WMD: Weapon of Mass Destruction (2004) User Reviews

History Channel-ish

[ReelCheese · 6/10 · 18 June 2006]

An amateur-produced film that starts off slow but suddenly picks up steam. "WMD: Weapon of Mass Destruction" was intended as a rebuke to Micheal Moore's box office smash "Fahrenheit 9/11" and critics of the U.S.-led Iraq war. To that end, it exposes the undeniable atrocities of the Saddam Hussein regime. We see the carnage and listen to the innocent Iraqis who lost loved ones (and almost their own lives) to the brutal dictator. As the title suggests, it makes the argument that Saddam was heinous enough that the U.S. and its allies had the moral duty to take him out. Much of the movie plays like a History Channel documentary (and is about as lively). Is it a biased movie with a mission? Yes, but no more so than the works of Michael Moore. Speaking of Moore, right-of-center viewers will enjoy the surprise street interview with the controversial director in which he concedes that his movies are basically filmed op-eds. If that's the case, then there's nothing wrong with hearing from the other side.

The real questions left unanswered

[elvis68 · 1/10 · 4 November 2005]

First off, this film tries to bill itself as a "fair and balanced" look at Saddam Hussein in the same way Fox News claims to be "fair and balanced". While the film tries to sell as its main focus, the brutal way Hussein's government dealt with the Kurdish uprising in the late 80s, its real agenda is to argue (and I'm not kidding here) that Saddam himself, is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Furthermore, the film still attempts to somehow link Hussein to 9/11; which by now has been completely dismissed and discredited by all reliable sources. I assume the director was afraid that we, as Americans, would be more sympathetic to his op/ed piece if some of the blood on Hussein's hands was that of our fellow country men and women.

While no one could seriously argue that the brutality of Hussein towards political opponents, particularly the Kurds, was justified, what the film avoids is the U.S. response while these atrocities were actually being committed. Specifically, the film never asks, "Why did the Reagan & Bush, Sr. administrations adamantly oppose a Senate bill to impose sanctions on Iraq when the killings were discovered?" This bill died in committee with the administration's blessings. Their official concern was the sanctions "would hurt U.S. exporters and worsen our trade deficit" according to then-Assistant Secretary of State, John Kelly.

Fast-forward 16 years later, and after no actual WMD was discovered in Iraq; the original justification for war, the current administration (made of of many of the same people who fought to kill a bill that would have simply imposed sanctions for the atrocities in 1988) decide that, "you know what, that was a pretty bad thing Hussein did 16 years ago." And now you have an instant re-justification for war. Fortunately as polls show, the vast majority of Americans have finally seen through the ruse, leaving only the right-fringe who would argue "day is night; up is down" if they were given the marching orders by this administration.

Needs to be seen by all Americans

[gblickens · 10/10 · 25 January 2005]

Whether or not you agree with the policy of invading Iraq, you should see this film. It steers clear of political statements and just gives facts and testimonies of those who belonged to or were affected by Saddam's brutal and murderous regime. The stories are heart rending and at times very hard to watch.

For a motion picture such as this I'm not certain that enjoyed is a term that applies. I will say that I found the movie very informative and very disturbing. This movie should be, but probably will never be, shown to the American public via public TV, that they may understand that Saddam was not far from being a modern day Hitler. The numbers and the degree of his atrocities are unimaginable.

Well made but a good deal of rehash.

[kodai · 20 November 2005]

First off I'd like to point out that elvis68's review is by far more "op/ed" than review of this film. It main purpose seems to serve his political ideal, and not to help a reader on deciding if the film is worth it. It's also a bit wrong.

As for the film, It's not a right or left piece. It's only meant to show the viewer (and accurately so), the reasons the coalition went in to Iraq. If you have already kept up with any of the reasons, then you will find that most of the information is the same stuff laid out with new footage. It's good for anybody who really didn't pay much attention to the reasons for the past five or six years. The editing, sound, and picture quality are done very well considering this was a very tight budget indie film. Those involved did a very good job in not trying to be political from whatever their viewpoints are. All in all, I would say 7 out of 10.