I quite enjoyed the film. There, I've said it. But having said that, let me say this ... it's no classic and Val Kilmer needn't dust off his dinner jacket for award ceremonies.
I'm prepared to add a little balance to the scathing comments that precede me and to say: this is not as bad as many people are saying.
Kilmer's performance is precisely what he would have been aiming for, and that was a reasonable choice. The supporting actors were sufficient, unless you're looking for an academy nominee (and you won't get any guarantees of that, anyway). The plot is predictable, but this is Hollywood after all and most movie-goers aren't looking for 90 minutes of cerebral exercise.
Almost all of the comments have cited the obvious shortcomings. It appears to be a relatively low-budget production and, if that is the case, it's a pretty reasonable effort, in my opinion. I can overlook the shallow performances of many of the supporting cast and the disorganized and disoriented extras.
Some comments are quite unfair, in my opinion, and only show that key plot points have been missed. This is quite a few years after Iraq 1. I suspect that some of the viewers think it's Iraq 2. Kilmer's weight and age, for example, are not a simple error of judgment by the Director and casting agent; rather, it's a simple error in the viewing of the movie.
I'm surprised that few people have noticed the very obvious Halliburton message. This is my major gripe. I have no interest in defending the indefensible, but the message delivery is quite infantile. It reached it's zenith with the overly-long speech by the main female character. She outlines how Halliburton ... sorry, Hallicorp or Halco or whatever it's called ... profits from supplying the weaponry to blow up foreign countries, then wins the contracts to build them again, ultimately never spending their ill-gotten gain in America (which is a curious extension of a moral point) ... and on and on it went. It was one of the most tedious and embarrassing 'worthy' speeches I've heard in a movie (and I support the basic concerns in the message). It was a parody of itself and I watched it three times to see if there was a glimmer of embarrassment in the actor's eyes. How do they do it? Method, I guess.
Aspects of the plot are quite a stretch. I can't see Dastardly Dick Cheney retiring to a dusty little town in the middle of nowhere to build an old-west replica as a base from which to live out his power-crazed fantasies. He already has a much better and more comfortable location for that.
I'm prepared to add a little balance to the scathing comments that precede me and to say: this is not as bad as many people are saying.
Kilmer's performance is precisely what he would have been aiming for, and that was a reasonable choice. The supporting actors were sufficient, unless you're looking for an academy nominee (and you won't get any guarantees of that, anyway). The plot is predictable, but this is Hollywood after all and most movie-goers aren't looking for 90 minutes of cerebral exercise.
Almost all of the comments have cited the obvious shortcomings. It appears to be a relatively low-budget production and, if that is the case, it's a pretty reasonable effort, in my opinion. I can overlook the shallow performances of many of the supporting cast and the disorganized and disoriented extras.
Some comments are quite unfair, in my opinion, and only show that key plot points have been missed. This is quite a few years after Iraq 1. I suspect that some of the viewers think it's Iraq 2. Kilmer's weight and age, for example, are not a simple error of judgment by the Director and casting agent; rather, it's a simple error in the viewing of the movie.
I'm surprised that few people have noticed the very obvious Halliburton message. This is my major gripe. I have no interest in defending the indefensible, but the message delivery is quite infantile. It reached it's zenith with the overly-long speech by the main female character. She outlines how Halliburton ... sorry, Hallicorp or Halco or whatever it's called ... profits from supplying the weaponry to blow up foreign countries, then wins the contracts to build them again, ultimately never spending their ill-gotten gain in America (which is a curious extension of a moral point) ... and on and on it went. It was one of the most tedious and embarrassing 'worthy' speeches I've heard in a movie (and I support the basic concerns in the message). It was a parody of itself and I watched it three times to see if there was a glimmer of embarrassment in the actor's eyes. How do they do it? Method, I guess.
Aspects of the plot are quite a stretch. I can't see Dastardly Dick Cheney retiring to a dusty little town in the middle of nowhere to build an old-west replica as a base from which to live out his power-crazed fantasies. He already has a much better and more comfortable location for that.