The boys went to success. Review of the film ”Guys with Guns” (Topic)

World Of Topics » Movies » News » The boys went to success. Review of the film ”Guys with Guns”

The boys went to success. Review of the film ”Guys with Guns”

Image On the oceanfront in Miami Beach, everything looks just like in an advertisement: tall palm trees do not protect from the scorching sun at all, luxury cars drive along the roads of fashionable areas, and their owners enjoy the views from their panoramic windows. It was here that two young guys met, who quickly realized that, in addition to a beautiful life, the American dream is also associated with government orders.

Possible spoilers!

Dogs of War (as the original title of the film sounds) are two Jews from good families David Pacaus and Ephraim Diveroli , played by Miles Teller and Jonah Hill, respectively. The portfolio of the former includes both successful projects ("Obsession") and failures ("Fantastic Four"). Hill has long been known for his comedic talent thanks to the Superbad and the Macho and the Nerd dilogy. The distributors, of course, have found a way to do extra advertising through the movie title. " Guys with guns " sounds vulgar. In addition, the film was directed by a stag party director in Vegas Todd Phillips . If you add to this the footage from the trailer, where the most obvious jokes of the entire film were collected, you would think that the audience is waiting for another comedy about the lucky fools.

Scoundrels have put the entire US arms market on the heels, taking advantage of a loophole courtesy of the government. In the mid-2000s, when the country's army was tightly bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, it needed a clear implementation of the supply of weapons and ammunition. To prevent monopolization of the market, many small private intermediary companies were involved in the sale of equipment and ammunition, which could follow the tenders on a specially created website. In the fight for the crumbs from the pie (small firms took only small contracts, but even they were worth millions of dollars) and two school friends joined. Ephraim already had experience in arms dealing with his uncle, David , who worked as a massage therapist for the wealthy,

Supporters of classic biopics may anger the approach of Phillips - the story is not thoroughly filmed. There are discrepancies between the events and the goals of the heroes, and very noticeable. For example, Pacaus wanted to earn money to start his musical career (he himself played a cameo of the singer in one of the scenes of the film), and not to take care of the family, and the character de Armas did not exist in reality. The girl was added to the plot only to set off David compared to Ephraim . A rake, a drug, money and prostitute lover, lures the Nice Guy into a dangerous business, and contrasting images are created, of which only the one that went to John Hill is impressive. And not because Teller is bad,

Starting with a Tarantino view from the trunk, the film takes the form of a huge flashback, almost until the end of the timing, talking about what not to do in order not to look up at the barrel of a gun. All events are presented in several chapters, cut off from each other by captions with a key phrase for a particular part of the story. And if in mood it is very similar to " The Wolf of Wall Street " by Martin Scorsese - the guys who have seized colossal money begin to think that they are unattainable and invulnerable - then in terms of presentation it most of all resembles the same dexterous and easy "Game for a fall". What is the use of a freeze frame technique with an explanatory voiceover of the protagonist? However, the reminder remains only a reminder - " The guys with the guns " are not as original as the one marked with Academy " Game ". Moreover, the most flagrant violation can be attributed to them - a hooligan and dynamic biopic by the last third begins to bore. Apparently, because the chapters of this story are somewhat disproportionate, and where the denouement is expected, the director decides to make a few more stops on the images of heroes and dramatic events that are absolutely unnecessary.


As for the content, here first of all you need to refer to the title. The phrase"dogs of war", hidden behind the domestic localization, is a euphemism for mercenaries. It is used perfectly to the point: the main characters approach the issue solely as a business. Their reasoning follows the following chain: “Wars will be in any case and will bring money. This money can be earned. If we do not do it, then someone else, so why refuse? " Therefore, the characters in the film look at the soldier and see him not as a murderer, like pacifists, and not a defender of democracy, like militarists and patriots. They see it as a price list. These guys are just mercenaries who are interested in the opportunity to make money on the inevitable evil. The heroes do not consider the option of not participating in the obviously vile game. The level of cynicism is heightened by the appearance of the character of Bradley Cooper, the arms baron Henri Gerard , who in one of the military conflicts generally sold weapons to both sides. And if not for the carelessness and squabbles of two friends over money, they would someday become theseHenri Gerard.


Naturally, in the next film about the American dream, all the participants in the process got it - from spouses who do not understand each other and dishonest business partners to the entire state system, which allowed such"guys with guns"to the market, and then itself arranged a demonstrative whipping out of their case. Even the poster with Tony Montana hanging in the first office of the guys and the poster stylized as a classic film once again remind us of the role of weapons in the American cult of independence, masculinity and strength.

As a result, as in life, but for slightly different reasons, all the sisters get their earrings: Diveroli gets a real term, Pacaus - house arrest, and their company after fines and a temporary ban on activities could return to the military market. Here lies not only a reproach to existing legal norms, but also a hint that in the future the state and the Ministry of Defense will need weapons again.


" Guys with Guns " is an exclusively genre movie, although its genre is difficult to define: it combines economic drama, military comedy, and biography. And it is not so important to try to drive into a clear framework a well-told American dream, which draws the viewer vivid pictures of a successful and rich life, parallel to a tambourine in the ear:“You can't do this!”.

The Topic of Article: The boys went to success. Review of the film ”Guys with Guns”.
Author: Jake Pinkman