Based on the plot description and your review, it does seem to be a largely negative movie. (Once again, the Gazette saves its readers from wasting their time!)

The movie is ignoring something about the "lords of war": our country wouldn't be here without them.

Most of the arms, gunpowder and ammunition used by the rebels in the American Revolution were supplied by the arms dealers on the free trading island of Dutch St. Eustatius.

British Admiral Sir George Rodney described the island as, "This Rock, only six miles in length and three in width, has done England more harm than all the arms of her most potent enemies, and alone supported this infamous rebellion."

Men like Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson were organizing a "pseudo-government or wannabe-government" against their rightful British masters and needed to make some illegal arms sales.

Any group of rebels is a pseudo wannabe-government, until they win. Our country was founded by such men. Were the "lords of war" who supplied us morally wrong because they chose to defy the British ban and make a profit?

Arms merchants go where the money is, legal or otherwise. That doesn't make them good and as our own revolution shows, it doesn't automatically make them evil either.

I'm going to assume that all your questions are rhetorical since I didn't express an opinion one way or the other regarding the legitimacy of international arms dealings.

But, I will say that not all "wannabe governments" are created equal, or should be viewed as having equal standings in the eyes of either today's citizens or historians. Political movements which arise solely to fill the pockets of those who will assume the power, or to exterminate those who were born into the wrong religious sect, or color, or county, should have no legitimacy whatsoever, from either a moral or a political perspective. And the people who enable such movements will ultimately be called to account for their actions, if not in this world, then surely in the next.

Mr. Freen: I can't say I'm an expert on American history. However, I don't recall members of the Revolution Army blowing themselves up in crowded night clubs or shopping districts in order to murder as many civilians as possible. That's where your analogy breaks down. Washington used his arms to engage an organized army on the field of battle, not to murder civilians.

Eric, I believe a rebellion's moral legitimacy can be judged both by the goverment it seeks to overthrow and the government it seeks to put up in its place. The Communist Revolutions in Russia and Cuba overthrew bad governments and replaced them with worse ones.

I'm hesitant to criticize method too strenuously, being mindful of some of this country's own historical excesses both at home and abroad. (the mote vs. the beam)

But from the perspective of legality, the "lords of war" on St. Eustatius Island were definitely engaging in illegal arms sales to rebel forces. The fact that they were supporting rebels with noble aims probably didn't influence them nearly as much as the quantity of merchandise those rebels were buying. American revolutionaries were good customers, first and foremost.

Errr, John, the history of our own American Revolution may not be as clear cut as it seems. True, most pro-British Tories weren't killed, but that's not to say they were treated kindly, either. Many were brutally attacked, others were arrested for their sympathies, and most had their lands seized.The British loyalist civilians who got covered in molten tar and rolled in feathers weren't praising the moderation of the revolutionaries.

Loyalist civilians had their property stolen, were driven from their homes, and ultimately from the country itself. The only reason there wasn't more bloodshed is most saw what was happening and fled as quickly as possible. Most, but not all.

...and that's where things get ugly.

Revolutionary militia units did indeed turn their guns on their Loyalist neighbors who had also formed militia units of their own.

I'm not sure if joining an organized militia unit suddenly negates either side's "civilian" status. Both militias were comprised of people fighting for their political beliefs . In the Carolinas the fighting between loyalist and revolutionary militias was especially bitter.

The Battle of Kings Mountain was fought almost entirely between patriot and loyalist colonists.

As a side-note, there was a religious alignment during the Revolution with loyalists tending toward Anglicanism and revolutionaries favoring Presbyterianism.

Eric, I believe a rebellion's moral legitimacy can be judged both by the goverment it seeks to overthrow and the government it seeks to put up in its place. The Communist Revolutions in Russia and Cuba overthrew bad governments and replaced them with worse ones.

That was essentially my point. Well, along with the fact that such judgment must be made...but all too often are not, either in the interests of political expediency or correctness.

I'm hesitant to criticize method too strenuously, being mindful of some of this country's own historical excesses both at home and abroad. (the mote vs. the beam)

Our past corporate (or personal) sins and shortcomings should have no bearing on our ability to discern and condemn (or forgive, as appropriate) the same when they occur in others. It should serve to make us more humble, of course, but no less discerning.

Man, I think you really have a bias. This movie was not political. This movie was about human nature. Cage's character points that spearheads were found inside the rib cages of our oldest human remains... he points out that guns can defend against guns.

The fact that the movie shows war zones from all over the world... the massive amounts of munitions sold out of Russia after the Cold War... Interpol after him... this isn't an anti-American or anti-capitalist movie. It's a world-wide movie.

I agree that this isn't a "feel-good" movie. That doesn't make it bad. This movie points out some rather harsh truths about humanity. You don't get to love Yuri because Yuri has no personal ethics, no morals... and a great many of people in the world do not either.

I highly recommend this movie.

Man, I think you really have a bias.

Don't we all?

This movie was not political.

Never said it was.

That doesn't make it bad.

I also didn't say it was "bad."

And, finally, I think I know a bit more about my readers than you do. My recommendation was aimed at them, most of whom don't need to go to a movie in order to understand human nature. If you enjoyed the movie, that's great. And if you didn't pick up on the anti-American sub-text, that's fine, too.