This movie has some of the most expertly drawn characters I've ever seen in a movie. The acting and writing is absolutely superb. The ending is uplifting, but not sappy or overly sentimental. It's the type of movie that can be watched again and again.
Add a Review
-
FNR_Thomas13 November 2003
-
rondine19 December 2005Once again screenwriter/director John Sayles has done it. I was flipping through the channels, and saw a movie in Spanish. I am a Spanish major so whenever a chance to listen to some dialog comes along, I usually will listen for a few minutes just for practice.
I became totally engrossed. I hit the info button on my DVR to see the name of the movie. I was on IFC channel & it said it was a movie about hoodlums. Uh, no... There was another movie same year same name that I've no doubt wasn't anywhere near as wonderful as this one. So I paused the DVR at the end & looked up Federico Luppi & crossed referenced it with Damián Delgado to find the real name of the movie. Which turned out to be this one. Enough of how I found it...
This is another great example of supreme storytelling by John Sayles. Anyone who has seen Lone Star or Passion Fish knows that he is a storyteller extraordinaire. Not to mention he usually manages to throw in some meaning. Another reviewer complained that there was meaning. Weird... I don't see anything wrong with that. Isn't that what most of us are searching for? In this story Dr. Fuentes is in an unidentified South American country that has been ripped apart by war and guerillas. He is searching for his students, doctors who were trying to help the indigenous population through medicine. He finds wherever he goes that his students are dead or missing. Along the way he encounters a boy with no family that becomes his "mascot" and later a deserter from the army with a hideous past. Then a priest who has lost faith, then a young girl who is mute. Each person has a story to tell, each person a part of the puzzle of what it is to be human and alive.
I loved the ending, because it showed that even when we think our lives have been pointless, we have like the concentric ripples in a lake after a stone is dropped, affected those around us. Our legacy lives on through the lives we have touched, whether we know it or not. I think that we think there should be some kind of concrete evidence that WE can measure to define our legacy, but it is never what we think it is, there is mystery, magic in the way that our lives mingle and combine to form meaning. Much like in "It's a Wonderful Life," even if you think you've contributed nothing it's not true. Or in the words of the immortal Whitman: "O me! O life!... of the questions of these recurring; of the endless trains of the faithless- of cities filled with the foolish; what good amid these, O me, O life? Answer: That you are here- that life exists, and identity; that the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse." (from Whitman's Leaves of Grass) What this movie says is just that- that each person's verse, identity contributes to the great scheme of things. I won't give away the ending of the movie, but the whole thing is just a grand example of a good story. Don't be bothered by the subtitles, it's a great movie in any language. And btw, the subtitles were pretty much right on. I just hate when I watch a subtitled movie & the translation sucks or is lacking. This is a great story, interesting people, good pacing (also directed by Sayles), and good acting too. I wish that more people could see this movie. God bless the Independent Film Channel. :) -
Others have said it better, so I'll just second the positive comments.
The film is a little uneven in parts, but it's a moving story which will stay with you much longer than some CGI-laden summer confection. The priest's ghost story, for example, would be a powerful short film all on its own.
Sayles has a heart and would probably be making movies even if he hadn't managed the relatively modest (in comparison to his talent) success he's achieved so far.
-- "There is no other definition of socialism valid for us than that of the abolition of the exploitation of man by man." - Ernesto "Che" Guevara -
jetwimp31 July 2002A retired Professor of medicine in Mexico begins a journey to reaffirm his legacy, that is, to find and reacquaint himself with the students who studied under him. His search takes him to southern Mexico along the Guatemala border, where an internecine war is in progress between guerilla soldiers and government troops. The war has left the country and its native inhabitants devastated. He find, tragically, his former students have all been killed: if they treated guerilla soldiers, they were executed by the army. If they treated soldiers they were assassinated by guerillas. He ends up with some companions on the journey: an embittered ex-soldier, a priest ravaged by guilt from the commission of an unpardonable sin, a woman who has been gang raped by soldiers, a boy who is old before his time. It is very interesting, and a tribute to a carefully wrought script, that none of these characters can be who they are: the doctor is no longer a doctor, the soldier has deserted, the boy can no longer be a boy, the woman a woman, the priest a priest. Their very violent and moving journey takes them to a mountain top and to the magical possibility of redemption. Mandy Patinkin appears briefly several times in the film as an American tourist, exploring the offbeat paths of rural Mexico. But he, symbolically, is much more than that. His role is one of the most intriguingly conceived elements of the film. Is he a guide? A celestial companion? The film is mostly in Spanish, although long sections of it are in native languages, such as Mayan and Huatl. They are beautiful languages, very musical in nature, and offer one more reason to see this vibrant, provocative masterpiece. This is one of the greatest of American films. Many critics said so and it received universal accolades from everyone except the public. They stayed away in groves, and I, living in Philadelphia, had to plan carefully in order to see it twice. Those who are critical of American film, believing it can never equal the philosophical attainments of European film, should see this film. Few films have dealt with eschatological issues as assuredly as this one: The Seventh Seal, Persona, Cold Fever, Forbidden Games, are some that have, and this magnificent film is very much their equal.
-
tiabmaps15 August 2000Dreamlike, mythological, multilayered and almost mystical on the one hand, and on the other hand, vividly conveying the reality of Guatemala in the 1980s (which is what the film's story is mostly based on, though it draws in part from the present-day situation in Mexico's southernmost state of Chiapas, where it was mostly filmed; I think that the Indian language we were hearing was Tzotzil Maya). This film is as understated as its blunt, simple title (by the way, all violence happens offscreen). And yet it is so multilayered that I am still trying to absorb its many levels. It is a "road movie," and it is a profound spiritual odyssey for the main character; it is a suspenseful and unpredictable thriller full of unexpected twists, and it is mythic... in fact, we gradually come to realize that the entire story is being told, like a traditional myth, by a Mayan mother to her little girl. A beautiful example of the Latin American "magical realism" style. This film gets an unhesitating score of 10 from me... in fact, I think I may consider this film among my lifetime top ten movies.
-
JonBowerbank12 March 2002I just fell upon this movie while watching the IFC channel and I hadn't been back from Guatemala for long. After living there amongst the natives I was able to get to know them better and understand their culture more. Seeing this film brought back a lot of those memories and reminded me of the many stories I heard of the army's genocidal tendencies towards the indigenous people of Guatemala. The cinematography for this film is simple, but it shows the beautiful landscapes and run down third world towns in a way to almost show us the same details that we would see if we were really there. We have to remember that the characters portrayed in this movie are very real, they may not have the same names, but they do exist. Even the war vets who have gone to levels so low we cannot even imagine. If you would like to understand what went on in Southern Mexico and Guatemala during the 80's, I would strongly recommend this film. It left a very strong impression on me.
-
=G=20 February 2001"Men With Guns" follows an aging physician as he goes in search of doctors whom he has trained, as his legacy to humanity, to serve the Indians living in the remote jungles of a fictitious region somewhere in southern Mexico or Central America. An odyssey film, "MWG" is a chronicle of the doctor's wandering and happenstance encounters with native Indians, government soldiers, guerrillas, sundry civilians, and even an American archeologist. The film features indigenous actors, lush jungle traveloguesque scenery, a variety of unusual situations, some reflections on human nature, and a smattering of philosophizing. Not the usual cinematic fare, this film will have narrow appeal and will be appreciated for its exotic milieu as well as its story, drama, and intrigue.
-
moore277222 September 2003Men with Guns is one of the finest films of the genre. It has legs- really stays with you, for years. The priest's story alone is brilliant filmmaking. I've been a great fan of John Sayles' work for many years, but I think this is both his most original and generally best work. The shame is that no one seems to have seen this film. I saw it 3X in theatres and there were never more than 5 people in the audience. MWG doesn't appeal to the short- attention-spaned sex-and-violence cravers. The history of 30 years of terrible civil war as close as Guatemala is something our children remain ignorant about. This incredible film puts that war into unique perspective. Sayles didn't seem to care if too many people saw it or not- subtitles alone guarantee a fringe audience confined to a few art houses. The film is not perfect- editing could be a little better; but what a story! The opening and closing scenes really work for me. I hope everyone reading these comments will go out and rent Men with Guns ASAP. Sayles at his best.
-
helpless_dancer14 February 2004Interesting look at how a country torn by revolt affects the plans of a doctor searching for several former students. He has many adventures as he goes deeper into the frenzied bowels of his country. Most of his experiences are negative as he discovers that his rose colored view of home isn't based on reality. A sobering ending put just the right touch to this vividly ugly picture.
-
Craig-917 November 1998Following on the heels of the critical breakthrough of his previous film, _Lone Star_, writer-director John Sayles takes a real chance here.
Although he's long marched to beat of a different drummer, as they say, as one of the few truly independent American filmmakers, Sayles really goes out on the edge this time, giving us a film which is presented almost entirely in Spanish, with English subtitles, as he tells the tale of a doctor in an unnamed Latin American country who undertakes a journey into the rain forest in search of a group of young medical students he'd trained some years before. Not only does he expect us to put up with the subtitles, but he also fills the movie with a largely unknown cast (to most American audiences, that is), of Latin American actors and actresses.
Federico Luppi, the film's star, is an older actor and one I'm not familiar with. He has the air about him of a quiet, dignified man. A city-dweller, through and through, he has always bought into the government's version of the battle between mountain guerrillas and government troops. He's had no reason to doubt the stories nor to suspect otherwise.
Ultimately, though, as the title suggests, this is not a story about winners and losers, about the "official story," but about the effects on the daily lives of the country's people that "men with guns" can have. Whether they are soldiers or guerrillas, bandits or thieves, on the side of the good or the bad, they are simply "men with guns" and the people do what they say because of this simple fact.
The film's journey, started largely out of boredom (the doctor is nearly retired and looking for something to do with his time) gradually becomes a mythical, almost allegorical journey, as he moves from village to village, unsuccessful in his search. It begins to appear that most (all?) of his former students have been killed or otherwise incapacitated, viewed by the rebels or the villagers they went to serve as a danger.
Along the way, the doctor gradually picks up a group of traveling companions, including an army deserter, a former priest, a little boy, and a woman who has not spoken since she was raped by soldiers. The deserter and the priest tell their very poignant stories and the doctor is forced to gradually open his eyes to the realities of the world around him.
As they continue, ever deeper into the jungle, the story, which was never grounded in a specific reality anyway, becomes even more dreamlike and unreal, as the travelers seek out the mythical "Circle of Heaven," a village so high on a mountain and so deep in the forest that soldiers cannot find it and the people there live in freedom. This is a movie that truly verges into the area of magical realism which so many Latin authors provide in their novels, but which is seldom seen successfully on the screen.
If one is able to put up with the subtitles (there are moments when a couple of American tourists, one played by Mandy Patinkin, burst onto the screen, with their loud English and "ugly American" attitudes), the film is a real treat.
John Sayles has sometimes been criticized as a filmmaker for being more interested in telling his story than in fiddling with the camera angles and photography. If that's a valid criticism, I fear for the future of American film. In both _Lone Star_ and this film, Sayles shows us the value of a well-told story in a film, a virtue which increasingly seems to be disappearing, in favor of explosions and special effects. Very highly recommended. Rating: A. -
Noesis9 March 1999Barely edging out "The Spanish Prisoner" as the best film of 1998, "Men With Guns" offers quiet genius and delight for those willing to go beyond the mainstream. Although overlooked by most viewers John Sayles has basically incorporated the elemental characters of "The Wizard of Oz" and placed the dreams and desires of idealists in the cruel setting of the real world, where ever that might be. The setting of an unidentified Latin American country shows that things such as the atrocities performed by the men with guns can happen anywhere - in a developed Latin American nation or in the United States of America.
John Sayles, America's most prolific director, holds in his visions more insight into the complex workings of humanity than most other directors present in an abundance of visual effects and in-your-face techniques. AMPAS has yet again failed to recognize genuine substance but hopefully this film, another in a long line of accomplishments that presents wondrous film making and excellent storytelling, will not be forgotten. -
letrias2 January 2002Simply excellent depiction of life for the Indian population of the mountain regions of most of Latin America. This film is based in a fictional nation somewhere in south America, but the events that unfold are everything but fiction, in fact they are based very closely on true events as they were described by people who actually lived it. A doctor, raised in the city and ignorant of the terror that exists outside the "civilized" part of his nation, sends a group of students on a mission to educate the Indians - this is his self-proclaimed legacy. When he finds that one of his students has abandoned the legacy he sets out to find the rest. What he discovers is a brutal trail of murder, torture, and rape. Was his legacy such the excellent idea that he claimed at the beginning? The murders seem to be in the hands of no one group, they are attributed simply to the men with guns: the soldiers, and the guerillas fighting them. The Indians are stuck in the middle, often subjected to torture and rape by both sides. The justification is always that they deserve the suffering because they are helping the other side. However, refusal to help means an equally brutal death, so they are left without choice. There are no uplifting fake Hollywood gimmicks in Men With Guns, no cheerful dialogue, and certainly no "happily ever after" endings - it is simply the truth about the life for the Indian people, not only in Guatemala, Mexico, or Colombia, but also their life in the United States not so long ago. This is a truly powerful film that should not be missed by anyone!
-
Red-12531 May 2020Men with Guns (II) (1997) is a U.S. movie that utilizes Spanish actors, speaking in Spanish. It's shown with English subtitles. John Sayles wrote and directed the film. (Note that there are two different movies with the title Men with Guns that were produced in 1997. That's why this is "Men with Guns (II)."
The movie stars Federico Luppi, who was an experienced and distinguished Argentinian actor. He portrays Dr. Fuentes, an older urban physician. Dr. Fuentes' wife has died shortly before the movie begins.
Fuentes has decided to take a vacation in the mountains, and his patient, a high-ranking army officer, tells him that it's not exactly safe. Yes--the guerillas have been totally defeated, but there are still a few here and there.
Fuentes, nearing the end of his career, believes that his legacy is the students he has trained to move to the mountains and treat the indigenous population. (The country in which the movie takes place isn't named, but it's almost certainly Guatemala.) He decides to visit these students to see how they are doing.
Fuentes doesn't know what he should have known--a war of genocide is taking place in the mountains. (Someone says that he's both learned and ignorant.)
In any case, the movie becomes a road movie as Dr. Fuentes travels further and further into the mountains, and comes face to face with reality.
Along the way, Fuentes accrues passengers. One is a young orphan boy (Dan Rivera González) called conejo (rabbit). He lives by his wits, and is happy to go with the doctor as his guide.
Another is an army deserter, Domingo, portrayed by Damián Delgado. Damián Alcázar is Fr. Portillo, a priest who has lost his faith. Later, they are joined by a young woman, who hasn't spoken for two years since the soldiers raped her. (Played by Tania Cruz.)
Mandy Patinkin and Kathryn Grody (who are actually married to each other) play an American tourist couple. They are somewhat stereotypical. They aren't just clueless Americans. They know quite a bit about the historical cultures whose ruins can still be found. However, they appear totally ignorant of the horrors around them. I think that their place in the movie is gratuitous.
As Fuentes travels, he realizes that he has committed sins of omission. Before training students to work with the indigenous people, he should have gone to inspect the places to which he was sending them. Failure to do this was his fatal flaw. He meant well, but it didn't turn out that way.
This is a very powerful movie. We never actually see any atrocities, but we learn more than enough to know how widespread and terrible they were. Today, over 40 years after the major atrocities took place, we know more about the thousands of lives that it cost, and the thousands of living people who are still scarred by it.
Incidentally, although not shown in the movie, the U.S. Army trained and equipped the Guatemalan forces. They were fully aware of the facts of the genocide. This was during the height of the cold war, and support for dictators was accepted as part of the war against Communism. Some things don't change.
This film will work better in a theater, because of the spectacular view of the mountains. (Actually, the movie was filmed in the mountains of Mexico.) We saw it on VHS, because the DVD versions are very expensive.
Men with Guns has an excellent IMDb rating of 7.5. I thought it was even better than that, and rated it 10. -
In John Sayles, 1997 film Men With Guns, a widowed doctor, Humberto Fuentes (Fernando Luppi) leaves his practice in an unnamed Latin American country to search for medical students he trained to be doctors in Indian villages under the "Alliance for Progress". Filmed almost entirely in Spanish with English subtitles and based on stories by Francisco Goldman, the film is a fictional adventure story but suggestive of real events. Sayles has said, "As I was writing it, I made sure that almost all of the incidents are based on events that have happened somewhere else, almost to the exact detail."
Naively unconvinced that there is any danger from a guerilla war in the interior, Dr. Fuentes travels to remote areas to discover his "legacy". Soon he finds out the reality. His tires are removed, his wallet is stolen, his life is threatened, and he cannot get any information because people won't speak to him out of fear. He sees starving people, destroyed villages, and people who have lost their hope, while the world is ignorant of what is taking place. Dr. Fuentes picks up several travelling companions along the way; and learns more about the struggles they have endured. Each has lost something close to them. Domingo (Damian Delgado), a soldier has deserted his army, Conejo (Dan Rivera Gonzales), a very wise young boy has lost his parents, an ex-priest Padre Portillo (Damian Alcazar) has lost his faith, and a native woman has lost her voice after being raped by soldiers.
At the first village, a blind woman tells Dr. Fuentes that the "men killed one of his students with guns". When he asks her the reason, she says simply, "Because they had guns and we didn't". The film clearly shows the powerlessness of the Indians and peasants caught in the middle of a conflict they do not want to be involved in. Sayles shows peasants as little more than commodities who are used by the system: the Salt people, the Sugar people, the Coffee, Banana and Gum people, all surviving at subsistence level because of economic conditions beyond their control. The doctor finds out that it does not matter who is threatening the people, they are all just "men with guns" and Indians are just as capable of cruelty against their own people as government soldiers. Fuentes discovers that some of his students have been killed but keeps going from village to village to look for the rest. His expectations, however, are met only with one grim story after another. Weary but not despairing, he and his traveling companions set out on one last journey, a spiritual quest to find a city hidden in the rainforest called Circle of Heaven where the air is clear and there are no guns.
Men With Guns has a point to make but makes it early and often and there is little suspense or plot development in the last half of the film. Mr. Sayles has wisely kept the story as generic as possible but there is no indication of what the issues are or what the conflict is all about. It is well known that civilians and "innocent bystanders" are often the biggest victims in war. Beyond that, what is the film saying? Is it that resistance movements who might be fighting an uphill battle against a brutal dictator should lay down their arms? Aside from the problems I had with the issues, the characters come across as types rather than real people. Oblivious American tourists, played by Mandy Patinkin and Kathryn Grody, are too laughable to even warrant being called stereotypes. Though credit must be given for tackling a subject that most filmmakers would rather not hear about, Men With Guns is overlong and lacking in dramatic impact. Eventually, it veers off into magical realism with much self-consciousness but little realism and no magic. -
I loved Joseph Conrad's Heart Of Darkness and I loved Apocalypse Now, so it shouldn't be at all surprising that I loved Men With Guns. Like Apocalpyse, Sayles also uses humor to provide needed contrast and relief from what would otherwise be a very depressing story. As directed, the movie is sobering and quite funny at the same time, the characters are very interesting, and the overall effect is highly entertaining.
-
aaronthefunkmaster4 November 1999I found Men with Guns undeniably compelling. It drew me into the life of Dr Fuentes in a way that few movie's draw you in. It's lack of action or energy did not seem to matter. The sounds the images were soothing but interesting and you feel like you are there on this trip with the doctor. Federico Luppi is magnificent as the Dr. Fuentes providing a character one can sympathize with, even as the movie never had to resort to cheesiness. The way in which the story was told made me wish more movies were made in this minimalist style, with an emphasis on the natural and the story, rather than the side project of special effects. If I ever made a film I would copy the style of this film. John Sayles direction was genius in its simplicity.
-
This is a beautiful Spanish speaking film about the vicissitudes of Mexico´s indians and one man´s endeavour to leave a legacy. Dr. Fuentes had one major flaw, he naively believed in the goodness of men, and despite his ingenuity in medicine, misunderstood the complexities of his homecountry´s politics. He wanted to pass a legacy, but slowly found it to be in shatters by the people he as an educated bourgeoise trusted. One by one the shocking reality of Indians became revealed, his students had vanished, and the victimization of nations was apparent. There was nothing else to cling to except dreams and hopes of escape.
-
planaria_virg5 October 2006i rented this over 8 years ago, and whenever anyone asks me for movie recommendations, this film always comes to mind.
don't let the dreamlike atmosphere fool you, this film is depressing and haunting because of the main message: that innocence and idealism will be forever trampled by the "men with guns" despite all their good intentions. In this film the government and rebel groups were portrayed as equivalently bad by the simple folk caught in the middle. they (the equivalent of civilians) did not distinguish between the soldiers and the revolutionaries, they simply referred to them as the "men with guns".
its a persuasive case for nonviolence. it takes all the glorification out of war, conflict and political movements and glorifies a simpler more humane way of living. -
jaybob14 April 2001John Sayles writer & director of Lone Star (the best movie of 1996 IMHO) has done it again. Men With Guns should have been nominated as the best foreign language film of 1997,or even in the top 5 for best film. This very complex, but easily understood story of a dedicated Doctor in his quest for Students he trained to be doctors is compelling from beginning to end. We see the violence described eloquently,but very few visuals,but the images are planted in your mind & they will stay with you; a MUST see film for ALL those who like suspensful, well thought out stories, superbly acted, directed & edited. John Sayles wrote, directed & edited this film with care & dedication, a **** film One of the Best
as always
Jay Harris -
lee_eisenberg8 April 2011Political issues are a common theme in John Sayles's movies, and "Men with Guns" is one of the most significant. Set in an unnamed Latin American country, Dr. Humberto Fuentes (Federico Luppi) has lived a privileged life and trained his students to tend to people out in the countryside. To be certain, Fuentes has never had any strong political convictions. But when he learns that his students have gotten murdered, he goes to investigate. He learns that the "men with guns" have been indiscriminately murdering the peasant population. The "men with guns" are any people who carry weapons: soldiers, rebels, or otherwise. The point is that to the indigenous peoples of the Americas, there's practically no difference between government troops and rebels.
The movie has many qualities that make one forget that it's American-made. Aside from the mostly Latin American cast -- Mandy Patinkin and Kathryn Grody play a pair of American tourists who are completely ignorant of the local culture -- the movie incorporates magical realism into its plot. Also, while most of the dialog is in Spanish, some scenes show people speaking Mayan, Kuna, Nahuatl and Tzotzil. But the movie's basic gist (Dr. Fuentes's eventual search for a village that has escaped the bloodshed) is summed up by a repeated line: "It's good to go where there are no white people." This is definitely one that I recommend. -
I saw this film once, on cable, completely unaware of who John Sayles was, and initially unsure if I wanted to watch something which sounded so didactic, but what I found was one of the most compelling dramas I had ever seen. The story follows a wealthy doctor from a lush unnamed city in a fictional South American country(but its filmed in Mexico), on his journey through the country side, as part of his retirement, he is going to first visit those doctors whom he trained that went on to work in poor villages. Out of the comfort of the city comes the violence of rural areas, crimes and horrors perpetrated not by the government or the rebels, but in the eyes of the many villagers who recount the tales, by "The Men With Guns". A journey of disillusionment and story of complacency, action, and meaning, "Men With Guns" is a movie which doesn't seem particularly appealing but which side-winds viewers with it's surprising literate dialog and plotting and lush visuals of South American countryside. Men With Guns is a political allegory that sneaks up on you with it's emotional impact and gripping humanism. I don't normally like to use to the word "moving" when referring to a work of art, because it makes me think of heavy lifting and boxes, but this movie was just, that, and having only seen it once after many years, it still comes back to me, particularly when I hear the daily body counts from any of the numerous war zones, patronized by the night news.
-
A fascinating story of a doctor who travels through an unnamed South American country in the midst of rebellion, seeking former students, only to find them dead or missing. Sayles is an amazing story teller. He takes a ragtag band of fairly unlikeable people and forces you to fall in love with them. I only wish the film didn't have to have a point. It kinda gets in the way of simply enjoying the atmosphere and characters he's set up.
-
anthonyjlangford7 January 2020What a incredibly powerful and moving film. Getting it made must have been some story onto itself. It's quiet and mostly subtle and yet undeniably disturbing.
It's a road movie in an old fashioned sense but there's nothing predictable to be found here. There's a great line in it. "There should be somewhere that white people aren't allowed." Ain't that the truth. Or perhaps it's just the nature of human beings. Self serving and destructive. And yet, there is still much beauty and humor and compassion. All of it is contained within this cinematic parable.
John Sayles may have made some films that didn't quite turn out so well and even he may agree, yet he persists with his unique stories, always aiming for something truthful. And always with grace. He may be the greatest film-maker in the Western world. A true artist. This is one of his best works. -
tieman647 March 2011"The mediocre movie explains everything twice and always means exactly what it says. It waves its sincerity aloft like a truce flag. It leaves no questions unanswered. It tells you exactly where you should stand in relation to its characters and its subject matter. It is frequently soothing because it tells you that you are right. But it tends not to stick in the memory because there's nothing there to wonder about." - Vincent Canby
Set in an unnamed Latin American country, "Men With Guns" revolves around Dr Fuentes, an ageing physician who once trained a group of students to provide health care for poverty-stricken citizens who live in remote agricultural communities.
When he hears rumours that his former students are dead or dying, Fuentes bravely attempts to investigate. What follows is a tale akin to Conrad's "Hearts of Darkness", in which the doctor ventures deeper and deeper into the countryside, until he comes face to face with the "men with guns"; military and guerrilla forces who terrorise peasants.
Like most of director John Sayles' films, "Men With Guns" is a quasi-Marxist tract (Marxism, at its best, is far more radical) about working class struggle. Here, though, Sayles attempts to depict feudalism as just another hierarchal market system (and vice versa). And rather than the tone of angry resistance which coloured his earlier films, Sayles adopts instead a tone of almost total futility. As our hero travels further into the countryside he grows more and more disillusioned, the disconnect (and also, the implicit connection) between his cosy middle classy city life and the violent peasantry becoming increasingly unbearable.
Indeed, the different peasants Dr Fuentes encounters all demonstrate themselves to be completely resolved to their fates. They identify themselves as gum people, coffee people, banana people, history having long conditioned them into accepting subservience.
7.5/10 – Though well meaning, and though its message is positively vital, this is an overlong, aesthetically plain and badly paced film, lacking the nuances of Sayles' best work. The film's final 20 minutes elevate things somewhat. Worth one viewing. -
rc2231 February 1999How many directors would follow up their biggest commercial hit with a political fable with subtitles? An aging doctor travels into the mountains in an unspecified Latin American country and finds that local politics can be murderous. He picks up various passengers on the way: a faithless priest, a guilt-stricken deserter and a world-wise orphan. A political road movie with both chilling and humerous asides, the mechanics and politics are both familiar but the mixture is fresh. Another fine addition to Sayles' increasingly eclectic CV: 8/10.