Ziglet_mir Being an American, I have taken my fair share of history courses and studied many of the wars America has been in ever since it's formation and eventual birth in 1776. Just like everyone else, I leaned about Francis Scott Keys and the thirteen original colonies, but above all that, I also learned about the many events and politics which led to our independence. In school, they teach us about WWI and WWII as well as The Civil War, The revolution, the French and Indian War, etc etc. However, as history is so big and vast it well comes down to the perspective of how it is written and how one receives it. John Sayles has taken on an incredible project. He has done something only one other filmmaker has done, and portrayed all his characters and events in a very different perspective. I say we learn about all the big wars and we always root for America, but Sayles brings to the big screen something that even today we hold in contention, which is the right for one country to invade another. The Philippine-American war is something any American can say they've never heard of (for the most part). It is a part of history America never looks back at, and there are reasons why. Sayles chooses to show America as the invader; the people who don't belong in the situation at hand (such as the War in Iraq), and it is a very intriguing perspective. The story focuses on a small garrison of American soldiers who have taken post at a small baryo in the Philippines. We're introduced to a whole array of characters with very solid acting behind them all. There are great turns by DJ Qualls, Dane DeHann, Lucas Neff, and Brian Lee Franklin supported by the promising Garrett Dillahunt and always wonderful Chris Cooper. But above them all Joel Torre steals the show as the main character, Rafael, who is also what the title refers too. Sayles masterfully crafts scene after scene and leads us through a captivating story. Throughout the film, Sayles makes us wonder, "Who is right?" or "What if both sides are right?", while there is a heavy wondering of God and if doing what God says justifies your actions. But then, what about personal choice or following your heart? Between Rafael and his rebellious son, there is a rift. His son helps the colonials, while Rafael is restricted to do what he wishes and must follow the American law that resides. This is a film I recommend to all who enjoy the 'forgotten' parts of history. What Sayles has done here is another remarkable job of writing and directing while also serving another very unique perspective to the events which happened during the Philippine- American War. It's wonderful storytelling that leads to another well-crafted and haunting John Sayles-esque ending.

fourseraphs Without a doubt, a movie about this subject needed to be made. The parallels with America's wars with Vietnam and Iraq are endless, and the Philippines' history as the strategic spoils for foreign occupiers needs to be told. This movie did an okay job of depicting the arrogance of imperialism as well as the misery of those who want peace. However, I think the time limitation of a feature length movie hampers any real character development. The Americans' are haughty and racist caricatures, and the conflicts within the Filipino families are not as palpable as they should be. Also, important strategic events of the war are merely alluded to off-screen.Throughout the whole movie, I couldn't help but feel the story would have been more suited to a TV-miniseries format. Such a format would have allowed ample time for character development and action scenes.

gary_shupak Perhaps those without the political biases that I have will think more highly of this film than I did. From the trailers that I had seen, plus my growing understanding of the proud history of Philippine resistance and rebellion I had great hopes for 'Amigo'. While the movie may be fairly well done in terms of cinema and storytelling --- there are some good characterizations and plot turns --- in terms of politics and history I did not like this film.I do have to praise John Sayles and the producers for attempting to tackle the subject -- it is one that deserves to be more widely known.But to summarize : the couple of Spanish colonial soldiers are shown in a somewhat unfavourable light, the clergy as represented by Padre Hidalgo is shown in a mostly unfavourable light. There are 'good' Americans and 'bad' Americans, which is fair enough, but even at their worst the Americans are depicted as more blustering and threatening than actually capable of carrying out acts of terrorism.The villagers are caught between the Americans and the insurrectionists, truly a tragic place to be, but my real problem is with the portrayal of the latter : I cannot see that they are shown to have any redeeming features or policies.Somehow the majority of men in the village have gone off to fight as part of the revolutionary force, but why? What did the revolutionaries have to offer? True, as one American soldier states, 'it is their country', but in terms of the events as shown this would not be enough to join the guerrillas, who are generally depicted to be more ruthless than the foreign invaders.For me this demonstrates the same lack of understanding that guided American foreign policy in Viet Nam and in wars since then : sure, the hearts and minds of the population need to be won, the countryside belongs to the guerrillas, the village does also at night --- but why is this? Why do the guerrillas have a broad base of support? Lastly I had an objection to the overuse of the 'funny side of the Filipinos', wherein the adorable natives, conversing in their curious foreign tongue , were shown to be insulting the Americans and their ways, without the Americans knowing what was being said. It is fitting and a plus that most of the dialogue in the film is in Tagalog and I suppose that the intention was to show the human, comical side of the villagers, but to me it came across as too patronizing, as in 'oh look, aren't their customs and manners delightfully quaint?'

usherontheaisle John Sayles is the heart and soul of independent liberal filmmaking in the U.S. and he has triumphed once again with this small scale historical drama. Impeccably cast and masterfully written, Sayles only disappoints with his budgetary mandated use of digital cinematography. The sharp bright images of the film make one long for the warm celluloid grain of his frequent camerman Haskell Wexler. The Philippine/American War has hardly been touched by Hollywood except for THE REAL GLORY (1939), a flag waving whitewash of a controversial foreign incursion. Sayles is here to set the record straight and in this ambitious tale of a village invaded by naive American soldiers, he illuminates and entertains with his typically humanistic eye for people of all cultures, and the dark imperialistic inclinations of Western democracies.