"Lord of War" Getting Ugly Reviews

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lord of War?

Haven't seen it - just might in the near future.

But - picture this (no pun intended :D ) - is the reason its gotton crummy reviews is BECAUSE its not blatently anti-gun but more anti-international?

That would drive the Liberal/Left toadies bonkers - mainstream film coming from Hollywood and all :evil:
 
Hearing about guns and Nic Cage makes me want to pop Face/Off in the DVD player so I can get another shot of those gold plated SA 1911's :evil:
 
Review from The New Yorker....

Andrew Niccol’s “Lord of War” gets under way with the story of a bullet. The camera takes us inside an armaments factory, where, from the cartridge’s point of view, we see a brass casing filled, sealed, picked up and inspected, thrown back into a pile, and crated. The box is then turned over to a Russian officer and shipped to African thugs, who take the cartridge out of its crate and give it to a fighter, who fires it into the head of an unsuspecting young boy. This sequence—at first nifty, then horrifying—is composed of many separate shots, but the editor, Zach Staenberg, cut the material in such a way that the bullet’s progression feels continuous and inexorable. At the climax, the camera seems to be flying through the air straight at the boy. A malicious wit, this Andrew Niccol: by forcing the audience to take the bullet’s flight, he is suggesting that we are complicit both in arms sales (the United States is a leading exporter) and in eager enjoyment of movie violence, of which this sequence is a startling and admonitory example.

“Lord of War,” the story of the rise of an international arms dealer, is a raffishly ironic and insinuating movie—and probably the most sheerly enjoyable film of the year so far. Its hero, Yuri Orlov (Nicolas Cage), a fluent and plausible-sounding fellow, was born in Ukraine but grew up in Brighton Beach, among Jews who were mainly either pious or violent. Yuri, however, is neither. He’s not even Jewish. His father posed as a Jew to gain asylum in the United States, and Yuri, playing the angles, uses that identity when it suits him. He’s a con man who fights off depression by trying on roles—he owns passports from at least six different countries. After the bullet scene, Yuri, gazing at the camera, takes us into his confidence in the manner of Shakespeare’s Richard III. He announces that he will not lie to us or try to make himself look good, and it’s a promise that Niccol keeps on his behalf. The picture, which might be subtitled “A Rogue’s Progress,” moves along quickly, with Cage, in a new, booming, man-of-the world voice, narrating and stitching together brief scenes of Yuri’s life as a seller of rifles, machine guns, and grenades to crumbum Third World dictators. The narration is faintly reminiscent of Ray Liotta’s voice-over in Martin Scorsese’s great gangster movie “GoodFellas.” The two men go through similar arcs of precipitous ascent, weird adventure, positive cash flow, high living, abundant white powder, and then trouble. But Cage’s words are jauntier than Liotta’s. His tone is, roughly, “Yes, I’m a bad guy, and my life is a mess, but look at the fun I’m having!” Yuri is the most candid of cynics. In a semi-chastened moment, when he has temporarily withdrawn from arms dealing, he says, “Thank God there are still legal ways to exploit developing countries.” If you’re capable of finding that remark funny as well as vile, then you may be impure enough to enjoy this movie and its scapegrace hero.

Niccol, who was born in New Zealand in 1964, set up shop as a feature director with the sleek, pastel-blue science-fiction fantasia “Gattaca” (1997), which was about a genetically perfect totalitarian future. He then wrote “The Truman Show” (1998), whose hero, a cheerful insurance salesman, slowly realizes that he’s living in a sitcom. Niccol seemed to be some sort of new “conceptual” movie artist, a creator of artificial worlds. In “S1m0ne,” which he wrote and directed in 2002, a movie director loses his leading lady and develops a stunning digital substitute. “Gattaca” was very good sci-fi, but the puckish conceits of the two later movies were so thoroughly worked out that, at times, they left you little to respond to. In “Lord of War,” Niccol has at last begun to embrace the messy world we live in—or, at least, his own hyped-up, viciously entertaining version of it.

Nicolas Cage has been appearing in movies since he was a teen-ager, and he is now forty-one. His face is fuller, and he has almost lost the hangdog woefulness of his youth—almost, but not quite, which turns out to be a good thing. In order to like Yuri, we need to stay in touch with his fear that he’s just a cheap hustler from Brighton Beach after all, and Cage instinctively understands that. Now and then, his voice falters, his drawbridge eyebrows rise, and he allows Yuri’s businessman’s confidence to slip into despair. Yuri quickly recovers, but, by the end of the movie, he has taken part in so many nauseating deals that his soul has faded away. Again and again, Niccol puts him in situations where he has to face the awfulness of what he does. No fewer than three foils are posed against him: his kid brother (Jared Leto), who joins him in the arms trade, but then has misgivings and collapses into druggy hysteria; an older, “moral” arms dealer (Ian Holm), who sells to rebels rather than to dictators; and a straight-arrow Interpol agent (Ethan Hawke), who is obsessed with Yuri but won’t exceed the law in order to destroy him. They are better people than Yuri, and they say scornful things to him that are true, yet, like Richard III, he’s the hero because he’s fully conscious of everything he does, and gives it shape and body in words.

Movie taste has turned very square in this country, and I don’t know if audiences are prepared to accept a (edited) as a hero. “Lord of War” tells you why intelligent people may enjoy doing evil things, and it lets you in on the fun. It has been made without hypocrisy, which is not something I’m sure I would say of the other current movie devoted to Westerners mucking up in Africa—the high-minded but often fuzzy and self-regarding “Constant Gardener,” a film that hurls many vague accusations and leaves one in a teary, dissatisfied funk. “Lord of War” is lower in tone, but it’s also memorable and pleasure-giving, and its sense of outrage is just as strong. The bullet ride near the beginning of the movie is matched in shock by a sequence near the end in which Yuri’s private cargo plane, loaded with arms, makes a forced landing on an African road, scattering people in terror. Seen from below, the plane arrives like a malignant invader from another planet. Niccol is too smart to preach to us, but his anger and sorrow are there, even as he’s putting on a terrific show.

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/cinema/articles/050926crci_cinema
 
As soon as I heard of this movie I figured it would either glorify criminals, convey an anti-gun message, or contain both elements. If I hear reports proving me wrong I may rent it when it is available, otherwise I’ll just write it off.
 
Dunno about being anti

I saw the film (partially in the hopes of some good gun pr0n), and in the end, it was kind of bland. I cannot say for sure that it is anti-gun. There were a number of times when I thought of a few witty retorts. As an example, Cage, while sitting handcuffed by Hawke, who is going to hold him for 23:55 hours had just heard Hawke's tirade on how stopping Cage for a day from delivering his wares gives some innocent soul an extra day to live. Cage could have pointed out that while he was giving this speach about keeping his evil wares away from people, that Hawke had an H&K SMG on his shoulder the whole time, and the inevitable double standard that it implies. After all, if the weapons are so evil, why does Hawke's character need one?
Since the movie more or less sidestepped the whole idea of *PRIVATE* firearms ownership, I cannot say that it is all that anti-gun.
 
I just saw it. What started out as black comedy jarringly turns into social drama about 40 minutes in. The comedy is truly funny but the social drama is very forced. By splitting the movie like this, the better features of either genre were lost.

The movie is anti-gun in that small arms are specifically blamed for the African genocides. Never are the motivations for using those arms examined.

I found the supporting characters, particularly the brother and wife, to be about as believable as cartoons but much less funny.

I like Nic Cage, I like guns, and I like black humor but this one disappointed me.
 
I'm seeing it tonight. As usual, I hope merely to be distracted from other things for a little while :cool:
 
Different Opinion

Old Nic snagged a "Best Actor" Academy Award for "Leaving Las Vegas." The film itself was awash in critical praise..and the Box Office Gro$$ backed it up.

Take Care
 
yup, it was indeed distracting. A little slow, and not nearly as action oriented as I had hoped, more of a drama. The agenda or politics are open to interpretation I guess...
 
i didnt find it anti. i thought it made some good points about international policy. it really pointed out that war is not a result of weapons but rather a lack of character and ethics on the part of people.

ps nick cage was not faithful to his wife, he tagged an african hooker when he was on the coke and gun powder, and the girl in russia.

if the movie was anti anything i thought it was anti capitolism. it showed how his wife would turn a blind eye to her husbands workings so long as they were allowed to live the life they were accustomed too. her morality didnt come into play untill the last 20 minutes of the movie then she just got a guilty resolve not because her husband was wrong, but i think it was because she knew he did something rather immoral and felt guilty herself

either way i go to movies not for a new look at the world, but rather for 2 hours and so many minutes of mind numbing entertainment. so if thats what you want, then this movie is fine
 
either way i go to movies not for a new look at the world, but rather for 2 hours and so many minutes of mind numbing entertainment. so if thats what you want, then this movie is fine

right on :cool:

The slow motion AK fire was pretty neat
 
I saw the movie, and correct me if I'm wrong but I think that some people on this board have the wrong impression here.

I'm as much for guns as anyone else on this board, but the whole "necessary evil" line or idea that Cage's character uses is garbage. One point of the movie in the end is that even if someone will pick up your misdeeds where you leave them off, there is no reason to continue these misdeeds.

Cage is selling weaponry to people that he knew were going to do horrible things with them. Just because these horrible things will happen anyways does not excuse his enabling them... That's what sets him apart from your neighborhood gun store or FFL, Cage knows horrible things will happen when he sells weapons to those African warlords.

Overall I liked the movie, I just don't think the director could really decide on what kind of movie he wanted to make.
 
The industry's scoop on this flick:

According to Box Office Mojo (a closely-watched website by Hollywood types), L.O.W. has grossed only $17.2 million after 2 weeks.

The movie's "hard cost" was $40 million. Add in at least another $10 million for ad/promo costs = $50 mill. which the studio needs to earn... FROM ITS ESTIMATED "CUT" -- ABOUT 65%-70% OF THE TOTAL BOX OFFICE/TICKET RECEIPTS. The remainder goes to the theatre chains. That means that this film needs to actually earn at least $70 million at the box office for the studio to recapture its costs.

And that ain't gonna happen, given its disappointing start. In fact, Box Office Mojo (and others) have already labeled this flick "a bust." That means you'll be able to rent it, or buy the video, in a month or two.

If you ever want to find out how any movie is regarded (ranked) by a chunk of veteran/registered movie watchers, just go to the Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB), plug in the title, then click on the "User Ratings" and "Recommendations" lines on the left-side box. That tells you WHO (by age and gender) liked or disliked the film, ranked on a 1 to 10 scale. The "Recommendations" thing will list about 10 other movies that their research shows you'll like... if you liked the subject film.

"Lord of War" is currently rated about a 7.4, which is decent on the surface. However, the actual number of Raters is very low compared to most new/strong films. That's a tip-off it ain't doin' real good.

The other thing I look for (so I don't waste my movie money) is how Men (vs. Women) rate a film. While Women under 18 rate this flick an 8.7, Men over 45 rate it 7.0. That's another clue that old, battle-hardened vast-right-wingers like me will probably find it to be a pile of cinematic crap. Hence, this is also a great tool to learn if that movie your Significant Other wants to drag you to is another boring Chick-Flick (intended to help you "get in touch with your feminine side," etcetera).

With total box office revenues down 10%+ in '05, this year is turning out to be a disaster for Hollywood. The reasons are complex, but I believe one element is Hollywood's liberal bias toward anything that doesn't subtly (like Lord Of War) or openly (like Michael Moore's stuff) advance the leftist political agenda.

When ya got an entire industry that (a) thinks alike, and (b) punishes creatives who challenge Tinseltown's political and cultural values -- what results is a stream of "product" that increasingly turns-off adults in the Heartland. In other words, nearly every film produced is MADE BY lefties (who've never been in the military/know nothing about guns) FOR an audience of dumbed-down teens, sweetly-perfumed metrosexuals, and politically-correct academics.

Accordingly, Hollywood's getting the red ink it deserves, because a ton of people out there (primarily in the "Blue" states) are increasingly voting with their feet -- and ignoring Hollywood's incessant "downfield blocking" for Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Chuckie Schumer, the Captain of the Chapaquiddick Swim Team, and Momma Hillary.
 
Good Points All, Tonkin'

Production costs are becoming prohibitive in the states. Sofia, Bulgaria is becoming the new "Hollywood."

Under Soviet rule, Bulgaria wasn't allowed to show American films so they started their own industry. Giant sound stages, coastal, mountain and city locations already in place.."A" list U.S. films are being made there for a fraction of the cost here.

I bemoan the loss of revenue, as The Texas Film Commission steered many a dollar our way here in S.A...and more so in Austin.

But biz is biz.

Take Care
 
Box office results are poor, yes.

Of course, we've had a few other things going on that would keep people home, y'know? Couple of southern breezes and a few cents rise in petroleum...
 
I loved this movie, the opening credits are really neat. It felt anti-gun near the end of the film the first time I saw it. The second time I realized that this movie is neither pro nor anti, it is a story about the downfall of a man who values his work above all other things. He just happens to have a really fun looking job. :D
 
HTML:
no movie with that moron nicholas cage has ever been any good.

I beg to differ, I love alot of Nick's movies.
Face off is one of my favorites...I did like con air as well.
Now I can say lately he has been cast in a few bad movies but the older ones were pretty darn good. 8mm wasn't a bad movie either.

I wan to see lord of the war...The flea market has a copy for $4.00 If I am over there this weekend I may pick it up....
 
Rob 1035 and Beaucoup Ammo: Thanks for your kind comments.

Beaucoup, while more and more films are SHOT outside the Hollywood/SoCal area (due to cost savings and tax incentives), the movies are nearly all still "made" there, because:

-- Most of the top Screenwriters live there.
-- Their Agents (who rep/push their stuff) live there.
-- The Directors and Producers who "greenlight" any script for production all live there.
-- The Studios who finance any greenlit script are located there.
-- The A and B list Actors sought by the above all live there.
-- Scripts are re-worked, refined, and "developed' there, by all the above collaborating... before they're ever shot on location.

Beyond that, the "gatekeepers" -- the folks who initially read and filter the thousands of scripts (written each year) for their agent/studio/producer bosses -- are all right there.

And the problem is: All these people (with few exceptions) THINK ALIKE... culturally and politically. So, Hollywood is a one-party town. And that's why we get such homogenized, politically-biased crap. They don't SEE their bias because nobody there challenges them (career suicide). Hollywood's real decision-makers have long-simmering disdain for us Heartland yahoos who fight REAL wars and criminals. How well I know.

In the "old" Hollywood, the famous studio boss Louis B. Mayer warned his colleagues and hirelings about politicizing their movies. "If ya wanta send a message, go hire Western Union!" was his mantra... which is still quoted today. However, Old Louis B.'s words have now been "re-interpreted" to this: "We (liberals) can send a message, but you conservatives cannot. That's the special 'artistic subjectivity' we're granted since WE are the Beautiful People."

In my fondest dream, Congress passes legislation outlawing political discrimination in the workplace -- just to put Hollywood and the News Media on the hot seat. Could you imagine what ripe targets such legislation would instantly generate for the Trial Lawyers? They'd get rich -- suing their fellow Lefties!

"When everybody thinks alike, nobody's thinking."
-- General George S. Patton

A few years ago, the, umm, "creatively enlightened" souls running the town of West Hollywood unanimously passed a local ordinance "banning" ALL "semi-automatic weapons." Then, when they discovered that this effectively disarmed the cops who protected them (with Beretta semi-autos), they quietly rescinded their "progressive" ordinance.

That is the mind-set of those who make movies today. Lord Of War is just the latest squirt from their bent-to-the-left hose.
 
Tonkin

Point Taken! Just because the staging area has been moved, doesn't mean the war is over...or the front lines have changed.

Buy you a cold Lone Star (or better yet, Shiner Bock) if you're ever down this way!

Take Care
 
One More

I indict Hollywood for caving into the deep pockets of Big Tobacco. Show me an "A List" flick where 90% of the time people aren't smoking..and I'll show you a dream.

Thank god for IDIES...Independent Films can be made on a shoe string ("Cry Wolf"..cost $1 Mil..Box Office to date:$7.5 mil) and reap huge financial and message reward.

Never discount the abity of 1 man to "rail against the machine" and get things done. "Greek Wedding"..great example.

I produced an Indy CD with "Asleep At The Wheel", "Dwight Yoakam", "Lyle Lovett", "Delbert McClinton", "Willie Nelson" and a lot more all on one (1) CD.

Total cost? 60K.. It took 3 years..but it got done, and it will sell for years to come world wide. I'm not mentioning the title or lable, so please don't accuse me of self-promotion!

No need to give into BIG SHOW BIZ...IF you've got the ball bearings to circumvent it.

Take Care
 
Nobody makes big money smuggling AK-47's or other small arms into Africa. They're cheaper than food over there. If you want to make money selling AK's, you sell them to the US government for use by proxy troops in Iraq.

I've also heard that the film starts with a cartridge being made in the US and smuggled to Africa where it kills a boy. Not likely! As anyone who owns east block weapons can tell you, very little ammo for them is made in the US and it's far too expensive to be a target for black market smuggling.

African nations do just fine cranking out their own ammo. Mugabe churns out so much of the stuff he's sold the overstock to the US. Remeber two years ago when there was so much Zimbabwe 7.62x39 flooding the market? Now the new wave is South African. The flow goes the OPPOSITE DIRECTION from what the film assumes.
 
Cosmoline, the bullet that killed the 'boy' wasn't made in the USA. It was made in Russia, or at least an old soviet block state. It's just the Newyorker's review that condems the USA for USSR manufacture.

And I'd hesitate to call the target of that shot a 'boy' because, guess what, he was holding and shooting an AK47. Just like what the one with the bullet had.

And yes, I loved the 'arm the other 11' line, as I agreed. When the camp slaughter occurred, I said 'It would have been very different if they had had guns'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top