It would be interesting to see the movie In the Valley of Elah pretends to be in the first hour. The strong elements include 1) a mystery involving soldiers returned from war 2) a dad searching for his son and 3) a jurisdictional battle over crime scenes and access. These are interesting themes, and ideas worth exploring in what should have been a good movie. Unfortunately, once you pull back the curtain on this film you’ll find out the dirty secret I did. In the Valley of Elah wasn’t made to entertain you. Nope, the goal here is some good old fashioned preaching.
I’ve sort of hinted at the plot but here’s the full summary: Tommy Lee Jones is a former military investigator who receives a call that his son has gone missing. Jones knows in his heart that this is completely out of character so he heads down to the base (a ten hour drive) to figure out what has become of his son. Charlize Theron is a newly minted county detective who at first rebuffs and finally helps with the search and ensuing investigation. Both Theron and Jones are strong given the source material so I can’t knock the casting. And the premise is simple enough, the movie chugs along nicely through the first hour to the point where you think “Hmmm, this is interesting. Where are they going with it?”
Sadly where they are going is idiotic and here I am forced to place the blame solely on Paul Haggis. This screenplay, and his direction, are a muddled mess as the film rounds the turn. The promise of that first hour is not only squandered, it’s damn near forgotten. As it turns out Haggis has a lot to say about war, and the military, and who we choose to fight our battles — but he attempts to cloak it in “story.” The movie is evidently based upon a true story but I can’t forgive the tone regardless. There is a way to tell a narrative that’s emotionally honest and not manipulative, and Elah simply doesn’t do that.
In the Valley of Elah is definitely not a thriller or a terribly exciting movie, but at its best (around minute 50) it is thoughtful and intriguing. For most audience members a weak second act is a death knell, and I’m no different there. It would have been much better if Haggis has wasted the first hour of the movie on his random anti-war views. Mind you, I’m not knocking an artist making an anti-war statement. Some of the greatest movies of our time are just that. What I’m knocking is the lie that precedes it, this idea that if Haggis cobbles two separate movies together under the same title he’s somehow a genius. In this case none of it feels very intelligent at all.
So I would pass here even though this has some clever moments. I can’t stand a movie that I feel is manipulative and this one is that to a tee. This is neither artsy nor exciting. It’s not effectively executed and it is slightly annoying. The only reason I’m giving this as high a grade as I am is because of that strong first hour. I can see the art and skill that went into an opening which held such promise. But I still can’t think up a solid reason you should pay eight bucks for half a movie.
