Men With Guns

Rating:
Summary: 100% Guatemala
Review: The basis of the movie was taken from a secondary character in Francisco Goldman's book "The Long Night of White Chickens", which is about Guatemala during the civil war, also the cover photo is the work of a Guatemalan photographer, Palma. Excellent movie.

Rating:
Summary: One of my favorites
Review: The main charachter is approaching his retirement. As for his last vacation, he decides to check up on his students. Students that he trained to help the poorer people of his country. However, he soon discovers that something is wrong. His students are missing, and the only explanation he can gather about them is that somehow "Men with Guns" were involved. What starts as a vacation soon turns into a quest. Soon more charachters join him, including an orphan boy, an awol solidier, an ex-priest (my favorite) and a mute woman. All of which leads to the ending. No hollywood fairytales here. Just a solid story, and a solid cast. Part thriller, part drama, this is a truly great film.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent, Powerful, YOU MUST SEE THIS MOVIE!
Review: The most amazing film I've seen in a long time. Sayles does outstanding work as a director coordinating his cast: those characters meant to speak spanish speak spanish, those from the united states, english, and native peoples their own language! Incredible! A movie that will make you think.

Rating:
Summary: One of my favorite movies ever
Review: This is a great film. Don't be deceived by the title, it is not a violent film, though it is about violence.

There seems to be a debate here about where the movie takes place, whether Mexico, Guatamala, or somewhere in South America. According to John Sayles, the answer is all of the above. Though it was filmed in Mexico, Sayles purposely set it in an unnamed country to illustrate that, at least in one sense, the various conflicts in latin american countries are essentially the same--one group of "men with guns" supposily is fighting with another group of "men with guns," but really all both groups are doing is terrorizing the local people who live there. To the villagers, it doesn't matter which group is the government and which are the rebels, or which ideology each group claims to be fighting for. This general point could apply equally to many countries in latin america who have had rebel movements over the past 20 years (this includes Guatamala, but also Columbia, Peru, El Salvador, and unfortunately several others). While people familiar with Central America will recognize that the villagers wear Mayan dress, that is more due to where the movie was filmed than an intent to set it in a particular country. The soundtrack is comprised of music from almost every latin american country, from Argentina to Mexico, and Sayles says in the liner notes that he did this to emphasize that the film is not about any particular place, but rather what those conflicts have in common and why they remain so intractable.

Rating:
Summary: One of my favorite movies ever
Review: This is a great film. Don't be deceived by the title, it is not a violent film, though it is about violence.

There seems to be a debate here about where the movie takes place, whether Mexico, Guatamala, or somewhere in South America. According to John Sayles, the answer is all of the above. Though it was filmed in Mexico, Sayles purposely set it in an unnamed country to illustrate that, at least in one sense, the various conflicts in latin american countries are essentially the same--one group of "men with guns" supposily is fighting with another group of "men with guns," but really all both groups are doing is terrorizing the local people who live there. To the villagers, it doesn't matter which group is the government and which are the rebels, or which ideology each group claims to be fighting for. This general point could apply equally to many countries in latin america who have had rebel movements over the past 20 years (this includes Guatamala, but also Columbia, Peru, El Salvador, and unfortunately several others). While people familiar with Central America will recognize that the villagers wear Mayan dress, that is more due to where the movie was filmed than an intent to set it in a particular country. The soundtrack is comprised of music from almost every latin american country, from Argentina to Mexico, and Sayles says in the liner notes that he did this to emphasize that the film is not about any particular place, but rather what those conflicts have in common and why they remain so intractable.

Rating:
Summary: excellent, but (contrary to above) not in mexico
Review: This is a wonderful movie. A beautiful story is interwoven with complex ideas about religion, death, politics, and "might makes right" philosophy.

I just want to point out that contrary to what a few reviewers said, this movie clearly did not take place in Mexico. Doctor Fuentes specifically says, in one scene, that Mexico is North of where they are. What country it takes place in is not possible to determine, and this seems deliberate to me.

Rating:
Summary: excellent, but (contrary to above) not in mexico
Review: This is a wonderful movie. A beautiful story is interwoven with complex ideas about religion, death, politics, and "might makes right" philosophy.

I just want to point out that contrary to what a few reviewers said, this movie clearly did not take place in Mexico. Doctor Fuentes specifically says, in one scene, that Mexico is North of where they are. What country it takes place in is not possible to determine, and this seems deliberate to me.

Rating:
Summary: A haunting video that will leave you thinking ...
Review: This movie grapples with some serious issues. What, exactly is going on politically in South America? Where does individual responsibility lie? What does helping people really mean? What kind of legacy is it possible to leave? The setting of this movie is an unnamed country in South America. The writer/director, John Sayles, did this on purpose. This is to show that the kind of thing depicted in the movie could happen anywhere. However, it was shot in Mexico, in Spanish, with English subtitles.

The movie starts Federico Luppi as Dr. Humberto Fuentes, a wealthy doctor who is approaching retirement and has never paid close attention to the realities of his country. His greatest achievement, the "legacy" he is leaving, is his participation in an international health program in which he trained young doctors to work in the poorest of villages.

I watched this movie with horror and then, finally, resignation, as Dr. Fuentes travels in the mountains and makes startling discoveries. I made a few startling discoveries myself -- the abject poverty of the people, the disregard for human life, the acceptance by the people of this as a way of life. He finds that the people have no food. He finds that both the army and the guerillas are equally brutal. The movie takes us all on a journey with Dr. Fuentes. Along the way we meet a homeless child, a priest who lives with his own private demons, and a deserter from the army with a history of participating in the carnage. The movie goes deeper and deeper into the despair and devastation.

This is not a comfortable video to watch as it brings the viewer not only into the realities of the political systems in South America, but to the basic question of individual responsibility. I recommend it for those who are willing to take a fresh look at these things. You will not be smilling after viewing this video. But you will be thinking.

Rating:
Summary: A haunting video that will leave you thinking ...
Review: This movie grapples with some serious issues. What, exactly is going on politically in South America? Where does individual responsibility lie? What does helping people really mean? What kind of legacy is it possible to leave? The setting of this movie is an unnamed country in South America. The writer/director, John Sayles, did this on purpose. This is to show that the kind of thing depicted in the movie could happen anywhere. However, it was shot in Mexico, in Spanish, with English subtitles.

The movie starts Federico Luppi as Dr. Humberto Fuentes, a wealthy doctor who is approaching retirement and has never paid close attention to the realities of his country. His greatest achievement, the "legacy" he is leaving, is his participation in an international health program in which he trained young doctors to work in the poorest of villages.

I watched this movie with horror and then, finally, resignation, as Dr. Fuentes travels in the mountains and makes startling discoveries. I made a few startling discoveries myself -- the abject poverty of the people, the disregard for human life, the acceptance by the people of this as a way of life. He finds that the people have no food. He finds that both the army and the guerillas are equally brutal. The movie takes us all on a journey with Dr. Fuentes. Along the way we meet a homeless child, a priest who lives with his own private demons, and a deserter from the army with a history of participating in the carnage. The movie goes deeper and deeper into the despair and devastation.

This is not a comfortable video to watch as it brings the viewer not only into the realities of the political systems in South America, but to the basic question of individual responsibility. I recommend it for those who are willing to take a fresh look at these things. You will not be smilling after viewing this video. But you will be thinking.

Rating:
Summary: the dark side of Guatemala
Review: This movie is obviously about Guatemala. The opening sequence shows a Mayan woman and her child in traditional dress. However bad things got in Mexico, they were not as bad as this. The events described and particular horror of the place closely follow the counter insurgency campaign in the Guatemalan highlands where the guerrillas were largely annihilated as a military force. However the oppression of the Indians continues and the underlying political issues were never resolved, hence the feeling at the end of being left hanging. The film pulls the viewer into the abiguity and heartbreak of a situation where the Indians were caught between both sides and paid the price.
It is a unique film and one has to respect Sayles' courage and insight in making it, and choosing to do so in Spanish.
Unfortunately that assured that much the audience in the US would not see it but Sayles has never seemed to worry much about commercial success.