PDA

View Full Version : War Inc.


Ender
06-18-2008, 02:33 AM
http://correctopinion.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/warincposter.jpg

War Inc.
2008
107 Minutes
Joshua Seftel

John Cusack
Joan Cusack
Marisa Tomei
Hillary Duff (?!)
Ben Kingsley

THE RUNDOWN:

In the near future, gigantic megacorporations have privatized everything and assumed total control of global politics (for the sake of staying on subject, we're going to pretend this is fiction). John Cusack is a contract killer who removes troublesome political figures for his military industrial employers, but his latest assignment to the recently "liberated" nation of Turaqistan is hampered by his overly-complicated cover, his nagging conscience, his attraction to an embedded reporter, and an odd relationship with a Turaqi pop star. Also, there's a war going on, which sometimes gets in the way.

SO IS IT A GOOD MOVIE?

Political satire is tricky business. By definition you're going to lose about 50% of audiences on the basis that they don't agree with whatever your position is. To pull it off, there's two things you have to be: Funny, and fearless. WAR INC. has balls, but what it doesn't have is laughs, or at least, not enough to make it worth your while.

The big problem with WAR INC. is that it's got an axe to grind, but it's not graceful with the grinding. The satire here is not subtle, nor particularly well executed, and most of the gags fall flat. That's not to say there aren't laughs and some very pointed black humor, but it's a movie that feels like it's trying way too hard. A great example is a scene midway through the flick in which a group of over-caffeneited soldiers deliver Cusack's dry cleaning, which they do in an armored jeep, while blasting heavy metal music and wildly firing their weapons into the air. You can see what they had in mind, but it's just not that funny to watch. Some of the other gags work better; the tanks and jeeps have ad space on the sides, Cusack uses his OnStar operator as a therapist, and a group of wannabe terrorists give the term "guerilla filmmaking" a whole new meaning. As funny as these bits are, and in all fairness they are VERY funny, there's just not enough of it to overcome the more flacid material

I love John Cusack, I really do. It's the rare John Cusack movie that I don't like, and even when the movie is bad, he usually isn't. But I have trouble buying him as a hitman. Yes, I've seen GROSSE POINT BLANK, but this is a very different movie with a very different tone (also Cusack is now ten years older, which makes some of the physicality a little harder to swallow). WAR INC. is, among many things, a send-up of action movies, where Cusack blows through scads of armed and armored bad guys using only a single automatic pistol and turns everything he touches into a deadly weapon. But the exaggerated quality of the action contrasts very poorly against its gritty realism and some of the more traumatic scenes of wartime carnage. Cusack is his usual awesome self, but the script (which he helped pen) hampers him with an unoriginal and generally uninteresting back story. Cusack's performance is solid, but he's in the wrong movie.

The rest of the cast are a mixed bag. Hillary Duff, what can you say about this woman? She's so sexy there's probably a law against it, and she embodies the nightmare pop diva persona to an eerie T, but her more serious scenes fall apart and her character is largely just a distraction. Similarly, Marissa Tomei is straightjacketed into a rather cliche crusading journalist character that gives her nothing to do. On the bright side, the supporting cast has more of a chance to shine; Joan Cusack plays her brother's manic assistant and she turns every possible eccentric affectation up to about the 11th degree. Dan Ackroyd has a small but amusing role as a Dick Cheney-esque VP (who still controls the country five months after leaving office) which livens things up quite a bit.

As the self-proclaimed Most Liberal Man in California (a weighty claim, but I have documents to back it up), I really appreciated what this movie had to say, but the whole thing is unwieldy and awkward, and the script is as awkward as a three-legged dog struggling to walk uphill. A pair of "twists" at the end were so obvious that Mr. Magoo could have seen them coming from the other side of town. Oddly, WAR INC. makes a rather effective war movie, featuring some surprisingly graphic battle scenes that actually reminded me a bit of THE CHILDREN OF MEN. Scenes like the bodies of lynched GIs dangling from the rafters of blownout factories and soldiers gunning down blank-eyed civilians struggling to escape a wartorn city have an almost Stanley Kubrick quality about them. I have no idea what these scenes are doing in this supposed comedy, but on their own merits they're very well done.

WAR INC wants very badly to be the DR. STRANGELOVE of the new millenium, but it should have gone back to the drawing board for a few more revisions. There's some decent material and a very pressing political message, but nothing that can be called a good movie.

THE GOOD:

-Solid cast, but underused. Supporting cast a big plus.

-Handful of good jokes, and the rare gag that does work is extra awesome.

-Well-executed (though woefully out of place) war scenes.

-Did I mention Hillary Duff is bewilderingly hot in this movie? Seriously. I think she can actually jerk a guy off with her gaze. It doesn't add much to the film, but still, worth talking about.

THE BAD:

-Most of it is just not that funny.

-Contrasting tones are a carwreck.

-Hackneyed plot devices and characterizations bog down the plot.

-John baby, I love what you were trying to do here, but you can't beat the audience over the head with your message.

THE UGLY:

-Something about Ben Kingsley's accent in this movie is like an icepick at the back of my brain. It's the aural equivalent of rubbernecking; I don't want to listen, but I can't stop myself.

Cop No. 633
06-18-2008, 04:20 AM
I have to agree with your review whole heartedly. I saw this film a few weeks back and I too thought it was just trying too hard. I'd also like to say I'm a hardcore Republican and I thought this film was fascist.

haha, all jokes aside, I wish that Cusack would have made the script stronger. It had everything going for it but the script was half-baked. I thought some of the camera work was iffy to me. It wasn't necessarily bad, but it wasn't good either. It was just bland and in the middle. I thought the film called for a better camera man, but hey, the script was far from perfect as well.

I really wanted to like the film more, but I just couldn't lie to myself. As a satire, there wasn't enough bite. Like you said Ender, it was just too obvious.

Ender
06-18-2008, 05:05 AM
Yeah, I really wanted to like the movie as well. I don't think bite was the problem though, the movie had lots of bite, but it kept getting in its own way. A great example is the scene in which the company proudly displays the prosthetic limbs they've provided to the war's victims; by having a group of women with prosthetic limbs dance clumsily in a chorus line. The gag was just warped enough to be darkly funny and possibly become a kind of visual keystone in the same manner as the bomb riding scene in STRANGELOVE, but the problem is that Tomei has a completely horrified reaction to the display (which she overplays a bit). So, are we supposed to think this is funny or are we supposed to think that it's appalling? The movie seems to want to be having it's cake and eating it too, making light of a tragic situation while also clumsily moralizing about it.

Duff's character is another problem. On one hand, I think I can see what they were trying to do here; treatment of women in Islam and in Middle Eastern and north African countries is a big issue. WAR INC. uses Duff's character to draw parallels between that issue and the treatment of women in Western pop culture, the comparison embodied by her domineering fiance (portrayed quite outrageously by Ned Bellamy), who is an unholy composite of a fascist Mid East strongman and a Hollywood gangsta rap poseur. So, okay, interesting idea, but it turns out to be an apples and oranges comparison, not really particularly valid. So that avenue of the movie is daring and a bit witty, but it's founded on a bad idea, so no amount of cleverness makes it work (although Bellamy is a kick in the ass).

Btw, is it wrong that I was turned on by the sight of Hillary Duff sticking a live scorpion down the front of her pants? Upon recollection, I might have to recant my negative review and insist that that image alone was worth the ten bucks.

Cop No. 633
06-18-2008, 02:32 PM
I agree with you about the mixed messages in the satire backfiring in the film. It wanted to have a hand in both sides of the situation when it really should have stayed with the American point of view.

I do think Tomei's reaction was a good example of that mixed reaction the film was going for that didn't quite work. I laughed since I naturally like dark comedy, but the film shouldn't have pointed the finger so much and let the act speak for itself. That's what makes Dr. Strangelove so great. Nobody "points the finger." Kubrick made the film so the audience would get that all these people and actions are insane without ever having to periodically have someone say, "Isn't this nuts and terrible?"

If you have a film called War, Inc. I think people are going to get the picture.

I agree, Duff was very hot in the film as well as Tomei who I always had a thing for. I never even really liked Duff before, so maybe it's the dark hair that did it for me.

Another problem with the movie was the incredibly rushed ending. It just didn't add up to a good resolution. I saw the "twist" coming and it really wasn't needed at all. The showdown with Kingsley and Cusack was out of place. The only funny bit being that Cusack "rides" him into the show, but once it gets there, it gets worse. Seeing the trio take on a bunch of soldiers and leaving in one peace was just too much for me. It wasn't funny, nor was it believable. I honestly think Cusack and his writing partners didn't know how to end their film. If they were trying to pull a Charlie Kaufman tactic ala Adaptation by making it a parody/satire of the action/thriller genre, then they didn't even come close.

Cinexcellence
06-18-2008, 02:48 PM
Sounds good. Can't go wrong with the Cusack.

Preston_79
06-19-2008, 12:22 PM
I'll pass for now. Something to look forward to down the road when I'm bored on a rainy day.

Sigur509
06-19-2008, 12:29 PM
I think I remember seeing the trailer for this over a year ago.