War, Inc. - Sie bestellen Krieg: Wir liefern!

It was hilarious from start to finish. Very poignant and very dark. I especially loved those deliciously violent and overtly sexual lyrics to all of Duff's songs. I'm actually hoping I can find that song, 'I Want to Blow You Up.' The frightening thing, in history, is that something similar did take place. The East India Company, a properly registered English company in the 1600's to 1857, did actually raise armies, fight wars and collect taxes in the sub-continent. They were as ruthless, if not more so, than Tamerlane. Ever since John Cusack first started acting in teenage movies, I've always thought him to have an impeccable sense of humour and timing. And I'm so glad to see that he is using these talents in dark comedies rather than the run of the mill, mainstream rom-coms.

Don't mistake "War Inc." for a sharply chiseled satire or a brainy comedy full of inside jokes for news buffs. It isn't.

This is an old-fashioned screwball comedy, with ridiculously coincidental plot twists, stock characters (given some depth in fun performances by John Cusack, Joan Cusack, Marisa Tomei and Hillary Duff) and a straightforward approach to the political content.

You see, the filmmakers' political points are things nearly all of the country already knows are true. Yeah, we understand that the corporations profiting off the war are corrupt, inept pigs, the political leaders in charge of it are even more inept buffoons, and American imperialism has never looked crasser and more out of touch than it does right now -- but none of that is the point.

Here, all of that noise is the setting that they lampoon -- sometimes in genius ways -- as the backdrop for a silly romp, as John Cusack's character (the hit-man with a heart) tries to change his life with the help of the do-gooder journalist who doesn't trust him (Tomei) and the young Middle Eastern starlet who wants to call off her marriage (Duff). Cusack's sister, Joan, plays his assistant with an almost cartoonishly enthusiastic quality. Ben Kingsley seemed to me wasted in his smaller part as a ruthless CIA boss.

That's all, and it works. It's simple fun, but if somehow you can't see reality and you think the war is going well and everyone involved with it is doing a good job and there's no corruption and people in the Middle East wish our Western culture would supplant theirs, then you might not find it as funny.

For all the rest of us, it was a light comedy with a political edge.

I not really sure whether or not the reason I was disappointed in this film was because it wasn't what I wanted it to be or whether it seemed to lose it's comedic value because of what seemed to be a pretentious message wrapped up in a most confusing plot. This film offered three of the stars of one of my favorite movies, "Grosse Point Blank", (John Cusack, Joan Cusack and Dan Aykroyd). Cusack once again appears as a "troubled hit-man" as he did in "Grosse Point Blank" but this time the gimmick that worked so well ... just doesn't work. When I rented this film the lady behind the counter at Blockbuster warned me "It's no "Grosse Pointe Blank". Boy was she right! What this film doesn't have is Minnie Driver and a contained plot that flows with humor that still makes some sort of outrageous sense. My take on this film was that the film makers couldn't make up their mind as to whether they wanted to make a comedy or get across their anti-war message. Nothing wrong with an anti-war message type of film ... just don't let the message interfere with the entertainment that it promises to deliver. In other words, everything seemed forced, and that is what caused this film not to work for me. I would have much rather watched a "Grosse Point Blank 2" but sometimes sequels that should have been made are not such as a "Dirty Dancing 2" that could have starred Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey.

I really wanted to like this, but in the end it's a poorly made film with too few laughs.

The politics are spot on, it's gonna offend the hell out of republicans but that's what it's designed to do. That alone gives me reason to chuckle.

The problem is, it looks like it was made in a REAL hurry (like about a week). And it contains a stupid subplot about some bimbo singer, which seems to be completely off topic.

Turiqistan is obviously Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any other number of countries the US has f**ked with since the 50s. The humour is a little dark (amputees dancing with prosthetic legs made by Tamerlane corporation) but it IS on the mark, especially with the corporations cashing in on the reconstruction ("democracy lite"!)

However like a lot of satire criticising the US, it seems terribly heavy handed and laboured. I guess it's running counter to so much bs propaganda so it has to bludgeon people over the head to make a point. Who knows. I prefer more of a nudge, wink approach - a bit of subtlety. But that's just me.

Anyway I might watch it again, perhaps I missed something.

I'm hoping "W" is more on the mark.

I thought this movie was a lot better than most movie critics are giving it credit for. Though it has its confusing parts of the plot, it doesn't greatly interfere with your understanding of the movie. That being said, If you're not open to more liberal political ideas, then this probably isn't the movie for you. I thought all the actors in the movie were outstanding. Each character has their funny moments and the audience at the Tribeca Film Festival was laughing throughout the whole thing. I thought the satire was a tad over the top in one particular area, but that's intentionally done. John Cusack is right in that although it's set in the future, it really makes you see the present.