Land of Bad (2024) is directed by William Eubank and stars Liam Hemsworth, Russell Crowe, Milo Ventimiglia, Chika Ikogwe, Ricky Whittle, Daniel MacPherson, Robert Rabiah, and Luke Hemsworth. The film follows a team of American special forces operatives on a South American mission to rescue a fellow soldier. When the operation goes from bad to worse, the team is separated, leaving a single drone as their only line of defense. The operator of the drone, Captain Eddie Grimm (Crowe), will only leave his chair once the mission is complete. Working with the radio operator, Sgt. JJ Kinney (L. Hemsworth), Grimm hatches a plan to complete their mission and bring the team home safely. 

Most of the cast play hardened, serious special forces operatives, and because of this feel a bit cold and distant. It feels authentic but doesn’t do much to help us to attach ourselves to these characters. That being said, Liam Hemsworth’s Sgt. Kinney does get a certain amount of nuance. He’s the new guy on the team and desires to prove himself. The thing is, this is a pretty unoriginal genre trope. The characters that truly stand out here are the two drone operators played by Russell Crowe and Chika Ikogwe. There’s a good amount of downtime due to the nature of their situation that allows for a decent amount of character development. It’s a nice change of pace in the sense that we focus on the soldiers operating machines of death from the comfort of a Las Vegas military base. The film also does a great job of juxtaposing the more personal warfare of the operatives vs. the impersonal nature of drone warfare. Thankfully, this focus on the people in the chair doesn’t end up taking away from the military action that the target audience expects. It’s a nice balance.

Where the film stumbles is its occasional use of unrealistic war film cliches. For example, there are countless instances in which these supposedly well-trained soldiers just stand still as they’re shot at from multiple directions. It’s as if they’ve never heard of the concept of “cover.” Another example is the dreaded use of a pillow as a silencer. I think most people understand at this point that firing a gun into a pillow doesn’t make it much quieter. Also, the movie becomes a sort of First Blood (1982) riff in its climactic moments. It’s not too silly, but it gave the feeling of a fun action movie as opposed to a serious war drama. The film is also annoyingly patriotic at times, contradicting the “nuance of war “ message that is set up in earlier scenes. 

The battle sequences deliver the goods and it’s the main ingredient that helps carry the audience through the film. It’s nice too, that although the main characters can sometimes come off as basic, they are given clear and effective arcs. It almost makes up for the fact that the characters are a bit unoriginal on the surface. We learn about characters through the events of the film as opposed to understanding them before the action kicks off. 

Overall, this is a satisfying war film, but will never be considered one of the best in the genre. The performances are satisfying although a bit basic and the film subverts enough genre expectations to make it worthwhile. However, with each subversion comes two cliches, making the film ultimately feel like a retread. That being said, I much prefer this to the similar war film: Behind Enemy Lines (2001). If you want an intense, 2-hour action extravaganza, this is a strong choice for the typically weak month of February. The only audiences this won’t satisfy are those uninterested in war films. B