War Machine (2017) User Reviews (220)

Why? Why did we have the war?

[tastytomatoes · 7/10 · 1 June 2017]

First off, the criticism is too harsh. From a directorial aspect, this is not a perfect movie. Yet the movie clearly goes over the head of some people. There are numerous laughs big and small scattered through the movie where you laugh at the absurdity of the characters and the unfolding of events. At times it also gets informative and at times drama-serious. When the movie ends you feel like to have gone through a journey with General Glenn McMahon, an inside look into the relationship and mechanism of America's war in Afghanistan.

War Machine delivers its message and will prompt you into thinking. The pacing is slower at times but then catches the speed. Great chemistry between the cast with solid performances. Brad Pitt is excellent, giving a unique and strong performance that radiates as the film goes on.

An absurd story at an absurd time, this is a unique movie worth watching for its theme and characters.

ups and downs

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 27 May 2017]

Gen. Glen McMahon (Brad Pitt) is no non-sense soldier. He lives a Spartan life often away from his family. He and his team such as the always shouting Greg Pulver (Anthony Michael Hall) are called in to cleanup the Afganistan quagmire. He is told to push the needle and not request for more troops. Instead, he is driven to win and sees his way where everyone else has failed. He uses any means to get his way while not getting his meeting with Obama. He finds President Karzai (Ben Kingsley), an isolated corrupt leader. Media consultant Matt Little (Topher Grace) suggests getting him an article in Rolling Stones.

This dark comedy is too real to be funny. If Strangelove actually happened, the absurd movie would be less fun. One is always reminded that real people died here and there because the character of McMahon is based on a real person. While there are interesting bits, the general sense of this movie is one of tired resignation.

I don't know if it's the Rolling Stones reporter but I'm reminded of Almost Famous. In that movie, the reporter is the protagonist and he's the eyes with which the audience sees the story. The rock star is a subject who is slowly revealed. In this movie, we are given only the narration of reporter Sean Cullen for the most part. He shows up for a limited role later in the movie. McMahon is the protagonist and we're stuck with him for good and for ill.

Of all the characters, the most compelling is the 'confused' Marine Cpl. Billy Cole. His first scene with McMahon is devastating. His face is haunting. What he says resonates more than any other character. In the end, he is a minor character. His other scene is another compelling sequence as his squad goes into a hostile town. Again he is more compelling than anyone else and it is emotionally draining. This movie could have been great but McMahon can't be the protagonist. He is an absurd side character like Karzai in this movie.

Netflix brings it

[ReelLifeReviews · 7/10 · 26 May 2017]

War Machine - A satirical but honest look at the treadmill of war.

First off, Brad Pitt is essentially a caricature in this movie. I kept going back and forth on whether he was brilliant or miserable in his performance. I found myself feeling the same way I did when seeing him in Allied late last year. There are scenes when he is absolutely dialed in to the role and what's going on around him. And there are a handful of scenes where you'd think someone is just reading him his lines off-screen. He's been frustratingly inconsistent these last two outings.

I had no trouble deciphering the performance level of the surrounding cast, as they all came to play. From the big names of Ben Kingsley and Tilda Swinton, to still familiar names of Anthony Michael Hall and Topher Grace, I was impressed. My favorite performance would have to go to one of the smaller roles played by Lakeith Stanfield. I'd seen him earlier this year in Get Out, but he had a better opportunity to shine here as an absolutely emotionally broken marine.

The first half of the film is very quirky and actually has some pretty funny lines. The second half all but abandons the comedic tone and shifts into a full fledged war drama. The end result is satisfying, but that contrast is pretty jarring. It would have been more successful to mix the paint a bit more or just choose one color.

Netflix pulled out the big guns putting up $60 million for the distribution rights to the film. Later this year they are also backing a loose follow up to 2009's Moon (please see this underrated film if you haven't already) and breaking the bank with a $100 Martin Scorsese film with Robert De Niro and Al Pacino in 2018. Netflix is quickly changing the game in the world of cinema. Don't be surprised to see the awards shows tweak their rules to allow for streaming content down the road.

So pop some popcorn and reserve your couch to see this film of grandiosity and failure. Not exactly your typical recipe to Netlix and Chill, but I'm not one to judge.

A satire

[Gordon-11 · 28 May 2017]

This film tells the story of an ambitious army general, who is posted to Afghanistan to run the mission to fight insurgents. It becomes apparent very soon that various parties have not aligned their goals and missions.

"War Machine" tells a story of an enthusiastic man who is stuck in a web of bureaucracies. The story unfolds slowly, and at times it looks like a satirical look at a system that is supposed to serve and protect the public. The cameos are plentiful, making me pleasantly surprised. Though I find the film a little uneventful, I can see that it parallels what exactly is happening in the story to the characters.

A very interesting anti-war movie.

[cillianleddy-15839 · 7/10 · 26 May 2017]

War Machine is a movie about the absurdity of the war of Afghanistan and the absurdity of American foreign policy in general. Therefore the tone of the film is absurdist to reflect this. Brad Pitt's portrayal of General McMahon is absurdly over the top and quite deliberately so in order to reflect the general's absurd actions and attitude, his interactions with the other characters including the politicians are baffling and confusing which again reflects the baffling and incoherent nature of America's policy towards Afghanistan and the Middle East. How do you wage bloody war and build a nation up at the same time? The two do not go hand in hand.

War Machine's exposes just how much of a wild goose chase the battle against the Taliban is, how do you defeat an enemy that are often nothing more than disgruntled locals who have had quite enough of American soldiers bombing civilians homes and killing their children, without committing genocide? The film makers have reflected this by showing the Gen. and his men embarking on a wild goose chase of Europe in a futile attempt to secure more troops to the cause and get some face to face communication with the President of the U.S. The theme is quite clearly wild goose chases galore.

Overall I feel War Machine is an interesting anti-war movie that is much more a dark comedy drama than a clear satire which is what it was wrongly billed as. It isn't the funniest movie in the world but it has its' laugh out loud moments. Ultimately the mixture of satirical comedy, thought provoking drama, and taut action scenes blend together to tell a story which at it's essence aims to provoke everyone who watches this movie to ask, what were/are the Americans doing in Afghanistan? 7 out of 10 and some good performances and score.

Not really fulfilling in terms of both drama and comedy, yet there is some appeal to it

[Horst_In_Translation · 6/10 · 17 June 2017]

"War Machine" is a very recent release from Netflix and the newest movie starring Oscar-nominated actor and Oscar-winning producer Brad Pitt. Most recently, he has been more in the headlines because of his divorce from Angelina Jolie, but here we have something new from him in the field that really counts: the movie industry. The film runs for slightly over two hours and this includes a great deal of credits. Writer and director is David Michôd, the man who is mostly known for the Oscar-nominated "Animal Kingdom", but no doubt a film starring Brad Pitt will exceed the latter in terms of popularity for sure. Pitt has a tendency right now to appear in war-themed films and this one adds to that tendency. Here he plays a renowned army general who is ordered to Afghanistan to "get things right again". Or you could replace that term with another dozen of really vague statements what his task there actually is. It never becomes clear throughout the film, but that is absolutely intended. Basically they do not want him to cause any trouble and show to the outside that they care about the US involvement there and that the best men are in charge, even if their real intentions are clearly different. One example for that is a scene when Pitt's character is instructed why heroine is cultivated instead of cotton.

All in all, this was a fairly good watch I must say. i did not like some of Pitt's other recent military-based stuff, but this one really is more about politics than about the war itself and war movies just aren't really to my liking. Pitt himself gives a performance that is always on the verge of gimmicky, but it is still memorable somehow looking at the character he created. You can never be sure if he is just a tool of the powerful and mighty, a man with a mission, a good guy, a smart guy or the exact opposite and that adds something interesting there. One can certainly not complain about a lack of layers in the central character. Oscar winners Ben Kingsley and Tilda Swinton play important characters for the film, even if they only appear in one scene each. They did make sure that nobody takes away any attention from Pitt, that much is safe. Also as evidence for that it can be said that all the supporting players with a solid deal of screen time are played by actors who really aren't that famous. It is all about Pitt's character from start to finish. The reception I see was probably not good enough to turn this into an awards vehicle in an attempt that he finally gets his first acting Oscar. By the way, this is a Netflix production and the name Pitt in here shows that they really can get everybody they want these days. But if quality films like this one here are the outcome, then I don't mind it at all. As a whole, it was fun to watch Pitt from start to finish and the story was also good enough for me to give this one a thumbs-down, even if I would say that here and there the film could have been cut shorter, perhaps down to 105 minutes. Nothing too bad, however, go see it.

An amusing but tossed salad of a film

[darling137 · 6/10 · 27 May 2017]

"War Machine" satirically depicts a fictionalized version of Stanley McChrystal,, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) from his arrival in country to (spoiler) his sacking by the president..

The production value is excellent, with a lot of recognizable faces, many of them big (Pitt, Kingsley, and even a cameo by Russell Crowe). It uses real military and Afghan-specific military gear (how it got US Army support, I'll never know) and even gets the uniforms of coalition allies right. For vets, however, prepare to roll your eyes at the obligatory use of the salute as the perceived highest honor a military member can make.

The source material is the late Michael Hastings' book which I have not read, but having read his infamous Rolling Stone article on McChrystal, the figurative tone and voice of the narrator (based on Hastings) seems about right, cynical and contemptuous of his subject. Unless you lean way to the left or simply not a supporter of military use in Afghanistan, the narration gets pretty preachy and even downright wrong (about the success rate of insurgencies, for example),a somewhat unnecessary distraction.

Even for satire, where personalities are flattened and exaggerated and action is simplified, this film still struggles to add even a little depth. Pitt spends most of the film either looking confused, squinting, or saying "with all due respect". Anthony Michael Hall seems to just sneer, swear, and yell. Of course, Americans, particularly the military, are naively optimistic and openly disrespectful of other nationalities and their commander in chief. And wars and warfare can be summed up in glib and ideological oversimplifications.

The story manages to hit a bunch of themes and subject matters. There is commentary on the American way of war, the impact of deployments on marriage, the wisdom of military intervention, the politics of coalition building, and the dynamics of leadership. But the manner in which it chooses to do this constantly shifts.

I think it strives to be a dark comedy, but therein lies its ultimate shortfall. It doesn't know what it wants to be. Which is a shame because the funny parts are sincerely funny (Pitt's character defending the honor of his Afghan aide-de-camp as "the only Afghan in the room", Pitt and his White House (or SecDef?) civilian contact trying to end a video conference, and Ben Kingsly's hilarious (however infrequent) take on President Karzai all come to mind.) But the tone itself is multiple personalities. While it is always mocking (as satires are supposed to be) and skeptical, sometimes it's cutting to the bone, other times very light and whimsical, still other times deeply serious. I won't make the Roger Ebert mistake of speculating what the movie could have been about, but it seems to slink between being (1) a strident anti-military/anti-war/anti-America polemic or (2) a humorous parody of power and bureaucracy or (3) a character assassination of Stanley McChrystal.

It's a watchable and entertaining film with a good look, lots of questions, and steady acting. At end, however, I feel like the conflicted character Marine corporal Billy Cole who states his dilemma, which incidentally is restated in the song playing over the end credits, "I'm confused." Yep, so is the movie and so am I.

Clearly Portrays the Confusion of War

[coleco2000 · 7/10 · 26 May 2017]

Not knowing anything about the movie I was surprised that I was watching Brad Pitt with gravely George C Scott (Patton) voice and awkward stiff movements fool me, not knowing who he was! He looks so young. The movie did a great job of revealing the confusion of power that is the military and government in taking on a task of war against an enemy that likely would never have become an enemy if we had never moved against other powers in the region and caused the bitterness and anger we now face. Yet, it happened and the USA is now the great Satan and evil that is being fought against by terrorists and fighting in the middle-east. The movie finds the humor in military and government attempts to move politically and strategically with the great acting and directing. Many name stars and stars of the past make appearances, some stars that you might not immediately recognize, and carry the humor in the movie plot-line. And while it is not a strong plot-line it serves the purpose, reveals some of the ridiculous reasoning that surely happens in war, and creates an often believable mostly fast paced action that keeps your attention throughout the course of the movie. While the military is NOT the inept fighting force portrayed, the action of government intervention and politics truly must be seen as the master hindrance of warfare, and rightly so perhaps. The movie does make you think about things! As it was a little silly, and a little weak in plot, I knocked off some stars. But it was certainly funny and worth watching.

Waiting For It To End Like The Real War

[brechtjustin · 5/10 · 26 May 2017]

Not exactly good, not exactly bad. If you don't have anything else to watch, go for it. It's trying to be funny, but it cant be because of the seriousness of it all. Its like someone wrote a serious war movie, then the script was given to a satirist who just simply couldn't pull it together. The movies narration was meant to be the guiding voice of reason among madness. Unfortunately it was like having a high school student interested in politics give his two cents about the meaning of it all. This movie would have been better released around April fools than Memorial Day weekend.

good docu-drama

[pontificator · 7/10 · 3 June 2017]

I don't really know if it fits the moniker of docu-drama and I realise that that might put people off. But if you are conversant with the Afgan conflict then there is little new here. However it is well done as a filmic explanation if one is wondering still why that conflict is so intractable. I think Brad Pitt done a good job portraying the general which would be even a difficult role for the general himself. the general and his staff excellently illustrate the adage "you don't have to be mad to work here but it helps" or "you don't have to be mad to work here but you will be by the time you leave". overall a good effort from netflix and a brave one as one can be easily demonized for apparent anti-military stance in the current USA (thank u for your service). It is a bit misleading in the film where it is remarked that insurgencies are rarely successfully put down by force when in fact history teaches the opposite.All empires have beaten insurgencies by force and thru complete anilation of the insurgents. the Afgan situation is not even explained by the fact that the forces to put down the insurgency are "alien". in fact e.g in India home of continual insurgencies since independence the govt. manufactures "alien" forces to put down insurgencies by recruiting troops from other regions and ethnic groups to those of the insurgents and wiping them out thru foul or fair means. This matters not as some other insurgency erupts else where by some other abused ethnic group. The British empire thru Draconian methods was in the continuous process of putting down insurgencies and the US and Canada also have considerable experience subduing the 1st Nations and quite successfully if held against current situations. hence their unstinted instinctual belief in a military solution thru violent attrition as has succeeded countless times afore. methinks the world has turned.

A messy war satire

[kasikalli · 5/10 · 26 May 2017]

I really appreciate the story War Machine tells, which sheds light on the hypocrisy and surrealism around the role of the US in the Afghani war. But the attempt of making a humorous sidelong glance on war, just didn't really work out. At the same time, the movie gradually moves into a more emotional territory, which honestly makes it more confusing than appealing in contrast to the satire-elements.

War Machine is a movie I almost like. There are some really good scenes, the premise of the movie itself is good in theory, but the result just isn't that appealing. The mixture of drama and satire just makes the movie insignificant and messy.

The trailers indicated that this would be a good dark comedy. But it's hard to call it that. It certainly gets dark at times, and it's genuinely funny at other times, but it never hits both at the same time.

Brad Pitts performance is very good, I would say one of the better in his career. I did find his character a bit exaggerated and caricatured though, but him and the cast around him is generally quite good.

Excellent self-criticism

[Laiath · 8/10 · 26 May 2017]

Everything I saw about the movie before I saw the movie pointed to a bold critique of US foreign policy and war politics, so I didn't expect an action filled nail-biter. It did deliver what I expected, and did so phenomenally. The issues the movie brings up and the things the characters said really, truly couldn't have been said more openly and directly. As the narrator would have you know, it's going to fall on deaf ears where it matters the most, granted, but it's one heck of a catharsis session all the same.

Where the progression of events gets too slow, the brilliant acting comes to the rescue. Pitt's performance didn't look to me as smooth and believable as it used to be, but Tilda Swinton and Ben Kingsley blew my mind. With their impeccable accents and spot on mannerisms, it was near impossible to tell they were just actors (save for their very familiar faces). There were a few pretty funny lines, too.

To anyone who doesn't mind listening to dialogue and watching out for subtle goings-on, this movie is a must, MUST see.

I liked it.

[badoli · 7/10 · 29 May 2017]

It's obviously a satire, but against a horrific background. And it's a slow movie, which seems to be not what most people expected. Also Brad Pitt's performance is questionable, as he plays the general a little too cartoonish for a movie that already starts off with a lot of bizarre and cynical situations.

The whole movie is a nice allegory on how the "yes we can" turned into "what's taking so long", when it comes to the recent U.S. wars. How American idealism collides with the fact that their presence is less glorious WW2 heroism but depressing management of an asymmetric enemy. They are not here to win the war, but to administrate it. And bureaucracy doesn't sell on CNN.

Nothing in this movie ever happened anywhere close to how it's presented, but the over-stylized satire and drama seems to capture the abstruseness of the situation better than a real drama could. I personally enjoyed it.

Comedy? Drama? - Both missing from this tribute to idiocy.

[notom-23012 · 2/10 · 26 May 2017]

The film is approximately 2 hours long.

2 hours of a deadly dull attempt to satirize war and those who lead it. Brad Pitts' attempt to convey a rigidly martial soldier, a man of inflexible values and honour is both laughable (and not in a funny way) and cringe-worthy.

Pitts' performance is so over-the-top it actually lands on its feet.

The 'plot' - and I use the word loosely - is as puddle deep as the acting. I don't need constant narration to tell me what going on.

The movie felt like I was watching out-takes, I kept wondering when I'd see something actually happening... right to the end credits.

Poor show all round. Avoid. Pull your own teeth as an alternative.

Shows well absurdity of the "War on Terror", but flawed as a movie

[laserburn · 7/10 · 8 December 2018]

Netflix just doesn't seem to be able to put it together for a really good movie. This one was a decent shot, with Brad Pitt's charisma carrying the project, playing a well meaning US officer in an unwinnable situation. It shows well the American cowboy attitude in their foreign policy, it's well acted and manages to be entertaining, but the way the story is presented is fatally flawed.

First rule of any movie narrative is show, don't tell. Instead of us understanding what the movie wanted to say through the actions of the characters, it is explained to us by a faceless voiced narrator. So why pay attention to the characters at all?

My Opinion

[zsawork · 7/10 · 16 October 2020]

The movie was suppose to be comedy which is failed horrible but the story told was average.

I only recommend you to watch it if you want learn about the case and the main character.

Good, but wanted more

[scb_coldsteel · 7/10 · 2 October 2018]

Finished the movie War Machine on Netflix. It is a comedy satire of American international politics and the war in Afghanistan. The film was overall an entertaining social commentary on dysfunctional involvement with Afghanistan.

Brad Pitt's dead pan deliver style worked well in this particular role. Personaly I would have trimmed off twenty or so minutes of the movie to make a tighter presentation. Giving it a 7 out of 10.

Its good....but not amazing..but good

[willscho-406-516139 · 7/10 · 28 May 2017]

It starts off like any other grand American propaganda style US military movie. Enter the tall, good looking white male protagonist against the crappy third world foreign nation who deserve a war they never asked for.

The underlying political narrative that the movie plays on really hits home towards the middle. I felt it was a bit slow to start with, but it does grip you enough to get through it.

The end felt a bit lacking, the whole movie was building up to a grand finale which never really came. It kind of fizzled out.

Nonetheless it has a few jokes, intermingled with the bleakness of fighting an insurgency. It does provide a sort of "anti- propaganda"message that the far right will probably look down on in disdain, so i can see some emotionally charged reviews coming.

Overall a good watch and a good conversation topic.

Don't bother

[Tarx309 · 3/10 · 26 May 2017]

This is not a war movie. This is not a comedy. It's barely a drama. This is a two hour movie filled with virtually no plot and absolutely no interesting characters. The movie gives no attempt to develop the characters, with all but Bitt's character being entirely one dimensional, and even though Bitt does have a character, it's a poor and uninteresting one. He gives a laughably over-the-top and often cringe-worthy performance, showing that he was absolutely not right for this role.

As said, it completely falls short as either a war movie or a comedy, both of which it's listed as here on IMDb. There is only one action scene, and I use the term loosely - all it is is a two minute scene which only shows one side shooting a few bullets, and that's it. The comedy on the other hand is totally unfunny and virtually none of it lands. I honestly spent the entire film but knowing this was meant to be a comedy.

So we are left with a film that has no suspense, no tension, no action or effective comedy to take it off the ground. Ultimately this is a dull, lifeless effort at satirizing war that offers almost nothing in terms of entertainment or drama. Don't waste your time.

Nowadays Dr Strangelove?

[Ladiloque · 6/10 · 29 May 2017]

For movies whose screenplay is supposed to be relevant (which are... all of them except the trashiest of entertainment) dubbing can be as damaging to the original as a tone-deaf song cover. In Italy (and in most central-southern Europe) since the dawn of commercial cinema distributors have developed a very capable dubbing industry: unfortunately I find that this "art" a lot of times does ruin the original. Why don't we have Mozart's requiem in Japanese? Isn't there a relevant market for classical music? Of course any music student is having shivers down his spine at the idea... because it's a stupid idea. But well... some had this idea 70 years ago and apparently none felt like it was worth to change things since.

As I doubt producers do care with what their paying customers do, I believe writers, directors and actors should require that their works will not be dubbed. But possibly they don't care either... And this tells a lot about the average education of these categories...

Anyway, in a movie like this one it's hard to pass on some stupid writing: we are talking about war, about international politics and about our world. And while we are used to listen to any possible position on the news or on the internet it's hardly bearable for me to see certain extreme levels of unintentional idiocy in a movie. To my sensitivity some phrases felt as "smart & funny" as laughing at people with handicaps. Whatever... I account this to an unprofessional translation and actually the movie improved a lot after the first 10-20 minutes (that's where I had a hard time with the script: did they switch translator later?). What I felt insulting slowly became surreal, sarcastic and grotesque: in a good and almost sophisticated way I'd say.

To the actual movie now:

This is the story of how a decorated general accepts the "publicly accepted" tasks of winning a war against terror, not losing resources, disengage conflicts and earn civil trust in modern day Afganistan.

Brad Pitt is the lead and is out of his depth imho: I can't simply believe for 1 second that he is a (dumb) 60 something modern-day successful military. Nonetheless he tries hard enough for me to forget about this and pretend he's what he's supposed to be. The budget (except the one for actors I guess) feels basic in terms of production but photography, scenes and costumes are as good as needed (where did they spend 60M $? Are military equipment scenes that expensive?).

While not a great accomplishment "War machine" shows well some things and does so without any docu feel or paternalistic "I know it better" tone:

The uncoordinated (and ultimately pointless) endeavors of international politics;

The inability (or impossibility?) of the military to adapt to a world that functions with principles different than "strenght" and "order";

The media/cultural machine as an entity much more powerful (and yet harder to control) in determining "things" than any actual political initiative;

The egoistic perspective of American (and worldwide) business, bureaucracy, military when coping with conflicts of interest possibly influencing YOUR OWN career;

The reputation of powerful men as pure propaganda to instill trust and maintain control: real men are actually less capable and ultimately less powerful than we're led to believe.

Bore Machine

[ckoob-981-856820 · 1/10 · 28 May 2017]

This movie tried to overlay a childish caricature of the Afghan War and its actors onto a flat and uninspiring story with unbelievably deranged and almost mentally incompetent characters it was clearly attempting to defame. Indeed, the unjust treatment of General McChrystal, who is the thinly veiled protagonist in the character of General McMahon, is continued in this 60 million dollar film. Ironically, the movie would have been a lot more interesting with some dramatic irony. Perhaps they could have contraposed the deranged, unjust and unreliable narrator, to a tragic hero, as opposed to recycling the cliché of the out of touch military man who is megalomaniacally seeking his own glory at the expense of lives of his men and the poor civilians who have to pay the price?

Even though American Sniper stood back from making clear political judgments on the Iraq War, it successfully managed to capture the man and the American Spirit, so it was far more powerful than tired, smug pacifism of Bore Machine.

Throwing Deadpan Bricks

[industrialwonk · 10/10 · 26 May 2017]

This film will generate anger because it throws a "deadpan" brick directly towards cultural dysfunction and mass delusion. "War Machine," and Brad Pitt, even exceeded the deadpan message of "Being There" a film from a less cynical time in history but still relevant to this day.

"War Machine" does a great job illustrating how disconnected the every-man has become in relation to reality. We live in a time where facts are now selectively chosen to support forgone perspectives rather than being absolute, universal, and irrefutable.

We live in a time where personage, perceptions, and public relations matter more than overview, objectives, conclusions, and endpoints. Reality has been set adrift.

It was a brave thing to produce this film because it speaks to a very narrow audience. Most people won't be entertained by the communication mechanism (deadpan) nor will the understand the message. Few people will be open to perspectives other than those which are preconceived. Some people are not aware and thus cannot acknowledge the wounds and damage that political lies have done to the American process and psyche.

To conclude our failed state of affairs, the affairs of a failed nation state (our nation state) I am not with him because he is certainly not with me no matter how much he tells me otherwise. The cohesion of leadership, truth, and the American way has left the building.

It is more of a shame that people won't understand this film, or won't want to. And that is how far we have fallen. Perhaps Rome fell the same way on the sword and misadventure of its own lies and delusion.

Pretty good, missed opportunities

[cneejr · 7/10 · 29 May 2017]

This movie is far from perfect but the good points outweigh the bad. The acting is good all around. Ben Kingsley as Karzai was particularly good. Brad Pitt's General McMahon (McChrystal) was a caricature but still compelling. There is no shortage of films on the absurdity of war. That message was overdone here and far too predictable. For me the biggest problem is that the filmmakers didn't know who should be the target of the satire. In the end I think they settled on the general and his entourage but they also didn't want to make their star appear too unsympathetic so the satire is VERY light. The politicians mostly get a free pass too. Obama could use some criticism for his handling of foreign policy but he's off limits for the most part.

Dull and pointless

[rod-ruger · 1/10 · 30 May 2017]

The acting was bland, there was no action, the dialogue was uninspiring, and there was no message or deep conflict of philosophies. I suppose that some will praise Pitt's gravely voice, with which he says nothing. Some think of this movie as an anti-war statement. At best it was a mild statement about how poorly our leaders and military understand the situation in AFGH. That lack of understanding can be no shock, given Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, and too many others. Luckily, if one has a Netflix subscription, one may watch if "for free". A waste of time, however.

Absurdist or Satire

[rich-125-570363 · 27 May 2017]

For those reviewers who fiercely wrote a 'thumbs down' review on this flick, how about this? It's just a so and so satire. Pitt would never be a bad actor and the director would never be a bad director. It's a gig. It's a farce. It's funny. And if any of you thought, for a moment or a second, the production was sincere and emulated a quote-unquote real war movie and depiction. . .come on. . .now who's kidding who? I mean I have read your comments and now you got me thinking it's you who are playing the game. Stop ruining a fun movie for a change by getting so serious. Where's your sense of levity? Pitt's strutting around like a high and mighty general, his stilted and well-practiced speeches, the poking fun at the POTUS, Congress, the lackeys playing both ends in the middle (the press, political pundits, ad nauseous). Remarkably, the writer is hitting on all the truths that have turned America's presence in this so-called war into a full-fledged farce. But that's neither here nor there. What is here is the fact it's an entertaining and informative flick that is neither great nor terrible. It's easy on the mind and easy on one's sense of humor IF one has a sense of humor. Not sure if the 60-million-dollar budget for the movie is accurate, but who cares? Anyway, this review is not a critical review. It's a response and a reminder to viewers or potential viewers of this film that it's prudent not to take the movie too seriously. Personally, anytime there's genuine and factual criticism against the government and the military it's worth the time to read, watch, or listen the narrative. One more thing. . .NETFLIX has created some rather epic movies over the years and the upper echelon that runs the show are not about to venture into a production that's branded silly, inane, or a waste of time. Hope this review, such that it is, was helpful, maybe even informative.