(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Flions_gate_films%2Flord_of_war%2Flordofwar_bigfinal.jpg&hash=018d6cb73b8d7b41a7fd701f1b1acc69bfedb327)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Flions_gate_films%2Flord_of_war%2F_group_photos%2Fnicolas_cage1.jpg&hash=ca76afc05ac11d3feaa40f55e0d394bc30ecaf79)
Trailer here. (http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1371570&sdm=web&qtw=480&qth=300)
Release Date: September 30th, 2005 (wide)
Cast: Nicolas Cage (Yuri Orlov), Ethan Hawke (Jack Valentine), Jared Leto (Vitaly Orlov), Bridget Moynahan (Ava Fontaine), Eamonn Walker (Andre Baptiste), Ian Holm (Simeon Weisz), Sammi Rotibi (Andre Baptiste Jr.), Nalu Tripician (Nicolai)
Director: Andrew Niccol (Simone, Gattaca)
Screenwriter: Andrew Niccol (The Truman Show)
Premise: A wily arms dealer dodges bullets and betrayal as he schemes his way to the top of his profession, only to come face to face with his conscience. But it's not easy to leave a life of girls, guns and glamour when no body wants you to stop, not even your enemies.
the first half of that trailer is really good. "truman show" is the bee's knees, so i look forward to seeing this.
:yabbse-thumbup:
Looks like Niccol is back in form.
imagine waking up and seeing that poster. oh my christ.
it looks like that worm shot in gladiator times 10000.
i don't see this being as thought provoking as niccol's prior work, but i guess he needs a hit after s1m0ne. tho i do like the revelation of the title's meaning, that's classic niccol.
right click and steal the trailer directly if u like (http://mp3content03.bcst.yahoo.com/b02r01/006/yahoomovies/2/17095319.mov)
love the cage. i will see this.
love that poster!
STOP CASTING BRIDGET MOYNIHAN IN MOVIES! SHE'S NOT A GOOD ACTRESS, AND SHE'S NOT QUITE HOT ENOUGH TO MAKE UP FOR IT!
:oops: Sorry. Back under control now.
Ooh, I didnt realise this was Niccol! I saw the trailer and it looked entertaining and everything but I just wished it had a little more to bite into. Given the talent, I'll assume this is a marketting ploy. There must be more to this than meets the eye.
Quote from: polkabluesSTOP CASTING BRIDGET MOYNIHAN IN MOVIES! SHE'S NOT A GOOD ACTRESS, AND SHE'S NOT QUITE HOT ENOUGH TO MAKE UP FOR IT!
It was originally supposed to be Monica Bellucci (:yabbse-swoon:), but (I think) she had to drop out because she was pregnant.
Quote from: MacGuffinIt was originally supposed to be Monica Bellucci (:yabbse-swoon:), but (I think) she had to drop out because she was pregnant.
Amazing. Replacing Monica Bellucci with Bridget Moynihan is like replacing Marcello Mastroianni with Matthew Modine.
i'm glad someone mentioned moynahan. polka you summed her up best.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuicidegirls.com%2Fmedia%2Fauthors%2F1692%2Farticle.jpg&hash=6aabf2f1393fcb22e47a23a09295591cba68e24f)
Andrew Niccol burst onto the film scene in the late 90’s like a chattering Kalachnikof AK 47 with his directorial debut, Gattaca, a post-1984 look at a world where genetic perfection through science has become commonplace and a film he wrote but did not direct, The Truman Show, about a man who’s entire life has been broadcast on television unbeknownst to him.
Since then Niccol has become a respected film auteur with S1m0ne about a digitally created actress and his latest is Lord of War, his most perfectly realized film. Nicolas Cage plays the globetrotting arms dealer Yuri Orlov. Through some of the deadliest war zones, Yuri struggles to stay one step ahead of a relentless Interpol agent [Ethan Hawke], his business rivals, even some of his customers who include many of the world's most notorious dictators [Eamonn Walker].
Daniel Robert Epstein: So everyone’s going to be asking you about Nicolas Cage and Jared Leto but I want to ask you about Eamonn Walker, did you see him on Oz?
Andrew Niccol: I‘ve never seen him before.
DRE: He is amazing.
AN: There’s something hypnotic about him, isn’t there?
DRE: Yes and I heard he’s very intense.
AN: Yeah, but also very sweet. When I hug him it’s like hugging a fire plug. He’s the most solid human being. There’s also this intensity in his eyes that makes it so you can’t take your eyes off him.
DRE: Did he audition for you?
AN: I met with him. I don’t really like to do that audition process because I think it’s bogus [laughs]. It’s so artificial for someone to come into a room and do the scene for you. It just doesn’t quite feel right so by talking you just get it.
DRE: Brothers are obviously very important to you. There was an important brother dynamic in Gattaca and now there is one in Lord of War.
AN: Yeah but I don’t know why I’m like that. Maybe it’s because I don’t have one. I’m working it out onscreen.
DRE: Do you have any siblings?
AN: Yeah, I have two sisters.
DRE: Is your relationship good with them?
AN: It’s good. We’re all in the communication business so we never talk to each other.
DRE: What do they think of these relationships that you put onscreen?
AN: We don’t talk about it that much because they’re doing their own stuff. My sister is a TV director and my other sister is a writer as well. I guess we‘re one of those reserved families. One of my girlfriends once said “What are they reserving it for?”
DRE: [laughs] Also brothers in your film are also kind of surrogate fathers to one another. The fathers are not in your film much, they are more of a presence.
AN: I have a friend who is like a brother to me actually. It is one of those relationships where, if I killed somebody, he would say “You shouldn’t have done that” but then he would help me.
DRE: [laughs] I understand because I have a brother.
AN: I don’t know why I’m drawn to that, but I guess I am.
DRE: The design of Lord of War is amazing. Are all the key crew members from different countries?
AN: This is the United Nations crew. I have a French production designer, an Iranian cinematographer, a Brazilian line producer, an Italian costume designer, American editor and a Brazilian composer. Well that’s two Brazilians.
DRE: [laughs] Were the burnt out cities sets? Is that what all the money was spent on?
AN: There wasn’t that much money to spend. For instance, South Africa had to stand for 13 countries. So if you want to make North Africa the way to do it cheaply is to just get 10,000 bricks. Bricks are cheap so if you just lay out a field of bricks, then have a woman drying clay bricks then suddenly you’re in North Africa. For me it’s a great contrast because Nicolas Cage’s character and Jared Leto’s character walk through the burnt out city on their way to sell the most sophisticated munitions in a place where they’re drying bricks in the sand. It instantly tells a bit of the story.
DRE: Did you build the Russian military base?
AN: No I didn’t. That was an actual ex-Soviet military base in the Czech Republic. All of those guns in there are real because it was cheaper to buy 3000 Kalachnikof AK-47s than rent them which is what the US does all the time.
DRE: Was there any CGI used to create those tanks?
AN: All those tanks are real. There’s a guy in the Czech Republic who privately owns 100 Soviet T-72 tanks. I said to him, “Listen I need to have some tanks.” He said, “No problem, a hundred tanks, no problem.” Then he said “There’s only one catch. In December I need them back because I’m selling them to Libya.” Which is exactly what Libya needs by the way. It was very interesting to meet these guys and see how open they were. The plane that I used in those pivotal scenes is owned by one of the most notorious arms dealers in Africa, he’s Russian.
DRE: I guess when foreign money backs your film you have to deal with some unsavory characters.
AN: But there’s no other way to do it. If you want a very authentic Russian arms dealer plane, what you find in Africa is that you have to get one from a Russian arms dealer. That plane was running real guns into the Congo, a week before we were using it to do fake guns. The Russian crew members would look at it and go, “It’s quite authentic.”
DRE: I read that you do a lot of research. Did you or Nicolas Cage do on the spot research with those arms dealers?
AN: Yeah, that was a very good way to get a feeling for it. It makes you realize why it’s so difficult for anyone to combat this. That’s why Ethan Hawke’s character is feeling so tortured in this film and Nicolas Cage’s character doesn’t. There are so many loopholes. That plane that I was talking about later crashed in Uganda with suspicious cargo and there are only little pieces left. The crew is all dead.
DRE: I spoke to Jonathan Glazer actually about his music videos. I asked him if a certain video came out the way he wanted it to and he said, “Nothing comes out the way I want it to.”
AN: I agree entirely. They’re always a compromise and sometimes things work out better than you imagined or worse. But very rarely do they come out exactly as you imagined.
DRE: How do you see Lord of War?
AN: It’s a compromise like all movies are compromises.
DRE: There’s scene that is in the trailer o0f Yuri Orlov standing in the field of cartridges. That seems like it was envisioned perfectly.
AN: Yes that’s true; it’s about as close as you can get to it. That shot is based on an actual photojournalist’s photograph of a carpet of bullets in a Monrovian street which really looked like that. It’s not some art director gone mad. I’m was a little concerned, because I look at it and think “Oh that looks a little exaggerated” but that’s exactly what it looks like after a battle because they just fire like madmen. Most of them are high anyway.
DRE: Do you see this as a dark comedy?
AN: Yeah, there is just a macabre absurdity to this world like the arms fair.
DRE: The arms fair looked like the San Diego Comicon but with guns.
AN: Right. At those you’ll have mortal enemies from different nations going to the same vendor and buying the same munitions, go off and go to war against each other. They’re being very congenial and all in the same hall together. They’re not grabbing weapons and shooting each other. It’s all very businesslike. They go off to their separate corners and come out fighting. So I just wanted some of that insanity.
DRE: When the gun’s going off and Nicolas Cage hears the cash register going ka-ching, ka-ching. That seems to me like something you’d see a 100 times in editing and still chuckle.
AN: Yeah, sometimes I do. In that one moment you know what this man is.
DRE: A lot of directors resist the word auteur but this film keeps in line with a lot of the themes from S1m0ne, Gattaca and even The Truman Show. Technology has run amok but this time it’s the technology of guns.
AN: Yeah but I don’t really analyze what I do because I’m superstitious and I think I’ll stop doing it [laughs]. But I can see some parallels in it. There’s always fraud in my films.
DRE: Do you resist technology such as a cell phone and computer?
AN: I have it all. But I have a healthy respect or disrespect for it. Someone said to me that I’m always looking at the human condition but it’s really the inhuman condition I’m looking at. How we do things to ourselves and use technology to the point where it’s running us.
DRE: As producer, is raising money for a film like gunrunning?
AN: Yes I guess it’s true. Like Yuri Orlov I have no allegiance to anything but green. You’ll take money from almost anywhere. You become a total prostitute.
DRE: [laughs] I found an online chat you did when Gattaca was coming out. You wrote “I always think of myself as an outsider.” Lord of War film is very indicative of that. I couldn’t believe a big studio didn’t produce it.
AN: Then you went and you saw why.
DRE: Exactly, but why was the script turned down?
AN: It went out a week before the latest Iraq invasion in 2003 and that was the timing from hell. Arms dealers keep going; they don’t care about the war du jour. American studios shy away from stating the fact that America is the big gun supplier of the world. For some reason they don’t want to touch it. Coincidentally foreign countries, like France, have no such problems. It’s so funny that the French who are so opposed to Iraq would put money into a movie about arms dealing.
DRE: When did Nic and Ethan get attached?
AN: Actually, Nic was attached at that time so even with Nicolas Cage this script couldn’t get financing from a Hollywood studio.
DRE: That’s unusual. He’s like one of the top ten biggest stars in the world.
AN: But it’s also because of the political climate.
DRE: Are your films more popular in other countries?
AN: Yes.
DRE: I know S1m0ne was not received well in America.
AN: But that did well in France, Italy and for some reason in Japan. They like artificial people.
DRE: I saw this documentary Synthetic Pleasures and it showed that in Japan they have an indoor snow-covered mountain to ski on.
AN: I know and they have an indoor ocean as well. But the weird thing about it is that it is right next to the real ocean.
DRE: When Yuri shoots the gun it seems like it’s the first time he ever shot a gun.
AN: Yeah and it’s the first time he’s killed a man.
DRE: Have you ever used guns?
AN: I’ve shot guns but I’m not a gun owner. They’re too dangerous.
DRE: What made you cast Bridget [Moynahan]?
AN: The character had to have the looks to be an ex-beauty queen but she had to have smarts as well to be Yuri’s conscience. It was difficult, there’s a physicality to her but there also has to be a complexity to her.
DRE: How was it shooting in Brooklyn?
AN: I love shooting New York for New York. No one does it anymore.
DRE: Was there a certain way that you approached Brooklyn?
AN: No, it was just a fascinating place to go. In researching the film I went to Little Odessa and it’s fantastic. You can walk down the street and only hear Russian spoken. Then actual mobsters wanted to audition [laughs]. So it’s a good place to be, it has a good feeling.
DRE: Do you see the ending as a little more cynical than your previous works?
AN: It’s the truth. A well known arms dealer, living in Florida was about to be indicted on arms trafficking charges. Then he gets his passport back and he’s allowed to leave the country. So I’m only writing what’s real. I’m sure to some government agency he’s more valuable on the outside than sitting in a jail cell.
DRE: The general was Donald Sutherland, right?
AN: His voice was but not the actual figure. He loved the material and then couldn’t be in the film because he had a another movie he had to do. So Donald Sutherland shows up for me in LA and just plays the voice. It’s a great compliment.
DRE: It’s been eight years since you worked with Ethan [Hawke], now he’s doing better work than ever. Was it as easy as you calling him up?
AN: Yeah, he’s my best friend in the film business. In some ways he was doing me a favor, but also hopefully he was doing himself a favor because I think he’s very good in the film. There’s some complexity to him that’s great even though he’s this Interpol agent, he’s more than just some do-gooder. What I like about his character is that he doesn’t want to catch the bad guy; he wants his picture in the papers. He’s got a certain vanity and that’s why he puts his suit on when he goes in for that interrogation scene. He thinks he’s got his man and the rug is pulled out from under him.
DRE: Your son Jack is in Lord of War as well.
AN: It’s not the kind of nepotism you would think. I was in South Africa and I had three babies that I cast to play the role of Nic Cage’s son and they all fall asleep or start throwing tantrums. So I call up my girlfriend at the hotel and I say, “Can you cut Jack’s hair and bring him down here because all the other babies are freaking out.”
DRE: How old is he?
AN: Jack is two and a half.
DRE: Does your family normally come to your film sets?
AN: Yeah, they do. If I’m a nomad they just come with me.
DRE: Do they understand what you’re doing?
AN: It’s kind of interesting because children are such mimics at that age so when Jack sees me pointing on the set he starts pointing [laughs]. It’s sort of like having a Mini-Me.
DRE: I read that you weren’t happy with the way The Truman Show came out.
AN: Listen, don’t believe everything you read. This is not true. I made a mistake by writing my most expensive script first. I remember having a conversation with a studio head at the time and she said to me, “Andrew we’re not going to give you 80 million dollars for your first film, but we would give you 20.” So I went off and wrote Gattaca and made sure it was a 20 million dollar script so I could direct it.
[The Truman Show director] Peter Weir and I are friends now and we became friends during that process. You have two choices really when someone else is going to direct your material. You can wash your hands of it or you can embrace it. I chose to embrace it. It was a different version of the movie than I would have made but it was just as valid. I just wanted to make sure that as many of my ideas were in it as possible.
DRE: Were you the one rewriting it?
AN: Yes, I rewrote it. It was not as if Peter took it away and said “Thank you very much.”
DRE: I read that at the end of the movie Truman was supposed to wreck a souvenir shop. Were you happy with the way the movie ended?
AN: I think in the end Peter’s choice might have left more to the imagination. So it was a good choice.
DRE: I read that David Cronenberg was supposed to direct it at one point.
AN: Yeah, I’m sure it would have been a darker version.
DRE: Has the way you write changed?
AN: No it’s frighteningly haphazard [laughs]. To me a script is like a newspaper, there’s a new one every day. I’ll rewrite it every single day so I don’t even think of myself as a writer. I know that other people do but they’re just a means to making a movie. I don’t even think they should be published because they’re not works of literature.
DRE: I absolutely agree.
AN: There are three times you make a movie. You write it, then you shoot it, then you rewrite it because reality sets in and you’ve written blue skies and it’s raining. Then you write it a third time when you edit it because you can really change things during that process.
DRE: I read that at one point you didn’t want to write any more screenplays for other people, but then I read something about Paani to be directed by Shekhar Kapur.
AN: See now here’s a lesson for you; do not believe what you read on the Internet. Shekhar Kapur is a friend of mine and he went to Cannes one time and he wanted to raise money for a party. So he said, “Andrew Niccol is going to write this for me” [laughs]. Then I’m sure they gave him a lot of money but afterwards it appeared on the Internet.
DRE: Do you do script doctoring for people?
AN: No.
DRE: But you did work on The Terminal [directed by Steven Spielberg].
AN: The Terminal was an idea I had that I didn’t want to write or direct because it was too close to The Truman Show. Another prisoner in paradise with a man trapped in this confined world.
DRE: So when the writer/director of Gattaca has a son, there’s a question that must be asked.
AN: Is he genetically enhanced? Absolutely [laughs].
DRE: [laughs] Well that’s something you obviously researched. What were you thinking when you were about to have a child?
AN: It’s amazing because you can’t do all of that research about that kind of area and not think about it. Now on a basic level you can choose the sex of your child. Also we’re very close to being able to tamper in other things as well. You could find out if there are certain inheritable diseases and you could not implant that child. But I did it the old fashioned way.
Seeing this tonight....
Edit: Ok, just saw it. Overall it's a meh. The story is fantastic, but the writing is mediocre. The acting is flaccid, but the directing is amazing. The opening shot is just fucking unreal and really sums up the movie. There is a lot of unoriginal dialogue going on, and Nicolas Cage is just blah, almost Keanuesque. The Liberian president is great, Ian Holm is under/misused. There's a few unbearably obvious plot twists. BUT, the movie is pretty funny in a lot of parts. However, you can be confused because they're also dramatic at the same time, so laughing feels almost out of place at times. Ethan Hawke does his thing, it's actually pretty good. Get Niccol a partner from now to write, get some better actors, and I think we can go from there. Gattaca was sooooo good, what happened?
As for the message, I'm not sure. It says a good bit about the grand scheme of the world, but as to a specific contemporary message, I think it's a bipartisan take on necessity.
Go see this I wanna know if it's good :yabbse-embarassed:
i will see this for cage, but the reviews have been strange. ebert and roeper raved about it but a lot of critics are trashing it.
Quote from: GamblourOverall it's a meh.
I agree.
The movie seemed good and all. I think the pacing was a bit off, it could have been a bit shorter. I thought Nic Cage was solid in the movie. His character is just a bore. He doesn't take any sides, which hurts the drama when shit goes down. And it's a bit preachy w/out taking a side. A lot of facts about gun running are just spewed out by characters. What was up with the druged up sequence in Africa?
In short: C+
Quote from: modagei will see this for cage, but the reviews have been strange. ebert and roeper raved about it but a lot of critics are trashing it.
It's a strange movie. Funny but not a comedy. Political but apathetic. Weird. The story is great but the script is bad. Very cool moments however.
I appreciated the gunrunning lessons but they could have been put to better use if Yuri was educating his brother instead of the audience. At least we wouldn't feel like the voice overs were just simple devices. And then once he could be educated we wouldnt have to put up with senseless scenes (spoiler) like his death at the end. Even if he remained a drug addict (which I felt was cliche as hell) we could view Yuri from his brother's disenchanted eyes which would also lend itself to his distant, droning character that nobody cares about except his wife and son. I thought the wife was a particularly bad actress. But what a MILF, jesus christ. The INTERPOL plot was nice and Hawke was great as usual. One of my favorite scenes was the timelapsed disembowelment of the airplane because it paid off the funny introduction to its demise by Yuri. I enjoyed the opening credits as well...always a fan of how things are made and distributed because it totally lends itself to cinema. And the final thing I enjoyed and wanted to see more of was the painting that Yuri bought so his wife could feel like a semi-accomplished artist. Brilliant stuff. spoiler end
But with all of this I feel like the biggest blunder was that the script just wasn't up to par with the story. And that's a shame because I dont recall seeing a film about gunrunners before. But the degree of authenticity with this kind of subject matter has to be taken up a few levels, out of this James Bond bubble where russians drink vodka and important men are distinguished by the way they dress. There was a moment in the film where I actually wasn't sure if it was supposed to be a drama. That maybe, just maybe, the movie was designed to make fun of these types of movies.
This film reminds me of my criticism of Apocalypse Now. Cinematically stunning, but dramatically stiff as the film details Sheen's journey into a "heart of darkness" through the trials and tribulations of war as interpreted by 70s pop culture (from surfing to Playboy bunnies.) The story was always too clever to dig at its subject, let alone stand up to Conrad's Heart of Darkness.
With Lord of War, the same story feels like it is being told, but with an update. Cage discovers his own heart of darkness, but he is not defeated financially at the end. The revelation is that those who bring justice also operate at his level. It's very timely.
Entertaining enough, but like its predecessor, stiff dramatically.
I believe it was said earlier:
This movie was... meh.
SPOILER
Ugh, I'm so tired of people getting a conscience at the end and dying senselessly. :yabbse-rolleyes:
I really liked it. I think the most important thing that everyone forgets is that the guy is real. Not everything in the movie is real, but most of the facts are (like the fact that he was russian, his father an orthodox jew, and I think that the story of the brother and the wife being a model is also true). If I am not mistaken, the guy lives now in Miami.
Cage was very good, and although it could have been shorter, I thought it was very well like that. I enjoyed it a lot.
Quote from: andykI really liked it. I think the most important thing that everyone forgets is that the guy is real.
Well, it's hard to forget that when it's stated at the very end of the movie.
And that really didn't make it any more enjoyable.
Quote from: andykI think the most important thing that everyone forgets is that the guy is real.
I remember reading that the character was a composite of multiple gun runners.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThis film reminds me of my criticism of Apocalypse Now. Cinematically stunning, but dramatically stiff...
I don't see how you could possibly compare the two. LoW presents real facts and situations about an ongoing war(?). While A.NOW was an adaptation made to comment on a war that was over.
Except for the opening shot and a few others I wouldn't call LoW 'cinematically stunning.' And the acting is no where close to the greatness of Apocalypse Now.
Quote from: killafilmQuote from: The Gold TrumpetThis film reminds me of my criticism of Apocalypse Now. Cinematically stunning, but dramatically stiff...
I don't see how you could possibly compare the two. LoW presents real facts and situations about an ongoing war(?). While A.NOW was an adaptation made to comment on a war that was over.
Except for the opening shot and a few others I wouldn't call LoW 'cinematically stunning.' And the acting is no where close to the greatness of Apocalypse Now.
Would you say LoW really presents the facts straightword in an honest adaptation or would you say it takes a true situation and molds it into its own drama? I'll say the latter. As much as I believe the LoW situation, I doubt Cage's story really is the whole truth. Its the whole movie. I'll happily compare both films.
As for Apocalypse Now, it has great actors in it and wants to be a great film, but it faults in every department. Robert Duvall, maybe the very best for me in all of film, really only plays a caricature and never gets beyond that interpretation. Martin Sheen felt flat to me. Marlon Brando, another legend, does well enough but pushing the character to myth without any semblance of torment felt like the point was being missed.
Cinematically, though, yes I agree. LoW doesn't hold a candle stick to Apocalpyse now did cinematically.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetWould you say LoW really presents the facts straightword in an honest adaptation or would you say it takes a true situation and molds it into its own drama? I'll say the latter...
As for Apocalypse Now, it has great actors in it and wants to be a great film, but it faults in every department. Robert Duvall, maybe the very best for me in all of film, really only plays a caricature and never gets beyond that interpretation. Martin Sheen felt flat to me. Marlon Brando, another legend, does well enough but pushing the character to myth without any semblance of torment felt like the point was being missed.
Cinematically, though, yes I agree. LoW doesn't hold a candle stick to Apocalpyse now did cinematically.
True situations. Like Niccol grabbed a bunch of stories from multiple 'runners' and molded them all around one character. So yeah we agree there.
I see where you're coming at with Apocalypse Now. I just love the film. I feel the craziness that went into the production of the movie Really shows up, and that seems like a perfect fit for a movie about Vietnam. Brando as myth works for me, the whole movie is building up to his destruction. I don't think there has been a 'War Film' like it, and I doubt that there will be. I put it right up there with the Godfather Films of the 70's as part of Coppola's greatness.
if anything it was a subpar Goodfellas, right down to it's crappy, obvious use of pop music ("Cocaine" while people use cocaine, "Money" while he's making money, the great but chronically overused "Hallelujah" Jeff Buckley version and "Young Americans")
Anyway, I didn't give a shit about this movie after that sweet second shot. :(
Overall it was entertaining but could've been so much more.
And what Shangai said about the music is true.
It's okay.
Title: Lord of War
Released: 17th January 2006
SRP: $30.98
Further Details
Lions Gate Home Entertainment has kindly sent over some artwork for a new two-disc special edition of Lord of War which stars Nicolas Cage, Bridget Moynahan and Jared Leto. The set will be available to own from the 17th January, and should set you back around $30.98. A single-disc version will also be available, priced at $28.98. Extras on the two-disc include a director commentary, a Making a Killing: Inside the International Arms Trade featurette, a Making of Lord of War featurette, a Weapons of the Trade feature and deleted scenes. We should point out that the extras are subject to change. Artwork is below:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xixax.com%2Fimages%2Fdvd%2Flordofwardvd.jpg&hash=3aab0bb39869ff8df6561b1805ef02b02b7a2b46)
I like the concept of that cover... but whats with Cage's face? Na-ha...
DVD cover makes it look like a Vietnam war movie instead of a day in the life of a gun seller. Wasn't wild about the movie when I saw it. I was totally unattached emotionally to the movie. I didn't care about the Cage character, his brother or any one else. It was weird for a movie to be about this kind of business and not be dramatic on any level. Anyway, Cage was very good as usual.
Quote from: modage on November 09, 2005, 09:49:04 PM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xixax.com%2Fimages%2Fdvd%2Flordofwardvd.jpg&hash=3aab0bb39869ff8df6561b1805ef02b02b7a2b46)
Too...much...metal...
The writing was a bit meh but overall I thought it was good and the trailer made it feel different than what it actually was, a political action movie.
yes, this was very meh. pretty disappointed. cage had a bleh character and while i admire the topic the film just didnt have the energy or the focus on characters that it needed to really involve you. perhaps it would've benefited from some hyper tony scott or verite fernando meirelles direction? either way it seemed like Blow, but with guns and not money, and not nearly as good. some of the dialogue was kinda 'are they serious?' too on the nose. especially some of the stuff with moynahan. oh well.
Quote from: modage on January 21, 2006, 11:50:58 PMit seemed like Blow, but with guns and not money, and not nearly as good.
Exactly.
I'm reading that the Region 1 has been cropped from the original aspect ration of 2.35:1 to 1.78:1.
(http://www.dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=8694)
(http://www.axelmusic.com/resources/covers/back/031398188018.jpg)
Anyone confirm this? Quite scandalous.
Quote from: ®edlum on February 25, 2006, 08:00:35 AMAnyone confirm this?
Quote from: thedigitalbitsNow for a bit of actual DVD-related news: It seems that Lionsgate's new Lord of War DVDs have been released with anamorphic widescreen video at the rather surprising aspect ratio of 1.78:1 - surprising because the film was released theatrically at 2.40:1. We've contacted Lionsgate about this, based on complaints from our readers, and have been told that the 1.78:1 ratio was chosen by the film's production company. So it's not an error, but rather was a deliberate decision, though we can't confirm whether or not director Andrew Niccol was involved. Hopefully, that clears the issue up... at least a little.
Cheers...disgraceful
Quote from: ®edlum on February 25, 2006, 01:15:05 PM
Cheers...disgraceful
Quote from: thedigitalbitsRemember how, a few weeks ago, we reported on Lionsgate releasing Lord of War (a 2.40:1 aspect ratio film) on DVD cropped to fill the 1.78:1 frame? Remember how we asked the studio about it, and they said it was a decision made by the production company? Yeah... well, maybe it was the production company's fault. But now it looks like it WAS the screw-up we figured all along. Readers are starting to report seeing new copies of Lord of War on store shelves, marked with a sticker on the back of case (over the old aspect ratio information) saying that the film is now presented in the correct 2.40:1 ratio. Upon buying and watching the new stickered disc, they report that it has indeed been quietly re-issued at the correct 2.40:1. Boy... if this is true, a LOT of folks who purchased the cropped version are going to be PISSED. If we hear about Lionsgate doing some kind of disc exchange program, we'll let you know. They certainly should.