2,834
Blu-ray 通常版
—
— ￥3,043
Blu-ray 通常版
—
— ￥3,092
Blu-ray [Blu-ray]
—
— ￥12,085
フォーマット 色, ドルビー, ワイドスクリーン
コントリビュータ アントワン・フークア, ブルース・ウィリス, コール・ハウザー, イーモン・ウォーカー, アレックス・ラスカー, トム・スケリット, モニカ・ベルッチ
言語 英語, 日本語
稼働時間 2 時間 1 分
dポイントがたまる、つかえる
アカウントを連携して、dポイントでさらにお得にお買い物 詳しく見る

商品の説明

商品紹介

今までのDVDとはここが違う!
大容量ならではの・・・
●高画質:Disc容量25GB
●高音質:5.1chリニアPCM収録
●大迫力のシネスコサイズ
【収録内容】
史上最も苛酷な救出ミッションがはじまる!
アクションを超えるアクション超大作。
<映像・音声特典>
●音声解説
●未公開シーン集
●アフリカ・ファクト・トラック
●予告編集
《監督》 アントワン・フークワ
《製作》 イアン・ブライス
《脚本》 アレックス・ラスカー
《出演》 ブルース・ウィリス、モニカ・ベルッチ ほか

Amazonより

内戦下のナイジェリアで、米海軍特殊部隊シールズのウォーターズ大尉は、現地で医療活動を行っていた女医リーナの救出を命じられた。だが大尉は軍の命令を無視してリーナのみならず、彼女と一緒にいた難民たちの救出をも決意。そのため、国境まで歩いて逃げなければならなくなってしまう……。
信念に基づいて行動する大尉以下、シールズの隊員たちの姿を描いたもの。あまりにも残虐な、人間とは思えぬ行為をとる反乱軍のやり口をじっくりと見せる演出は、自然と観客とウォーターズの視点を同一化させていく。そのため、なぜウォーターズが軍の命令を破ってまで難民救出に出たか、その理由を声高には説明していないにもかかわらず、観客は彼の心境を想像することができるのだ。ただ後半、ウォーターズの関心がリーナだけに向けられたような演出に変化してしまうのが、ちょっと残念。（横森 文）

登録情報

  • アスペクト比 ‏ : ‎ 2.35:1
  • メーカーにより製造中止になりました ‏ : ‎ いいえ
  • 言語 ‏ : ‎ 英語, 日本語
  • 梱包サイズ ‏ : ‎ 17 x 13.5 x 1 cm; 99.79 g
  • EAN ‏ : ‎ 4547462034076
  • 監督 ‏ : ‎ アントワン・フークア
  • メディア形式 ‏ : ‎ 色, ドルビー, ワイドスクリーン
  • 時間 ‏ : ‎ 2 時間 1 分
  • 発売日 ‏ : ‎ 2006/11/22
  • 出演 ‏ : ‎ ブルース・ウィリス, モニカ・ベルッチ, コール・ハウザー, イーモン・ウォーカー, トム・スケリット
  • 字幕: ‏ : ‎ 日本語, 英語
  • 言語 ‏ : ‎ 英語 (Dolby Digital 5.1), 日本語 (Dolby Digital 5.1)
  • 販売元 ‏ : ‎ ソニー・ピクチャーズエンタテインメント
  • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B000IXYY10
  • ディスク枚数 ‏ : ‎ 1
  • カスタマーレビュー:
    5つ星のうち4.1 2,804

カスタマーレビュー

星5つ中4.1つ
5つのうち4.1つ
2,804グローバルレーティング

この商品をレビュー

他のお客様にも意見を伝えましょう
カスタマーレビューを書く
一方を絶対悪とするのは…
3 星
一方を絶対悪とするのは…
映像は中々綺麗です。グレインによるノイズが結構目立ちますが、こういう戦争の雰囲気には悪くないです。DVD版も持っていますが圧倒的にBD版のほうが綺麗。他のBD作品と比べても中々綺麗な部類に入ります。音はかなり迫力があります。迫力満点のサウンドにより、リアルな音響を楽しめます。ダイナミックで広がるのある音なのもよし。ストーリーはいかにもアメリカ的な映画。演出としてはリアルに描けていますし迫力もあります。葛藤など心のうちも描けていますが、ヒロインであるモニカ・ベルッチが浮いている。そして何より一方を絶対悪とするストーリーはあまり好きではありません。戦争娯楽映画としては悪くないのではないでしょうか。特典はSD画質の映像になっています。
非表示
フィードバックをお寄せいただきありがとうございます
申し訳ありませんが、エラーが発生しました
申し訳ありませんが、レビューを読み込めませんでした

上位レビュー、対象国： 日本

ロードマット
5つ星のうち5.0 兵士が人間に戻る
2021年10月27日に日本でレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
映画ですからハッピーエンドみたいですが　命令で動く兵士が人間になった映画でした　実際ならこうも上手くはいかないとは思いますが　いい映画でした
2人のお客様がこれが役に立ったと考えています
役に立った
 レポート
リプトン軍曹
5つ星のうち4.0 引退したブルースウィリスの作品なので...
2023年6月4日に日本でレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
内容、アクションはとてもよく出来ています。ただ...本格ミリタリーマニアの方から見れば、何故プロ集団のシールズ大尉なのにブーニーハットで目立つスキンヘッドをわざわざ隠さないのか？と、興醒めして首を傾げたくなります。恐らくですがブルースウィリスの「俳優の顔が目立たなくなる」の一言で被らなかったのでは無いか想像します。(彼は別の作品にも、こういった事があったらしい)とは言え、引退されたのは寂しい限りです。
1人のお客様がこれが役に立ったと考えています
役に立った
 レポート
くま五郎
5つ星のうち5.0 観るべき映画
2021年6月9日に日本でレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
リアルな残酷描写がありますが
実際の戦争はもっと悲惨だと思います
大切な何かを必死で守る兵士は美しいです
1人のお客様がこれが役に立ったと考えています
役に立った
 レポート
土田　隆
5つ星のうち3.0 まずまずかな。
2022年11月3日に日本でレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
年寄りのSEALDsチームリーダーって居るのって感じ。
役に立った
 レポート
Mr.Spock🖖
5つ星のうち5.0 エドマンド•バークの言葉が響く。
2019年11月26日に日本でレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
- Edmund Burke
悪が勝利するために必要なたった一つのことは、善良な人たちが何もしないことである。
5人のお客様がこれが役に立ったと考えています
役に立った
 レポート
松本　雅道
5つ星のうち4.0 珍しい、ブルースウィルスにしては、変わった内容
2023年5月17日に日本でレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
米国の国際立場で、見捨てられる民族を救出した話になる。良くも悪くも悲惨な戦争を描き出している。
役に立った
 レポート
Amazon カスタマー
5つ星のうち5.0 最後の戦闘シーン
2021年2月12日に日本でレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
兎に角面白い
1人のお客様がこれが役に立ったと考えています
役に立った
 レポート
大介
5つ星のうち2.0 再生途中で画像が停止しました。
2014年1月3日に日本でレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
ディスク面はきれいでしたが、再生途中で画像が停止しました。レンタル上がりだったので仕方ないですが。再生に問題ない商品を販売してほしいです。
1人のお客様がこれが役に立ったと考えています
役に立った
 レポート

他の国からのトップレビュー

すべてのレビューを日本語に翻訳
Backrow
5つ星のうち5.0 Action
2024年4月7日に英国でレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
A great film to watch, but a bit raw in places. Bruce is always great in action films.
レポート
Oliver Müller
5つ星のうち5.0 Tränen der Sonne
2024年4月5日にドイツでレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
Super Film Klasse
レポート
GEORGE
5つ星のうち5.0 a masterpiece
2018年1月3日にイタリアでレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
in no other film you can get an understanding so terrifying of the tribal massacres in Africa, Photography is excellent and acting seems, to my poor understanding, very good, especially of B Willis who is very effective in depicting an iron soldier who slowly melts to human feelings.
In the finale there is a strong suspense combat situation, one of the best I have seen. The movie is patriotic, yes, But why not? Fuqua is an american, most natural that he loves his country (which is wonderful...I'm Italian) and I do not see why Americans must be all the time the bad ones, as in many Hollywood movies. There are positive feelings throughout all the film (except for the "bad ones") and big and small acts of love, like missionaries giving their life to console the dying Africans, or soldiers giving some of their food to refugees. Man are strong and women caring. No killer woman there and the director does not fear to show one or two Christian prayers and references to God, and sin where appropriate (i.e.: before death). Who believes in SIN anymore? Pope Francis? ? I think this position is less common and a director has to accept some risks, first of all being refused by most spectators. I bought also the Italian version to show to selected people..
レポート
Dr. Karl O. Edwards
5つ星のうち5.0 A Movie So Exemplary It Invokes Political Divisiveness And Critic Stereotyping
2008年5月12日にアメリカ合衆国でレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
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.
28人のお客様がこれが役に立ったと考えています
 レポート
Whitfield Charles
5つ星のうち5.0 Good film,
2024年2月10日に英国でレビュー済み
Amazonで購入
Good film, quality as expected.
レポート