War Dogs

War Dogs sees director Todd Phillips aiming for his The Big Short moment. Which is to say, a filmmaker known for comedies (as The Big Short’s director Adam McKay was) attempting to go serious with a piece about a timely and contentious issue, sold under the façade of a bro-tastic comedy. Peel away that shell, is there a similarly brilliant, fierily polemical piece of Oscar-worthy gold? No, but there is ample evidence that Phillips has a strong dramatic picture somewhere in him.

The subject is war, circa the second term of George W. Bush. After putting an end to those controversial no-bid contracts you might’ve heard about on the news at the time, the U.S. military started purchasing weapons and equipment from smaller outfitters. Meaning, the film posits, that they were willing to buy from any average Joe able to get their hands on guns. The movie tells the true story of two such Joes, struggling Miami twentysomething David Packouz (Miles Teller) and his sleazy childhood pal Efraim Diveroli (Jonah Hill), who dove head-first into this market, making millions procuring weapons through methods ranging from shockingly legal to blatantly illegal.

The film is clearly shooting for an outrageous and blackly satirical take on a grim subject, something a prestige filmmaker like, say, Martin Scorsese would deliver (similarities to The Wolf of Wall Street beyond the casting of Hill abound). Well, Phillips frankly isn’t on that level yet. The small narrative and structural touches meant to convey sophistication and respectability are, in fact, elements mostly played out at this point (interspersed title cards, literally made up of lines of dialogue that are spoken aloud soon after, are freshmen-year-film-school unoriginal). The misadventures of the two leads onscreen also don’t seem quite as shocking as the film was probably going for, and aren’t as funny as anything in Phillips’ straight-up comedies. Though to be sure, there are moments that are amusing in a cringe-inducing way.

It’s when the film starts on the commentary that has me at a critical stalemate. There is a definite sincerity to the picture’s disgust with the world it depicts. But it’s decidedly underscored by a striking sense of naiveté. It’s as if the filmmakers, and by extension the film itself, can’t comprehend their subject and their anger at it enough to form the clear, unapologetic viewpoint required for an effective polemic. Then again, I’m not sure if this is a result of a poor grip on their outrage, or if it’s the point of the entire thing, that this world is so tangled and without sense that it’s hard to direct outrage in a single direction.

The latter possibility is reflected in Teller’s performance, a comparatively earnest one showing a mostly decent person lured into temptation (the real Packouz apparently supports the film, so his depiction is the rosier of the two). He’s mostly sympathetic, but there comes a point where the extent of the character’s blindness to the business he’s in mightily strains believability. Also, it’s funny how his conscience never asks the tough questions, and only kicks in when his girlfriend (an underused Ana de Armas) gets on his case. Hill (whose real-life counterpart is suing the filmmakers) is the much more convincing one simply because he’s got absolutely no sympathetic or redeeming qualities at all, and yet is very funny and a mesmerizing presence. His comedy chops are already known, but between War Dogs and The Wolf of Wall Street, Hollywood might have a new go-to guy for scumbag parts.