War, Inc.

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.

In this satire of the commercialization and 'lightheartedness' of war, John Cusack plays Brand Hauser, an assassin sent to to 'Turaqistan' to take out Omar Sharif, who is doing some oil business that will spell trouble for the former Vice President of the US's own company. In addition to this, Hauser must juggle his fake position as a trade show producer, a wedding for pop princess Yonica (Hillary Duff), and a nosy Liberal journalist, Natalie (Marisa Tomei).

Assessing the technical aspects:

• The acting (by the main characters,at least) was good, as was to be expected. Some of John Cusack's dialogue was quite obviously not written for him as he often seemed uncomfortable saying it. . . maybe unrealistic is more accurate. Joan put forth a great, and often hilarious, performance. Marisa Tomei, while I've never been a big fan of hers, was more than suitable for the role and worked well. Hillary Duff, however, was pretty terrible. They needed an attractive Middle Eastern (or Russian, or whatever that accent was supposed to be) pop-star. Unfortunately, they went 0 for 3 with her.

• Like I said above, the writing seemed a little stiff and mismatched at points, especially John Cusack's dialogue. Not much of it, mind, but some. The story also got a bit ludicrous at points, which is fine for a satire to a point, but it took it to a whole new level here. Luckily, the Cusacks and Tomei keep a relatively cool, calm demeanor throughout, and that makes a nice even mix of the craziness of the film and the levelheadedness of the actors.

• Joshua Seftel, who previously had a drought of real credits to his name, did a fine job with a rather wide-spectrum film. He handled the small ($10 million) budget very well, stretching it to make it appear to be much more. Seftel also managed to nicely blend the humour of the story. . . with the painful and hard-to-watch parts of the real war (including slaughter of civilians, etc.).

• As far as the general satire goes, its exaggerated look on the commercializing of war is very well done, especially the 'Golden Palace Poker' ads on the U.S. tanks. At points, it becomes a little too much, but, in the end, it still accurate portrays what it's going for an a young 'Mel Brooks'-type of style.

Overall, the film is very well made for the meager budget and it's definitely worthy of a look. It won't go down as one of the great satires of cinema, but it's certainly not the worst.

7/10.

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.

You movie is basically a rant at America and the way they police/Destroy all minor nations real or in this case "Turaqistan" make believe. you then have your story within this with Mr Cusack, a down on his luck assassin sent to do a job in Turaqistan and all that follows to distract him from this.

The movie has some hilarious moments, basically every scene with Hilary Duff is hilarious. She plays Yonica Babyyeah an oversexed brat that performs a fantastic solo of "i'm gonna blow you.....up". Priceless and worth the admission price alone. You then have the tanks rolling around with advertising slogans like a Nascar.

the movie still could have been a lot better, at points it just seemed to muddle its way through with no real direction. In the first 45 minutes you don't always understand the scenario of the private security forces, the American soldiers, the company etc etc, it does get a little confusing.

However the performances of John Cusack and Hilary Duff are top drawer and with the humour this is certainly worth watching.

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.