| Overall Grade: |
A- |
|
| Story: |
A- |
|
|
| Acting: |
B+ |
|
|
| Direction: |
A- |
|
|
| Visuals: |
A |
|
|
Dramatic interpretation of the Arms trade
by Yahoo! Movies User (movies profile)
Jan 26, 2008
58
of
75 people found this review helpful
While many user reviews concentrate on whether or not this movie is Left Wing/Liberal, whether or not it is an accurate representation of the reality of the arms trade, or whether it is a sick smorgasboard of sex, drugs or violence, fairly few concentrate on the story-telling aspects of this picture. The writer/director of this film (Andrew Niccol) also wrote Gattica and The Truman Show, as well as co-wrote The Terminal, all of which I consider to be high-quality films in their own rite. He also wrote/directed S1mOne, which bored me to sleep. I definitely count Lord of War as one of his better films, if not the best. As in most of his movies, Niccol seems to take a topic of social significance and realism (Inane bureaucracy in "The Terminal", the TV nation in "The Truman Show", and the social implications of genetic engineering in "Gattica") and dramatize them just enough to make a palatable, cohesive storyline, but one which is close enough to reality to seem like it might be happening right now, if not very soon (in the case of Gattica). This is Niccol's picture, and probably his point of view - not a mindless brainwashing attempt by an evil left-handed boogie man named "Hollywood". Some reviews have decried the "liberal" slant to this film, but I cannot place my finger on which parts of the movie specifically are "liberal" - it's a movie about a gun runner. If you don't want to see guns, people getting shot or crazy war-mongering and dirty deals, then don't go see this movie. I have seen these things and can assure you that there are such people in the world. It's important to realize that this is a dramatization: Some parts of Cage's character are no doubt spruced up for dramatic effect (The trophy wife, the expensive NY apartment, the coked up brother, having the President of Liberia appear at his front door), which many might find distracting. All in all, the movie has the feel of a documentary that was transformed into a dramatic story through the prism of a mind that, though perhaps jaded, has grasped the fact that most wars have middlemen whose story is worth telling. I suppose that a more "conservative" take on the same subject would have cast Cage's character in a more vile pose - casting him as a character who engenders no sentiments of sympathy in the audience whatsoever. Maybe that's what bothers many people about this movie - the protagonist is a bad guy, but not so bad that you cannot associate yourself with him. Perhaps such a film would have showed Yuri Orlov directly supplying terrorist groups, as was only implied in the film, rather than governments, generals and assorted "freedom fighters". For sure, a "conservative" picture would not have placed any emphasis on official US,UK involvement in the arms trade. And perhaps a more everyday movie about arms deals would have focused on the trade in nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. If you want to see a movie like that, you can ("The Peacemaker" comes to mind). This movie happens to be different than the current paradigm - its not pro-gun or anti-gun, not pro-government or anti-government, nor is it left or right slanted (whatever that means). It's a view into the life of a man who sells anyone who can afford it the means to kill other people. It's not pretty, but it's difficult to claim there isn't a grain of truth in it. I would encourage people who are interested in such things to see this movie. If you're not interested, don't bother: Don't go watch this movie and then complain it's not like "The Rock" or "Con-Air". It's not intended to be that kind of movie. Furthermore, it would be advisable to follow up this film with a review of some real gun-running stories. They're all over the news, if you know where to look and care. Check out (replace " dot " with "." where appropriate):
www dot newcriminologist dot co dot uk/news dot asp?id=-1898474147
www dot phxnews dot com/fullstory dot php?article=25101
A very educational piece of information comes from the US Government's Congressional Research Service:
"Conventional Arms Transfers to
Developing Nations, 1997-2004"
fpc dot state dot gov/documents/organization/52179 dot pdf
Excerpt:
"Recently, from 2001-2004, the United States and Russia have dominated the
arms market in the developing world, with the United States ranking first and Russia
second each of the last four years in the value of arms transfer agreements. From
2001-2004, the United States made $29.8 billion in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations, in constant 2004 dollars, 39.9% of all such agreements. Russia,
the second leading supplier during this period, made $21.7 billion in arms transfer
agreements, or 29.1%."
That's a lot of money (and that's only the legit stuff). Where there's a lot of money, there are a lot of middlemen. Where there are middlemen, there are criminals. Where there are criminal, gun-running ruthless middlemen, there's a story. Where there's a story, there's a movie. Lord of War is such a movie. It says nothing about your 2nd amendment rights, so you won't be sinning by going to watch it. Or don't watch it - who cares? |
My Public Profile 
