If you agree with the political premise of this movie or you like John Cusack, Marisa Tomei or Ben Kinsley you may enjoy this movie. But as the satire it was obviously meant to be it is a huge misfire.
Despite a few funny moments, it breaks a basic rule of satire: believability. Watch Dr. Strangelove, M*A*S*H, or The Great Dictator and you'll notice that the main characters, while caricatures of varying degrees of preposterousness, the world in which they exist was made to be very real.
In War Inc. this is reversed. The primary characters are played seriously and we do care about them, but, with only a few exceptions, the environment in which they exist is played for laughs.
For example, the scene of the rehearsal of a Broadway musical dance number where the dancers are women with prosthetic legs who've been victims of the war but who've been "helped" by American medical technology. It's an idea of near-genius, but it's impact is almost entirely lost because the world in which it takes place isn't credible. There are the "Arab rappers" who are played as ridiculous idiots, but it comes off as a commentary on rappers and not American cultural influence. There are so many potentially great moments ruined because they aren't played seriously. The director just didn't understand comedy.
There are other mistakes. Much of this movie takes place in the protected compound "Emerald City". The movie brings us into what is intended to depict an orgy of American capitalist/corporate superficiality, but the movie fails to first sufficiently establish that it exists within a non-Western (Arabic) country. So instead of succeeding as a critique on American imperialism, we simply feel like we're in a weird theme park with no context.
Also, and this is potentially more serious for U.S. showings, there is the apparent portrayal of average soldiers. I don't know if this was intentional or not, but regular soldiers are shown as moronic, thugs and murderers. In one scene, which is one of those that's filmed realistically, soldiers machine gun innocent civilians. The soldiers have the corporate logos on their uniforms, perhaps meant to differentiate them as a "corporate" army. However, I think that is likely to be lost on many viewers and in a movie meant as criticism on the abuse of corporate power, denigrating the average American soldier, intentionally or not, seems a huge mistake.
And, perhaps this is minor, but Joan Cusak looks quite old in her first appearance in the movie. This was obviously not intended since she looks younger for the rest of the movie.
This is not a terrible movie but as a satire it's a mess.
Despite a few funny moments, it breaks a basic rule of satire: believability. Watch Dr. Strangelove, M*A*S*H, or The Great Dictator and you'll notice that the main characters, while caricatures of varying degrees of preposterousness, the world in which they exist was made to be very real.
In War Inc. this is reversed. The primary characters are played seriously and we do care about them, but, with only a few exceptions, the environment in which they exist is played for laughs.
For example, the scene of the rehearsal of a Broadway musical dance number where the dancers are women with prosthetic legs who've been victims of the war but who've been "helped" by American medical technology. It's an idea of near-genius, but it's impact is almost entirely lost because the world in which it takes place isn't credible. There are the "Arab rappers" who are played as ridiculous idiots, but it comes off as a commentary on rappers and not American cultural influence. There are so many potentially great moments ruined because they aren't played seriously. The director just didn't understand comedy.
There are other mistakes. Much of this movie takes place in the protected compound "Emerald City". The movie brings us into what is intended to depict an orgy of American capitalist/corporate superficiality, but the movie fails to first sufficiently establish that it exists within a non-Western (Arabic) country. So instead of succeeding as a critique on American imperialism, we simply feel like we're in a weird theme park with no context.
Also, and this is potentially more serious for U.S. showings, there is the apparent portrayal of average soldiers. I don't know if this was intentional or not, but regular soldiers are shown as moronic, thugs and murderers. In one scene, which is one of those that's filmed realistically, soldiers machine gun innocent civilians. The soldiers have the corporate logos on their uniforms, perhaps meant to differentiate them as a "corporate" army. However, I think that is likely to be lost on many viewers and in a movie meant as criticism on the abuse of corporate power, denigrating the average American soldier, intentionally or not, seems a huge mistake.
And, perhaps this is minor, but Joan Cusak looks quite old in her first appearance in the movie. This was obviously not intended since she looks younger for the rest of the movie.
This is not a terrible movie but as a satire it's a mess.