Comments on: Lord of War

By: Dimma

Dimma — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 01:09:00 +0000

Best. Intro. Ever. People will go extinct from overanalyzing everything to death.

By: Melvin

Melvin — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:43:00 +0000

Despite the bad CGI I think this is one of the best title sequence I’ve seen yet. I haven’t seen a 70% of the titles given in this site so my opinion may change very soon.
Sherlock Holmes was also fabulous.

By: J Caites

J Caites — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:12:00 +0000

very good analysis.

By: Down10

Down10 — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:28:43 +0000

My gripe is that the music conflicts with the visuals (no pun intended). The industrial creation and journey of the bullet is cold and stark, but the music comes from an era of freedom and protest and humanitarianism. I would rather there be no soundtrack music at all, simply the sound effects of the machinery, the jostling noise of the transport, and a final BANG! at the end. It would have been a lot more dramatic, and would ratchet up the chills and the seriousness of the subject matter considerably.

By: maxdiamond

maxdiamond — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:36:16 +0000

I loved the title sequence with POV of the bullet, amazing concept.
Thanks for linking my blog in related articles.

By: Bob G

Bob G — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:46:14 +0000

It’s too bad that the intellect of the crowd keeps one from enjoying a perfectly represented emotion. The mechanical POV CGI is ridged and dauntless to show the inevitability of the bullets purpose. Obviously, the child was standing, looking, wondering why the man was aiming at him. A judgement that the soldier decided to kill. War is the painful key that unlocks freedom. Let’s not forget who we are. Intellect does not erase the primal gene.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:24:26 +0000

If I hear that Buffalo Springfield song one more time in a war movie, I’m going to start killing children. So cliche, I can’t take anything seriously with that song behind it. Also the fixed POV is kind of maddening, good concept though, it almost works.

By: christopher

christopher — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 03:24:04 +0000

i’ve never seen the film and only seen this opening sequence once, but by my recollection of it, you’re spot on alex. i felt the same way. i’ll have to re-watch it now and see how i feel.

although those commenting here may be right about what the child is doing, i too remembering being a bit taken out of the sequence by that part. it certainly didn’t have the impact it should have because i couldn’t figure out why anyone would be standing still out in the open.

however, i’ve also seen youtube footage of actual firefights in iraq by untrained, barefooted young men who almost got their heads taken off because they’re doing the most idiotic stuff – like standing out in the open firing randomly.

By: Javier Chacón

Javier Chacón — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:50:29 +0000

The thing is that even thinking the same bad things than you about it, I like it anyway (but it could have been better). About the heart… I think it would have been better as some king of response to an employed. Some ‘Michael Moore’ interviewer says him: “Don’t you know what are you working for?”, so he says “Man, I only make bullets”, and the full title sequence starts.

It would be good too applied to the tobacco work, a cigarette “life” were we could see how it’s done (and the shit they put on them that is not tobacco) until it modify some cell inside the lung so the cancer starts…

It’s a good answer for people that deny their responsability in things that have a clear and obvious end, that means we are all part of a chain, and the last link of it is not the only important oe.

Over all, the worst part of this title sequence is the technical, and the song. But the concept itself, I think it’s great.

By: Doctor Slack

Doctor Slack — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:44:58 +0000

I remember thinking the music was a questionable choice when I first saw it — “mawkish” gets it right — but someone a bit younger (anyone earlier than GenX, say) probably would not have registered it.

I don’t understand the complaints about the CGI or the clinical execution, though. I’m not sure I would want someone striving for realism, warmth and heart in recounting the life of a bullet from its POV; obviously the simple fact of choosing that viewpoint means there is a specific (and probably anti-war) point to be made, and that’s to the good. Portraying the bullet’s life, its very existence, as a cold and clinical fact is a big part of what gives the sequence its force.

The child endgame complaint doesn’t make much sense either, I’m afraid. We’re seeing it in extreme slow-mo because the bullet’s moving incredibly fast, right? Whence, then, the assumption that he’s “standing stiff in the midst of a firefight”? That’s poor analysis.

Love the site, incidentally, I came here via a link from Grow-a-Brain. Keep up the good work.