Men with Guns

Dreamlike, mythological, multilayered and almost mystical on the one hand, and on the other hand, vividly conveying the reality of Guatemala in the 1980s (which is what the film's story is mostly based on, though it draws in part from the present-day situation in Mexico's southernmost state of Chiapas, where it was mostly filmed; I think that the Indian language we were hearing was Tzotzil Maya). This film is as understated as its blunt, simple title (by the way, all violence happens offscreen). And yet it is so multilayered that I am still trying to absorb its many levels. It is a "road movie," and it is a profound spiritual odyssey for the main character; it is a suspenseful and unpredictable thriller full of unexpected twists, and it is mythic... in fact, we gradually come to realize that the entire story is being told, like a traditional myth, by a Mayan mother to her little girl. A beautiful example of the Latin American "magical realism" style. This film gets an unhesitating score of 10 from me... in fact, I think I may consider this film among my lifetime top ten movies.

Following on the heels of the critical breakthrough of his previous film, _Lone Star_, writer-director John Sayles takes a real chance here.

Although he's long marched to beat of a different drummer, as they say, as one of the few truly independent American filmmakers, Sayles really goes out on the edge this time, giving us a film which is presented almost entirely in Spanish, with English subtitles, as he tells the tale of a doctor in an unnamed Latin American country who undertakes a journey into the rain forest in search of a group of young medical students he'd trained some years before. Not only does he expect us to put up with the subtitles, but he also fills the movie with a largely unknown cast (to most American audiences, that is), of Latin American actors and actresses.

Federico Luppi, the film's star, is an older actor and one I'm not familiar with. He has the air about him of a quiet, dignified man. A city-dweller, through and through, he has always bought into the government's version of the battle between mountain guerrillas and government troops. He's had no reason to doubt the stories nor to suspect otherwise.

Ultimately, though, as the title suggests, this is not a story about winners and losers, about the "official story," but about the effects on the daily lives of the country's people that "men with guns" can have. Whether they are soldiers or guerrillas, bandits or thieves, on the side of the good or the bad, they are simply "men with guns" and the people do what they say because of this simple fact.

The film's journey, started largely out of boredom (the doctor is nearly retired and looking for something to do with his time) gradually becomes a mythical, almost allegorical journey, as he moves from village to village, unsuccessful in his search. It begins to appear that most (all?) of his former students have been killed or otherwise incapacitated, viewed by the rebels or the villagers they went to serve as a danger.

Along the way, the doctor gradually picks up a group of traveling companions, including an army deserter, a former priest, a little boy, and a woman who has not spoken since she was raped by soldiers. The deserter and the priest tell their very poignant stories and the doctor is forced to gradually open his eyes to the realities of the world around him.

As they continue, ever deeper into the jungle, the story, which was never grounded in a specific reality anyway, becomes even more dreamlike and unreal, as the travelers seek out the mythical "Circle of Heaven," a village so high on a mountain and so deep in the forest that soldiers cannot find it and the people there live in freedom. This is a movie that truly verges into the area of magical realism which so many Latin authors provide in their novels, but which is seldom seen successfully on the screen.

If one is able to put up with the subtitles (there are moments when a couple of American tourists, one played by Mandy Patinkin, burst onto the screen, with their loud English and "ugly American" attitudes), the film is a real treat.

John Sayles has sometimes been criticized as a filmmaker for being more interested in telling his story than in fiddling with the camera angles and photography. If that's a valid criticism, I fear for the future of American film. In both _Lone Star_ and this film, Sayles shows us the value of a well-told story in a film, a virtue which increasingly seems to be disappearing, in favor of explosions and special effects. Very highly recommended. Rating: A.

Barely edging out "The Spanish Prisoner" as the best film of 1998, "Men With Guns" offers quiet genius and delight for those willing to go beyond the mainstream. Although overlooked by most viewers John Sayles has basically incorporated the elemental characters of "The Wizard of Oz" and placed the dreams and desires of idealists in the cruel setting of the real world, where ever that might be. The setting of an unidentified Latin American country shows that things such as the atrocities performed by the men with guns can happen anywhere - in a developed Latin American nation or in the United States of America.

John Sayles, America's most prolific director, holds in his visions more insight into the complex workings of humanity than most other directors present in an abundance of visual effects and in-your-face techniques. AMPAS has yet again failed to recognize genuine substance but hopefully this film, another in a long line of accomplishments that presents wondrous film making and excellent storytelling, will not be forgotten.

Once again screenwriter/director John Sayles has done it. I was flipping through the channels, and saw a movie in Spanish. I am a Spanish major so whenever a chance to listen to some dialog comes along, I usually will listen for a few minutes just for practice.

I became totally engrossed. I hit the info button on my DVR to see the name of the movie. I was on IFC channel & it said it was a movie about hoodlums. Uh, no... There was another movie same year same name that I've no doubt wasn't anywhere near as wonderful as this one. So I paused the DVR at the end & looked up Federico Luppi & crossed referenced it with Damián Delgado to find the real name of the movie. Which turned out to be this one. Enough of how I found it...

This is another great example of supreme storytelling by John Sayles. Anyone who has seen Lone Star or Passion Fish knows that he is a storyteller extraordinaire. Not to mention he usually manages to throw in some meaning. Another reviewer complained that there was meaning. Weird... I don't see anything wrong with that. Isn't that what most of us are searching for? In this story Dr. Fuentes is in an unidentified South American country that has been ripped apart by war and guerillas. He is searching for his students, doctors who were trying to help the indigenous population through medicine. He finds wherever he goes that his students are dead or missing. Along the way he encounters a boy with no family that becomes his "mascot" and later a deserter from the army with a hideous past. Then a priest who has lost faith, then a young girl who is mute. Each person has a story to tell, each person a part of the puzzle of what it is to be human and alive.

I loved the ending, because it showed that even when we think our lives have been pointless, we have like the concentric ripples in a lake after a stone is dropped, affected those around us. Our legacy lives on through the lives we have touched, whether we know it or not. I think that we think there should be some kind of concrete evidence that WE can measure to define our legacy, but it is never what we think it is, there is mystery, magic in the way that our lives mingle and combine to form meaning. Much like in "It's a Wonderful Life," even if you think you've contributed nothing it's not true. Or in the words of the immortal Whitman: "O me! O life!... of the questions of these recurring; of the endless trains of the faithless- of cities filled with the foolish; what good amid these, O me, O life? Answer: That you are here- that life exists, and identity; that the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse." (from Whitman's Leaves of Grass) What this movie says is just that- that each person's verse, identity contributes to the great scheme of things. I won't give away the ending of the movie, but the whole thing is just a grand example of a good story. Don't be bothered by the subtitles, it's a great movie in any language. And btw, the subtitles were pretty much right on. I just hate when I watch a subtitled movie & the translation sucks or is lacking. This is a great story, interesting people, good pacing (also directed by Sayles), and good acting too. I wish that more people could see this movie. God bless the Independent Film Channel. :)

Men with Guns is one of the finest films of the genre. It has legs- really stays with you, for years. The priest's story alone is brilliant filmmaking. I've been a great fan of John Sayles' work for many years, but I think this is both his most original and generally best work. The shame is that no one seems to have seen this film. I saw it 3X in theatres and there were never more than 5 people in the audience. MWG doesn't appeal to the short- attention-spaned sex-and-violence cravers. The history of 30 years of terrible civil war as close as Guatemala is something our children remain ignorant about. This incredible film puts that war into unique perspective. Sayles didn't seem to care if too many people saw it or not- subtitles alone guarantee a fringe audience confined to a few art houses. The film is not perfect- editing could be a little better; but what a story! The opening and closing scenes really work for me. I hope everyone reading these comments will go out and rent Men with Guns ASAP. Sayles at his best.