In them on an odyssey to a rumored

In
the film “Men with guns”, which its director is John Sayles, has as major
actors: Federico Luppi, who plays the roll the of a wealthy doctor name Fuentes;
Damian Delgado, who plays the role of Domingo, Domingo, who is a previous officer
whose soul is about broken by the memory of his offenses in the past as soldier;
Dan Rivera Gonzalez, who acts as a little kid that was treated as the mascot of
his town by the troops; Damian Alcazar, who plays the role of a defrocked
priest name Portillo which is escaping his past. The movie producer provokes us
to abandon the cover of our cosseted lives, to cross outskirts into outsider worlds,
to remain in solidarity with poor people and the dispossessed, and to stand up
to those implications which hold the way to life and of death.

Dr.
Fuentes (Federico Luppi) is a wealthy physician in an unnamed Latin American
country. Nearing retirement and concerned about his legacy, he decides to go
visit the medical students he trained to serve poor villagers in the
countryside. After an isolated life in the city where he was indifferent to the
political struggles of his times, the doctor is now exposed to the harsh
exigencies of civil war. Hundreds of men, women, and children, have been
slaughtered by the army or the guerrillas, known simply as the “men with
guns.” As the doctor tries to determine if his students have met this
fate, he is guided by a young orphan boy (Dan Rivera Gonzalez) wise beyond his
years. He learns more about torture and murder when a bitter army deserter
(Damian Delgado) and a guilt-ridden priest (Damian Alcazar) join them on an
odyssey to a rumored safe place in the high mountains. They also encounter two
American tourists (Mandy Patinkin, Kathryn Grody) who are oblivious to the
human rights violations in the country they are travelling through. The
difficult outward journey of Dr. Fuentes through sugar cane fields, a coffee
plantation, the ruins of ancient empires, ravished jungle villages, and a
mountain rain forest mirrors an equally challenging inner quest. This is a
story of soul-making. The good doctor’s experiences eventually open his eyes
and soften his heart.

            The
film appears as a trip, sometimes frightening, now and again beautiful. It has
a spine of imagery; the same number of incredible stories do. As the physician
moves from the city to the rural towns, from the shore to the mountains, he
additionally travels through history. We see the remains of more human
advancements that lived in this land in the past, and we see weak villagers,
moved all over as per discretionary impulses. They are executed by the military
for helping the guerrillas, and murdered by the guerrillas for helping the
military, and their men are slaughtered basically for the reason that they were
men without weapons. There is no proffer that either military or guerrilla have
any larger program than to live well off the despoliation of power. As
it comments on the official website of the movie (http://www.sonyclassics.com/menwithguns)
“The country depicted in John Sayles’ movie has a lot in common with the
Guatemala of the last few decades, of course, but it resembles, and
metaphorically recalls, many other places as well: Chiapas, Mexico; the
Peruvian Andes; the Argentina of the Dirty War; Colombia; Cuba; South Africa – anywhere
on earth where people have been murdered by political forces while terror,
censorship and repression keep many of the living locked into silence, into a
self-protective stance of not-knowing or denial.”

The
specialist Portillo, tall and white-haired, has a grave nobility. He isn’t an
activity saint, however a man who has been given a go in life; while he has
lived serenely in the capital with a pleasant practice, his nation’s reality
has cruised him by. As he wanders into the wide open, he assembles four
voyaging buddies. There is an armed force traitor, now a criminal, who
initially takes from him, at that point goes along with him. A previous priest
(“his congregation calls it freedom religious philosophy, yet he liked to
free himself”). A kid who knows the zone better to any of them, and has an
unnatural capacity to judge the quintessence of a circumstance. Also, a lady
who has not talked since she was assaulted.

“Men with Guns” is colossally moving and pitiful,
but then since it sets out so much, it is an invigorating film. It liberates
itself from particular stories about this villain or that technique, to remain
back and take a look at the big picture: at social orders in crumple on the
grounds that power has been gathered in the hands of little men made enormous
with guns. I comprehend firearms in war, in chasing, in brandish. In any case,
when a man feels he needs a weapon to go out in the morning, I fear that man. I
fear his dread. He trusts that the main man more weak than himself is a dead
man.

In Conclusion, Mr.
Sayles express in his film “Men with Guns” a great way to demonstrate how the
past still is similar to the present in the aspect of how governments are still
abusing Indians with their authority and military power, how they are taking the
Indian’s lands, and how many privilege populations that are in the big cities
don’t even realize what is happening in their country or even the world in
where they are really living on, or they just want to ignore for their own peaceful
convenient. As well the film shows tourists, in these case Americans, who help
picture that any of these miseries had pass in the past and they don’t unknowledge
that is still on the present.