'War Dogs' doesn't have many thrills

'Dogs' stars Miles Teller and Jonah Hill as childhood friends who improbably become international arms dealers during the Iraq War. It's directed by Todd Phillips.

Warner Bros. Pictures/AP
'War Dogs' stars Miles Teller (l.) and Jonah Hill (r.).

I’m getting a bit weary of movies “based on a true story” that chronicle big-time scams by sleazeball upstarts. “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “The Big Short” have now been joined by “War Dogs,” which is about two Miami childhood friends, David Packouz (Miles Teller) and Efraim Diveroli (Jonah Hill), who improbably become international arms dealers during the Iraq War.

Perhaps the reason we are seeing so many of these movies is because the laggard economy has provided a breeding ground for get-rich-quick escapades featuring unscrupulous bottom feeders. Sure, they get caught in the end, but until then, what a thrill ride!

Except there’s not much that’s thrilling here. “War Dogs” – directed by Todd Phillips and written by him along with Stephen Chin and Jason Smilovic, based on a 2011 Rolling Stone article by Guy Lawson – sets up a predictable contrast between the essentially decent but kinda dopey David and the morally bankrupt Efraim. When the awakenings and betrayals set in, it’s like watching a formula being worked out.

There are a few good scenes, especially one in which the boys and their driver truck a cargo of Berettas across 500 miles of desert to Baghdad, and Jonah Hill has gone from being a cartoonish comic actor to a real one, but “War Dogs” ends up being no better than its protagonists at delivering the goods. Grade: C+ (Rated R for language throughout, drug use and some sexual references.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.