Roger Ebert's current review of Lord of War over on his particular website gives the movie a solid 3.5 stars out of 4. And I would leap willingly to my feet in defense of just such a rating. But Roger Ebert doesn't say a word about why he thinks the movie is worth the rating he gives it.

His article on the site is long, one of his longer ones to be honest, and while the man generally explicates generously about his particular feelings after viewing a movie I was left curious about his particular review of Lord of War. I felt like calling him up to an 11th grade English teacher's desk and haranguing him that simple commentary on what happened in the movie does not make a particularly strong review of the movie. We already know what happened in the movie, or we are looking forward to watching the movie. What I was looking for from Mr. Ebert about Lord of War was a strong sense of why Mr. Ebert felt the movie deserving of its 3.5 stars.

Here's why I feel it's worth the rating Mr. Ebert gave it.

Lord of War stars Nicholas Cage, who is an extremely gifted actor in making his thought process look complicated. He handles a great deal of depth in a character with minimal amount of work, it would seem. What is primarily impressive about Nicholas Cage is his acute control over volume and pitch. He also reads lines as though he is responding in conversation rather than waiting for cues. Gifts of a talented actor that make a movie interesting, if not always enjoyable.

Visually, the movie is shot clearly and concisely. Camera angles are sharp and colors are well defined. At one point Nicholas Cage shares a touching moment with his wife as the camera looks on from another room. The doorway frames the unhappy couple and leaves the audience another series of frames from the movie. The topic the movie delves into is not so clear cut but does bring home the nature of impersonal terror. "The biggest weapon of mass destruction isn't a nuclear bomb," Ethan Hawke says with intermingled anger and sorrow "it's the AK47." Lord of War is a tale told by the bad guy. The gun runner. And the overarching theme that seems to keep springing up is that the world has a place for you to shine in. It may be working in a kitchen, it may be just being beautiful, or it may be selling massive amounts of guns, legally and illegally to those who wish to win their own personal wars. Why fight what you are good at? Should the world not condone your actions since they are done well? You don't have to do good, just be good at what you do.

And it is hard to not want to think highly of Yuri Orlov. It is hard to not want him to succeed and win. In the same venue as Tony Soprano or Al Swearengen, Yuri Orlov is just another in a long list of anti-heroes. And you almost fall for it. Heck, maybe you even do fall for it. Everyone else in the movie falls for him. The smooth nature with which he tells you exactly what you want to hear, while making you think it's what you need to hear lulls and lures you into rooting for what, in the end is not only illegal but seems to be highly immoral.

Lord of War is one of those movies that makes a statement about life and what's going on in the world. It shows just how easy it is to kill another person and exactly how impersonal that murder is. The only reason I didn't give the movie 4 stars, and matched Mr. Ebert is that 20 years elapse during the movie and no one changes, haircuts, facial lines even clothing remains the same for the 20 years the movie transports us through.

There is black and white, and then there is Yuri's favorite grey. Lord of War sits firmly on a grey landscape that grows ever larger year after year.
Kyle Gould is a University of Calgary Graduate in English devoutly trying to make the 25,000 dollar piece of parchment not just a glorified ink blot. Currently it would serve better as a Rorschach test. Feel free to throw some ink his way at wkkgould@hotmail.com.