I enjoyed this movie because I can vaguely remember the circumstances surrounding his death and the noticeable lack of attention paid to it in Canada. The story is interesting and the character study is fascinating. I thought that Frank Langella was right for the role. Not only is he relatively unknown by Hollywood standards, he is also Canadian. This is a case where a man's dream to build the biggest and best arms overrides his sense of morality.He was willing to sell his technology to anyone regardless of how it would be used. He wasn't interested in profit - it was all in the interest of personal aggrandizement. The movie probably could have been better (at least in the glitzy Hollywood sense) but the story is told in a fairly straightforward and interesting manner allowing the viewer to decide for him/herself about ends versus means.
22 Reviews
Another good tv movie
kevin2728 April 2004
Another good example of how a tv movie can, perhaps within bland and low-cost production values, be more interesting and truthful than the standard Hollywood film.
Another respondent has described how well the film captures the creative moment within engineering, and that's all true. I think Langella's performance was also an excellent representation of a buccaneering businessman, drawing about him intelligent people he trusts and inspiring them, although occasionally haranguing them.
Good scenes .. Gerald Bull dining on the grave of a famous German artilleryman. The Israeli spy chief walking morosely around the Baghdad arms fair looking at all the hardware he would one day have to face. The nods and winks of the British establishment as they turn a blind eye to the production of Saddam's supergun.
Yes it clunks here and there. But fine acting and a literate script. More absorbing than most films which cost 10 times as much.
Seven out of ten.
Another respondent has described how well the film captures the creative moment within engineering, and that's all true. I think Langella's performance was also an excellent representation of a buccaneering businessman, drawing about him intelligent people he trusts and inspiring them, although occasionally haranguing them.
Good scenes .. Gerald Bull dining on the grave of a famous German artilleryman. The Israeli spy chief walking morosely around the Baghdad arms fair looking at all the hardware he would one day have to face. The nods and winks of the British establishment as they turn a blind eye to the production of Saddam's supergun.
Yes it clunks here and there. But fine acting and a literate script. More absorbing than most films which cost 10 times as much.
Seven out of ten.
Fact based spy vs. spy .......
merklekranz21 January 2017
Interesting fact based spy film with supposed allies backstabbing each other, each with their own agenda for using an engineer's gigantic gun he is developing. The long range implications for Middle East Countries is factored against the region's importance as an oil producer. Profit and greed is offset by the scientific drive of one man, who's vision is well beyond the present, possibly offering him the immortal recognition he desires. This is well acted, fast paced, and intriguing. There is even an open ended conclusion that begs discussion. The miniatures and computer renderings of the big guns are superbly done, and the film is relevant even with all the time that has passed. - MERK
An Inconvenient Canadian
cmark512 September 2004
Just a quibble to correct Jonathan from Hoboken's identification of Gerry Bull as an America. He was Canadian (you can even see him brandishing his Canadian passport in the final airport scene with Price (Spacey) near the end.) Gerry Bull was an inconvenient Canadian, in that he thought too big for a Canadian, and, like many other Canadians of talent and vision, eventually had to leave the country to achieve what he wanted. He was a brilliant supersonic aerodynamics engineer, who had contributed to the Avro Arrow program, and had run HARP (High Altitude Research Program) which had been, ahem, aimed at achieving spaceflight using guns, a la Jules Verne. It had operated the original 'supergun' in the Caribbean, with battleship guns put end to end. Bull gave up on Canada when Canada gave up on him, and that's when he became the international long-range artillery guy, selling his expertise to whoever paid - Israel, South Africa, Iraq. I figure if Israel could knock out Saddam's Osirak nuclear plant with an air strike, it wouldn't be past them to knock off the guy about to give Saddam a supergun with which to shell Tel Aviv.
The movie, though heavy on the CIA-is-the-root-of-all-evil conspiracy theories, was entertaining and not that bad, especially as a made-for-TV job, with, I thought, pretty good casting (I always like Michael Kitchen).
The movie, though heavy on the CIA-is-the-root-of-all-evil conspiracy theories, was entertaining and not that bad, especially as a made-for-TV job, with, I thought, pretty good casting (I always like Michael Kitchen).
The price of obsession
dave13-110 February 2012
This movie sets out to tell the (more or less) true story of Canadian weapons designer Gerald Bull (Frank Langella), who dreams of building the world's most powerful artillery gun: hundreds of feet long and able to deliver a shell the size of a small building. The only problem? America and Great Britain don't want to finance his masterpiece and don't want Bull constructing one for anybody else. But Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is willing to pay for one, and able to get around the American embargo on selling weapons to Iraq by cleverly disguising the gun's parts as ordinary industrial equipment. But once Bull goes to work for Saddam, he sets himself as a target for international hit squads willing to do anything to keep such a weapon out of the wrong hands. He found himself playing cat-and-mouse, taking precautions to stay one step ahead of the world's intelligence agencies. This movie provides a pretty good reconstruction of the project, and the fact that the project was a quite chilling possibility gives the story much of its interest. Unlike the outlandish schemes of James Bond's usual adversaries, Bull's supergun was technically feasible and his customer, Saddam, was a very real threat to world peace. A decent way to pass the time for anybody looking for real life intelligence intrigue.
An interesting look at recent mid east history
jc1305us15 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I saw "Doomsday Gun" a few days ago and I enjoyed it very much. Frank Langella stars as Dr. Gerry Bull an american engineer who designs weapons. His latest clients are the Iraqi government who want him to build a giant gun which will be able to launch a missle 1,000 miles. ****Possible Spoilers****** Kevin Spacey and Alan Arkin co star as two spies intent on not letting this project get off the ground. Spacey as a CIA operative and Arkin as an Israeli agent who may or may not have had Bull murdered to prevent the Iraqis from launching missles at Israel. The character of Bull is interesting. On one hand he is a weapons seller who is going to build a giant gun for Saddam Hussein, a madman and tyrant. He explains that no matter which government he would work for they are all guilty of murder. On the other hand, Bull is an engineer who just wants to build his dream gun which will provide his legacy. Langella really puts a human face on this man in a very understated performance. Spacey and Arkin are good too as spies trying for the same goal but with completely different methods of achieving them. Over all an interesting movie and very relavent to today's climate in the middle east with war looming. Recommended.
Couldve been better
goya-410 April 2001
Frank Langella stars as Dr Gerald Bull who wishes to sell a giant "doomsday"gun to a non US friendly third world nation. Obviously this doesnt sit well with a few people.. An OK movie but Langella seems lost in the role, a bit miscast, and the story doesnt hold interest like it should 6 of 10
Really great cast working with a really crappy script
vonnoosh29 May 2020
I first saw this as an HBO made for TV movie. It didn't make much of an impression at the time but I revisited it just to see who is in it. Kevin Spacey plays one of the few likable characters I've ever see him play. Even better, Spacey is workking again with Alan Arkin. Frank Langella is excellent in everything and this is no exception. Zia Mohyeddin, the great character actor has to say almost nothing to convey his Iraqi military officer as someone who is extremely dangerous. Tony Goldwyn plays the typical bureaucrat everyone loves to hate, Michael Kitchen. Francesca Annis, Aharon Ipalé, James Fox. This is a great cast!
What is missing with this movie is a point. All I get from it is how blind to reality Gerald Bull must have been. It tells a good espionage story. It tries to find controversy like who financed the Iraqi military and why but that's nothing anyone who knows history doesnt know. US sided with Iraq during their war with Iran seeing Iraq as the lesser of two evils. After that war ended, they turned into an enemy when the invasion of Kuwait occurred. Simple. What does this story have to do with that? Almost nothing. The only point I get is Bull wanting to make a gun that would never work, a gun he can't build because the parts will never be delivered ( a man known for building guns, sends a known associate of his to convince foreign countries that these giant metal pieces are not gun related??? Did they really do something that stupid?), inserts himself into the Middle East conflict with no protection and you can guess the result of that.
It is good seeing the actors though especially the scenes Spacey has with Arkin. Both actors play characters well outside their usual casting.
What is missing with this movie is a point. All I get from it is how blind to reality Gerald Bull must have been. It tells a good espionage story. It tries to find controversy like who financed the Iraqi military and why but that's nothing anyone who knows history doesnt know. US sided with Iraq during their war with Iran seeing Iraq as the lesser of two evils. After that war ended, they turned into an enemy when the invasion of Kuwait occurred. Simple. What does this story have to do with that? Almost nothing. The only point I get is Bull wanting to make a gun that would never work, a gun he can't build because the parts will never be delivered ( a man known for building guns, sends a known associate of his to convince foreign countries that these giant metal pieces are not gun related??? Did they really do something that stupid?), inserts himself into the Middle East conflict with no protection and you can guess the result of that.
It is good seeing the actors though especially the scenes Spacey has with Arkin. Both actors play characters well outside their usual casting.
Wow, what a positive surprise!
buiger20 January 2011
Another excellent made-for-TV movie. This is as good a spy thriller as I have seen in a long time. The icing on the cake is, it also happens to be true!
This movie is short on action, short on special effects, explosions, car chases and the likes; this is a movie with a great script (true life is the best writer I have ever known), it is intelligently made, well directed and acted. All of the protagonists are excellent, but special mention is due to Alan Arkin in my opinion, whose portrayal of a cynical spy is Oscar worthy. James Fox has a cameo as the Head of MI6, he is also perfect in his role and seems to be amusing himself greatly while playing it.
It would be very interesting to learn the whole truth about this story one day...
This movie is short on action, short on special effects, explosions, car chases and the likes; this is a movie with a great script (true life is the best writer I have ever known), it is intelligently made, well directed and acted. All of the protagonists are excellent, but special mention is due to Alan Arkin in my opinion, whose portrayal of a cynical spy is Oscar worthy. James Fox has a cameo as the Head of MI6, he is also perfect in his role and seems to be amusing himself greatly while playing it.
It would be very interesting to learn the whole truth about this story one day...
I Could've been really good
Eddie_weinbauer20 January 2017
I've read a book about the super gun ,and the man behind it.(Can't remember if it was fiction or biography)But I find they portray of him in this film,extremely naive. They go to great lengths to portray him as a big child,who just wanna realize his dream, of building the biggest gun ever.
If it was meant as a kid movie that might have worked out well. But since this a movie for adult about real events(though I'm sure they've taken huge liberties with the truth)And he has worked with agency's all over the world,he seem quite willfully ignorant of the threat they are to him. He just goes on and on, about how wonderfully it will be that his invention works.
He seem to have no conception of how dangerous it will be, that Saddam wanna brag and show off a model of this doomsday cannon, on a international public arms convention. Even though he knows the people after him are quite serious about stopping him. The fact that America in the movie, think they can decate Israel is kind of amusing. Everyone with half a brain,knows it's the otherway around
If it was meant as a kid movie that might have worked out well. But since this a movie for adult about real events(though I'm sure they've taken huge liberties with the truth)And he has worked with agency's all over the world,he seem quite willfully ignorant of the threat they are to him. He just goes on and on, about how wonderfully it will be that his invention works.
He seem to have no conception of how dangerous it will be, that Saddam wanna brag and show off a model of this doomsday cannon, on a international public arms convention. Even though he knows the people after him are quite serious about stopping him. The fact that America in the movie, think they can decate Israel is kind of amusing. Everyone with half a brain,knows it's the otherway around
A jewel of human truth
BobTheCopywriter12 April 2001
As an engineer's son, I have never seen a better portrayal of an engineer's enthusiasm for new problems and new challenges. In one unforgettable scene, Frank Langella brought to the screen for the first time in my opinion what can only be called, "the-joy-of-development."
Too often films that deal with invention focus on that moment when the problem comes together and is solved. What they fail to recognize is the first step, when the men and women are looking at the challenge ahead has even more emotional potential. Thankfully the writers and actors in this film did not forget this human truth.
The cast is excellent. The script is uneven, but the only reason this is obvious is because instead of staying mildly good throughout, like most made for cable films, this movie is mildly good with occasional scenes of brilliance.
If you are an engineer or just have one as a friend or member of the family, see this film. It's a wonder.
Too often films that deal with invention focus on that moment when the problem comes together and is solved. What they fail to recognize is the first step, when the men and women are looking at the challenge ahead has even more emotional potential. Thankfully the writers and actors in this film did not forget this human truth.
The cast is excellent. The script is uneven, but the only reason this is obvious is because instead of staying mildly good throughout, like most made for cable films, this movie is mildly good with occasional scenes of brilliance.
If you are an engineer or just have one as a friend or member of the family, see this film. It's a wonder.
Hard to watch
Delrvich20 May 2021
Some of the dialogue and scenes were a bit over the top (eg 1. "This -draws circle- is our 'current gun'. This -draws huge circle- is going to be our next gun." 2. PhD and employees working late suddenly discovering lining a barrel etc ...).
Alan Arkin and Kevin Spacey play subdued roles.
Ratings 1 Deliberately botched (for the "it's so bad it's good" crowd) 2 I don't want to see it 3 I didn't finish and or FF'd through it 4 Bad 5 I don't get it 6 Good 7 Great but with a major flaw 8 Great 9 Noir with moral 10 Inspiring with moral.
Alan Arkin and Kevin Spacey play subdued roles.
Ratings 1 Deliberately botched (for the "it's so bad it's good" crowd) 2 I don't want to see it 3 I didn't finish and or FF'd through it 4 Bad 5 I don't get it 6 Good 7 Great but with a major flaw 8 Great 9 Noir with moral 10 Inspiring with moral.
Flawed criticism
Royalcourtier9 May 2014
One reviewer claimed that the idea of a Supergun was impractical due to the huge flame that could easily be observed from satellites, and that such a gun would take days to clean out and reload.
This is not correct.
A supergun can work, and is no more impractical than a fixed airbase or missile launch site.
The German superguns did work, and many rounds were fired both in testing and operationally - at Luxembourg.
Iran would have had difficulty destroying a firing site. Its ground attack capability was not good, and the gun itself would be a small target. Flames could not be seen from space, even if Iran did have a satellite over Iraq at the time of firing.
It would also have been an ideal weapon with which to launch projectiles against the state of Israel.
This is not correct.
A supergun can work, and is no more impractical than a fixed airbase or missile launch site.
The German superguns did work, and many rounds were fired both in testing and operationally - at Luxembourg.
Iran would have had difficulty destroying a firing site. Its ground attack capability was not good, and the gun itself would be a small target. Flames could not be seen from space, even if Iran did have a satellite over Iraq at the time of firing.
It would also have been an ideal weapon with which to launch projectiles against the state of Israel.
A clear case of miscasting
PeterJackson22 November 2000
The only reason I watched this film, was because my favorite actor Kevin Spacey was in it. The film was a disappointment, but Spacey had some good moments, despite the fact that he was clearly miscast.
This was also the case for Frank Langella as the inventor, who is so obsessed by his inventions that he gets himself in danger.
Tony Goldwyn(GHOST, TARZAN) too wasn't the man for the part of tough CIA-boss. The only exceptions were Edward Fox(however, this was a case of type-casting)and Alan Arkin. The story too was very uneven and it seemed as though it wasn't finished at all. The actors do what they can, but they too can't make THIS material work. 5/10
This was also the case for Frank Langella as the inventor, who is so obsessed by his inventions that he gets himself in danger.
Tony Goldwyn(GHOST, TARZAN) too wasn't the man for the part of tough CIA-boss. The only exceptions were Edward Fox(however, this was a case of type-casting)and Alan Arkin. The story too was very uneven and it seemed as though it wasn't finished at all. The actors do what they can, but they too can't make THIS material work. 5/10
Well said everyone
jwgenser4 August 2020
A worthwhile spy / intrigue movie.
Svenstadt5 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is a fairly good political drama / thriller. You have the main character, Dr. Gerald Bull, a Canadian weapons scientist working for the U.S. government, who gets betrayed and receives a prison sentence. What happens to his character afterwards, and the bitterness he carries with him, is the subject of the movie. The characters are ones that you can sympathize with. Bull goes on a blind quest to fulfill a childhood fantasy from a book he read as a child. However, are his goals really so lofty, or did prison break him?? It is debatable whether he is merely out for himself now, having sold his work to the Iraqis, who contracted him to design and build a super weapon that will target Israel. However, spies worldwide, including Kevin Spacey and a Mossad agent, vow to stop him at any cost. Bull, so deluded by either bitterness or greed, does not even realize that he is putting his own life in danger on many sides....
The Doomsday Gun: A Review
jonathanruano2 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
There are many under-appreciated gems and "The Doomsday Gun" is one of them. Based on a true story, the Doomsday Gun is about Gerald Bull, a Canadian engineer who tries to build the largest gun in the world (capable of shooting mortar shells 1000 miles away) and then sell it to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein who was at the time at war with Iran. The U.S. and British governments soon find out that Bull is up to no good, but they decide not to stop him because they mistakenly believe that the gun cannot be built.
But the film is really about Gerald Bull. Gerald Bull (played brilliantly by Frank Langella) is portrayed as arrogant, mercurial and a genius. He can be impossible and inspiring. He never allows his people to sleep until he discovers the answer to a problem. Above all, he is a dreamer who sees his gun as a work of art. There is a fascinating paradox in this movie between genius and the devastating implications of it. When Albert Einstein's developed his ideas about atoms, he had no idea that those ideas would result in the creation of an atomic bomb that, when dropped, would cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Gerald Bull, unlike Einstein, should have known his gun could have killed thousands and yet he approaches the whole matter with a naive innocence or maybe he simply does not care, because -- as he explains to his wife -- the world is messed up already. As the film progresses, Bull becomes so obsessed with building the gun that he loses sight of everything else, including the distinct possibility that he is putting his own life in greater danger with every passing day. There is a lot to dislike in Gerald Bull, but Frank Langella's portrayal of him is so effective that we end up sympathizing with the man all the same. Part of us even wants him to succeed, because we understand how important that dream is to him.
Other good performances in the film come from Michael Kitchen as Christopher Cowley, who assisted Bull in designing the gun before backing out because he believed the project was putting his own life in greater danger; Tony Goldwyn (Donald Duval) and Kevin Spacey (Jim Price) as American spies; Alan Arkin (Colonel Yossi)and Clive Owen (Dov) as Israel spies; Roger Hammond in a wonderful, but brief, performance as the gun dealer Mackler; and Aharon Ipale (Marouf) and Zia Mohyeddin (Hashim) as the Iraqis who commissioned Bull to build the gun. You can also see Natasha Richardson in a brief performance as Mackler's mistress. Directed by Robert Young with a brilliant musical score by Richard Harvey.
But the film is really about Gerald Bull. Gerald Bull (played brilliantly by Frank Langella) is portrayed as arrogant, mercurial and a genius. He can be impossible and inspiring. He never allows his people to sleep until he discovers the answer to a problem. Above all, he is a dreamer who sees his gun as a work of art. There is a fascinating paradox in this movie between genius and the devastating implications of it. When Albert Einstein's developed his ideas about atoms, he had no idea that those ideas would result in the creation of an atomic bomb that, when dropped, would cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Gerald Bull, unlike Einstein, should have known his gun could have killed thousands and yet he approaches the whole matter with a naive innocence or maybe he simply does not care, because -- as he explains to his wife -- the world is messed up already. As the film progresses, Bull becomes so obsessed with building the gun that he loses sight of everything else, including the distinct possibility that he is putting his own life in greater danger with every passing day. There is a lot to dislike in Gerald Bull, but Frank Langella's portrayal of him is so effective that we end up sympathizing with the man all the same. Part of us even wants him to succeed, because we understand how important that dream is to him.
Other good performances in the film come from Michael Kitchen as Christopher Cowley, who assisted Bull in designing the gun before backing out because he believed the project was putting his own life in greater danger; Tony Goldwyn (Donald Duval) and Kevin Spacey (Jim Price) as American spies; Alan Arkin (Colonel Yossi)and Clive Owen (Dov) as Israel spies; Roger Hammond in a wonderful, but brief, performance as the gun dealer Mackler; and Aharon Ipale (Marouf) and Zia Mohyeddin (Hashim) as the Iraqis who commissioned Bull to build the gun. You can also see Natasha Richardson in a brief performance as Mackler's mistress. Directed by Robert Young with a brilliant musical score by Richard Harvey.
Good true-story movie
bellino-angelo20146 November 2023
DOOMSDAY GUN intrigued me from quite some time because it has a star studded cast (certainly a surprise for a TV movie) and also because it has been uploaded on YouTube by an user that mostly uploads obscure movies, and last July I finally saw it and while it didn't surpassed my expectations I still liked it.
Doctor Gerald Bull (Frank Langella) is fascinated with large looking guns but he is defunded by the US Army and ends producing weapons for China, Israel and South Africa where he eventually ends up arrested for dealing of illegal arms. Bull then develops his new cannon named Baby Babylon, not with few obstacles: his second in command Cowley quits after an ambush by Mossad agent Dov (Clive Owen) that already ambushed Bull. Eventually the cannon is tested and succedds many's expectations tho Colonel Yossi (Alan Arkin) bets that Bull's death will happen sooner or later since Bull has more enemies than friends and in fact, Bull is gunned down in his apartment, leaving the murder unsolved to 1994 (when this was made).
It was a nice retelling about the cannons used in the Gulf War and considering the situation in Palestine and Israel, the subject is very actual. The acting was good by all (Langella, Arkin, Owen, Kevin Spacey, Tony Goldwyn and James Fox) and it kept my interest until the very end.
Not to be missed if you are fans of the stars or if you want to see as many movies possible about the subject.
Doctor Gerald Bull (Frank Langella) is fascinated with large looking guns but he is defunded by the US Army and ends producing weapons for China, Israel and South Africa where he eventually ends up arrested for dealing of illegal arms. Bull then develops his new cannon named Baby Babylon, not with few obstacles: his second in command Cowley quits after an ambush by Mossad agent Dov (Clive Owen) that already ambushed Bull. Eventually the cannon is tested and succedds many's expectations tho Colonel Yossi (Alan Arkin) bets that Bull's death will happen sooner or later since Bull has more enemies than friends and in fact, Bull is gunned down in his apartment, leaving the murder unsolved to 1994 (when this was made).
It was a nice retelling about the cannons used in the Gulf War and considering the situation in Palestine and Israel, the subject is very actual. The acting was good by all (Langella, Arkin, Owen, Kevin Spacey, Tony Goldwyn and James Fox) and it kept my interest until the very end.
Not to be missed if you are fans of the stars or if you want to see as many movies possible about the subject.
Very Informative
wmdude12557 May 2010
I found this to be very interesting. It was straight Forward and nothing added or omitted made it even better. The acting was good and the story made you wonder: would you do the same thing? After watching this, I was reminded that so many of the nations that hate us, we have helped create. As it said at the end "It is estimated that almost $3 million dollars of taxpayer money was sent to Iraq to arm them". The United States creates these monsters and then ends up having to face them. We did the same thing in Afghanstan in the name of National Pride. By arming the rebels who eventually became the Taliban, It became the mistake that came back and bite us on the ass. Now our Troops are paying for it. I really liked this movie.
Don't be so quick to blame Mossad
sheriff__0011 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The main flaw in the movie, I think was that the director got caught up in Bull's dream too. (The idea that the Supergun was a practical weapon) Bull could never really solve the single firing only problem. Firing would have produced a huge flame easily observed from Satellites. Such a gun firing would take days to clean out and reload. Less time than strike aircraft would need to go in, and destroy it.
I doubt Mossad killed Bull, for there were many around the world working on considerably more practical weapons for Saddam who went untouched, for example, Frenchmen and Germans working on nuclear weapons, Germans and Spainiards on chemical, and Brazilians on missiles. I also doubt the CIA did it, Bull being a US citizen, in a NATO country, after the reforms of the CIA in the 1970's.
I'd point the finger at Iraq, as Yosi said "Saddam Hussein is the only man in Iraq allowed to know too much"
I doubt Mossad killed Bull, for there were many around the world working on considerably more practical weapons for Saddam who went untouched, for example, Frenchmen and Germans working on nuclear weapons, Germans and Spainiards on chemical, and Brazilians on missiles. I also doubt the CIA did it, Bull being a US citizen, in a NATO country, after the reforms of the CIA in the 1970's.
I'd point the finger at Iraq, as Yosi said "Saddam Hussein is the only man in Iraq allowed to know too much"
From 1994 to 2007 the meaning has completely changed
Dr_Coulardeau20 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This is an old film that came out in 1994. It was direct propaganda from the Democrats against the Republicans and Bush Senior who had been defeated by Clinton in 1992. As such it revealed the very obscure and twisted policies the United States of Reagan and Bush Senior had had towards Iraq, Iran, Israel and the Middle East in general, not to speak of the world. But what meaning can it have in 2007? In retrospect it shows how the US produced their own enemy and made him as strong as strong could be, how they helped him embezzle enormous sums of money in order to pay for some armament projects that were totally out of proportion but very good for business. And then they had to have a first war to force him out of Kuwait, and then they decided to have a second war to oust him out of power. And they had to lie to the whole world to justify their unilateral decision to invade Iraq. And that war that was supposed to be a joyride because they knew there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction and hence the Iraqis could not resist them, has turned into a nightmare and a quagmire that is swallowing the US like a quicksand trap in the middle of their only way. The Indians and Sinhalas have an interested saying about how an elephant cannot escape from drowning in a pool of mud as soon as they have dipped their first foot in it. If the film demonstrates something it is that when you lie, when you embezzle, when you manipulate people or events or circumstances or whatever, sooner or later you have to pay the bill and foot the expenses. Unluckily the price is paid by the Americans first of all, then by the Iraqis particularly the civilians, and finally by the whole world that is forced into dangerous situations that could and should have been avoided. This film's meaning has completely changed from 1994 with Bush Senior as its intended target to Bush Junior as an unintended circumstantial target. But one element is still true and unchanged: the US have been fishing in very muddy waters over the last twenty years or so and the price to pay will be unimaginably high for everyone.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne
A boring and crappy made for tv by tv movie.
rsrp11 May 2001
There is nothing good in this movie, at all! People reffering to themselves as gingerbread men, and wanting to fire "superguns" and filming iraq in nevada and just murdering the good name of Kevin Spacey in this... Its just bad!
Kevin was misplaced, he wasn't supposed to be in this movie, at all!
Kevin was misplaced, he wasn't supposed to be in this movie, at all!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
