A necessary evil...

Rating: 8/10 (17 September 2005)

The master of film allegories, Andrew Niccol, has created a much more topical story than in his previous films, and one that deals with the problems of today, rather than the trials of tomorrow, and he has done it with just as much flare for character dilemma.
During the opening credits, we are treated to the life of a single bullet in an AK-47. From its manufactuing in a Soviet factory, until it is loaded into an assault rifle and fired into the forehead of a Liberian preteen. From that point on we are treated to the inner-workings of the illegal weapons trade, and the violence that results from it, though seen primarily through the eyes of our protagonist, Yuri Orlov.
The cast is stellar. Nicolas Cage dominates the screen as a man without a country who goes from the mean streets of New York's Little Odessa to become a leading exporter of guns. Told in first-person, we are forced to identify with him, despite his decidedly amoral business. Jared Leto lends great support as his wayward brother and one-time partner, whose sense of right and wrong become his ultimate undoing. Ethan Hawke is also in top form as Interpol agent Jack Valentine, who is only prevented from catching Yuri by his strong belief in upholding international law. Ian Holm adds another creepy character to his resume as Simeon Weisz, Yuri's nemesis in the world of arms trade. Bridget Moynihan, as Yuri's dream girl-turned-wife is also quite good.
The synopsis talks about a gun-runner at the top of his game being attacked by his conscience. This is true, but it's never as simple as all that. The movie makes its point by largely avoiding it. We hear the shots, we see the victims, but only once are we treated to a lecture on the evils of arms dealing. We've heard it all before. We know it's bad. We don't need to hear any more than we are given. By converting the facts of gun running into "wrong" or "evil," Niccol avoids being preachy. While "The Constant Gardner" succeeded by preaching the evils of the pharmaceutical industry, "Lord of War" succeeds because we already know why the gun running is wrong.
This movie ends on a cynical note, that in the world of today there will always be war, and there will always be someone needed to supply the guns. And sometimes, in cases of conflicts sponsored by other countries, it helps to have someone on the outside.