No End in Sight (2007)

• 
  
  March 19, 2010

  kiriyamakazou

  If all that is said is true, then this is like some kind of twisted Orwellian nightmare. It's Animal Farm all over again as a select few individuals make the choices. Terrifying in more ways than one, the film shows the disastrous war, planned out my money grabbing idiots. It's n... read moreot just the dying soldiers/Iraqi civilians that highlight the problems, but also the unemployment and destruction of Iraq's cultural heritage. The only protection is offered to the oil fields. Again, the big names refuse to take part. But there are some balanced arguments, which sometimes fall into "he said/she said" retorts. No End In Sight is riveting stuff, and if even just a handful of claims are true, then it's worth taking note.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  October 4, 2009

  SarahG1988

  Review coming soon...

  Share This Review
• 
  
  December 22, 2008

  dhetteix

  Remarkably in-depth, this film refuses to become an expansive political warcry and instead focuses effectively and pointedly upon the facts surrounding the management of a country under occupation without questioning the ethics of doing so in the first place.
  
  By focusing upon th... read moree early-occupation timeline of Iraqi civil management and reconstruction, the film remains neutral in tone, and thus effectively conveys a honest and important message without any partisan smokescreens.
  
  Sadly, its focus limits its effectiveness, and the viewer must look elsewhere for vital context. Yet, in all fairness, as long as you haven't been under a rock for the past 10 years, you have that context.
  
  All in all, a documentary in the purest sense of the word. One that does not merely reiterate, but provides a vital voice to, the facts surrounding its subject. Essential viewing.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  December 2, 2008

  Godless

  Everything Michael Moore wishes he could do in a documentary. The best I have seen, hands down.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  November 11, 2008

  paulsandberg

  a very well paced and well thought out documentary concerning how the US totally botched the policing action in the aftermath of the Iraqi war.
  
  For those whose critiques bemoaned the lack of an explaination for all that went on - guess what - there isn't one. Be it hubris, ext... read morereme nievete or greed, non of it explains how we just sat by and let the country collapse into anarchy. Rumsfeld and his boys should be rightfully ashamed and perhaps brought up on criminal charges for crimes against humanity.
  
  I found the juxtaposition between Baghdad as the soldiers were entering it, and the bombed out husk that is mainly attributable to our actions (or lack thereof) to be humbling and frightning.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  May 5, 2008

  Beefy

  Ouch. Pretty scathing, mostly non-partisan look at the events that have led us to the current mess in Iraq. Unfortunately, like most films of this type, a lot of evidence is hearsay or anecdotal; it's hard to prove a point when most of the key players refuse to participate. St... read moreill, there are enough folks who were directly involved stating enough to give you pause and make you consider this is more than just some hit piece. This didn't come across to me as partisan so much as a scathing indictment of misguidance and ineptitude. The title says it all.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  February 9, 2008

  rubystevens

  outstanding overview of the genesis of chaos in iraq. important viewing esp for americans in an election year. yes it will make you angry. history will take a dim view of all this i'm afraid. this film is nominated for best documentary feature

  Share This Review
• 
  
  January 18, 2008

  jennifxu

  I'm not really a documentary kind of person, but I've come to realize that's probably more the fault of Michael Moore than anything else. In this, the director stays coolly out of the narrative, but nevertheless paints a completely devastating, depressing picture of the Iraq War ... read morewhich was run by a bunch of incompetent, ignorant idiots! I cannot believe our country allowed all of this to happen and it totally does not give me a good hope for the future. I hope more people watch this so that they can know what kind of people are running our country - this goes beyond our President.

  Share This Review
• 
  
  December 15, 2007

  mrbungle7821

  [CENTER][img]http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/4439/photo04ix4.jpg[/img][/CENTER]
  
  [COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Arial]Director Charles Ferguson lived his life as a PhD political scientist, and then he felt compelled to make a movie. [I]No End in Sight [/I]doesn't focus much on the ori... read moregins of the current Iraq War, which have been well documented and discussed in many other realms, instead the movie takes an exacting look into where the U.S. government fouled up the occupation after toppling Saddam Hussein. Because of this approach, Ferguson's expose cannot be dismissed under false propaganda claims, and because his interviews mostly consist of the people on the ground who were responsible to stabilize the country, No End in Sight is blessed with plenty of hard-hitting first-hand accounts by the people given the hurried, thankless job of rebuilding a conquered nation.
  
  General Jay Garner and his team, including Colonel Paul Hughes and Ambassador Barbara Bodine, were given 60 days to plan for a post-war Iraq. In contrast, FDR spent years planning ahead for an occupation of Germany. Planning was difficult because when they arrived in Baghdad the post-war looting made setting up a government a formidable task. They not only had to find means to contact people, but they had to figure out ways simply to operate in an environment where looting had destroyed buildings and proper tools for communication. They were in charge of ORHA, the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, which was not run through the State department, as would be normal, but run by the Defense department.
  
  The film holds its harshest criticism for L. Paul Bremer, the man appointed to run the Coalition Provisional Authority, formerly ORHA. Bremer, like many who planned the post-war occupation and were placed in key positions within the occupation, had no military experience, no foreign policy experience with the Middle East, a notoriously tricky region, and he didn't speak a lick of Arabic. In any other scenario, he would be judged unqualified for his heavy duty ahead. [I]No End in Sight[/I] lays out three grievous errors that Bremer made in the summer of 2003 that gave birth to the ongoing insurgency and sent Iraq spinning out of control. The first was absolving any previous work to reach out and include Iraqis in helping to form a working provisional government. Bremer was more a my-way-or-the-highway kind of guy, which may be why he was esteemed in a presidential administration filled with these types. This alienated the Iraqi people and began Bremer's calamitous habit of bridge burning. His second error was his decision to eliminate the Ba'ath party, Saddam Hussein's ruling party, and bar members from any future government service. This stripped teachers, engineers, intellectuals, the very people integral to build the infrastructure of a nation, and made them permanently unemployed in Iraq. Many members had merely joined the Ba'ath party because it was the only way to secure a steady job.
  
  But by far the most baffling and incompetent decision Bremer made was to disband Iraq's army. This boneheaded move went against the recommendations of U.S. military figures, and in the blink of an eye, the 500,000-strong Iraqi army were without a job and an income. There were overtures from military leaders to ORHA; Paul Hughes recounts that one officer promised him 12,000 men in a week if asked. So, in a situation where the U.S. military did not have enough soldiers on the ground to even halt looting, Bremer disbanded Iraq's best solution for restoring law and order. Half a million angry, disenfranchised, combat-trained, well-armed men were now left to fend for themselves, and if the U.S. didn't care for their expertise than death militias would. It should come as no surprise that shortly after this colossal miscue is when Improvised Explosive Device (IED) attacks on the U.S. troops surged along with U.S. casualties. It seems like at that point the verdict had come against the U.S. occupation.
  
  Bremer's decisions alienated, humiliated, and inflamed the people of Iraq, and they went against the recommendations by people that knew what they were talking about. The greatest tragedy that comes to mind is that, despite morally questionable, downright repugnant reasons for entering this conflict, the U.S. could have done this right. Saddam was indeed a bad man and the people of Iraq were initially receptive to see what the U.S. occupation would bring about. They weren't expecting rampant unemployment, no tangible security force, being excluded from decision-making, having American private contractors bleed them dry, and an utter lack of basic human services like power and clean water. Add a long-standing religious feud into the mix and it's no wonder the country has descended into a quagmire. [I]No End in Sight[/I] makes the dots easy to follow and connect the cause-effect relationships into where we are today.
  
  It's hard to watch the film and not feel your blood boil. While [I]No End in Sight[/I] is presented soberly and with clear-headed precision, watching the absurd miscalculations and naiveté prevail over the opinions of experts is infuriating. General Shinseki recommended to Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be required after toppling Saddam. Paul Wolfowitz, deputy Secretary of Defense, swiftly countered this assertion by claiming that it was unimaginable that it would require more troops to secure the peace rather than engage in war. "Unimaginable" is the key word here; Wolfowitz just couldn't potentially fathom a reality that was known by most high-ranking military officials. Stabilizing a country is far more taxing than simply taking out an opposing force. Shinseki, who guided occupation forces in Bosnia and Kosovo, was ignored and pushed into "early retirement," and Wolfowitz's plan was followed (Wolfowitz also famously stated that the war would pay for itself thanks to Iraq's oil revenues).
  
  [I]No End in Sight[/I] does have a figure of amusement, and it just so happens to be Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The film opens with his farewell address after the 2006 midterm elections where Republicans lost control of Congress and Rumsfeld was shortly ousted from his job days later. He calls the Iraq War little understood and declares that Bush and his team's accomplishments will one-day get the full historical notation they deserve. Of course, the irony is that the designers of the Iraq War had little understanding of what they were getting into and ignored the warnings and advice of those whose opinions conflicted with the Administration line.. Many clips of Rumsfeld news conferences are shown and the man comes across as a flippant and disingenuous doucehbag, pardon my frank terminology. He dismisses the looting as "stuff happens" and argues TV news is re-running the same image of a man absconding with a vase ("And you have to wonder, are there that many vases in the whole country?" he adds). The Iraq looting destroyed a museum that had artifacts dating back 7,000 years to the dawn of civilization, and a library with hundreds of ancient manuscripts was burned to the ground; an entire country's deep culture and history went up in smoke and Rumsfeld was using it as a setup to a vase joke. The clips further remind the audience that Rumsfeld, one of the chief architects of the war along with Vice President Dick Cheney and Wolfowitz, simply disregards information he doesn't agree with, whether it may actually be right. The leaders of the Bush Administration demonstrate time and again a supreme disconnect from reality.
  
  [I]No End in Sight[/I] is one of the best documentaries yet on the Iraq War and a definitive indictment on the lack of substantial care given to post-war planning. No one can accuse this film of slander or pushing an agenda; this is an exacting autopsy on the current chaos in Iraq, and it has cold facts and hard truths to back up its convictions. Even if you feel that you know all the blunders tied to Iraq, this sensational film is not merely a repackaging of dogma. It's eye opening and intensely fascinating and one of the better films of the year; it's an argument made on the merits of evidence and testimony, and it is damning. One soldier reflects upon the current conditions and flatly asks, "This is the best America can do? Don't tell me that." Then after a small pause he adds, "That makes me angry." You are not alone, brother.
  
  Nate's Grade: A[/FONT][/COLOR]

  Share This Review
• 
  
  September 14, 2007

  rayman0071

  The best film yet about the Iraq War ever witnessed. A movie that really tells the truth on George Bush's pathetic administration.

  Share This Review

• Campbell Scott as Narrator
• Richard Armitage
• James Fallows
• Samantha Power
• Barbara Bodine
• Chris Allbritton
• Col. Lawrence Wilkerson
• Colonel Paul Hughes
• Walter Slocombe

Click a thumb to vote on that suggestion, or add your own suggestions.

• 
  Armadillo (96%)
• 
  Punishment Park (100%)
• 
  Hearts and Minds (100%)
• 
  Fahrenheit 9/11 (100%)

No facts approved yet. Be the first

No quizzes for No End in Sight. Want to create one?

• NO END IN SIGHT - Trailer

• roliakz325
• Aritosgold
• zfuryz
• Macgyver911
• gshomer
• tasfastas
• girlznjeeps
• rallen399

No recent headlines. Got one?

• 

  Best of 2007

  by jmh7101
  21 Movies
• 

  want to see 2007

  by 009prasanna
  36 Movies
• 

  .Documentaries > 9/11 and its aftermath wars

  by hipsterfilmrev...
  9 Movies
• 

  2007

  by srn1406
  58 Movies
• 

  Movies to See

  by colbygallatin
  31 Movies

No skins yet. Interested in creating one?