“Blood Diamond” Shattered Illusions about the Stark Reality Behind

A story following Archer, a man tortured by his roots. With a strong survival instinct, he has made himself a key player in the business of conflict diamonds. Political unrest is rampant in Sierra Leone as people fight tooth for tooth. Upon meeting Solomon, and the beautiful Maddy, Archer’s life changes forever as he is given a chance to make peace with the war around him.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450259/
AspectDetails
Directed byEdward Zwick
Screenplay byCharles Leavitt
Story byCharles Leavitt, C. Gaby Mitchell
StarringLeonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Connelly, Djimon Hounsou, Michael Sheen, Arnold Vosloo
Production companiesVirtual Studios, Spring Creek Pictures, Bedford Falls Productions, Initial Entertainment Group
Distributed byWarner Bros. Pictures
Release dateDecember 8, 2006 (United States)
Running time143 minutes
CountryUnited States
Budget$100 million
Box office$171.7 million
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Diamond

My review

This film not only sparked my love for cinema but also instilled a deep desire to visit Sierra Leone, the setting of this memorable work. In Leonardo DiCaprio’s filmography, “Blood Diamond” stands alongside “Titanic” and “Inception” as a favorite.

The film revolves around diamonds, specifically ‘blood diamonds’ as indicated by the title, which refers to gems mined in war zones and sold to finance rebel militias.
The film probes deeply into geopolitical dynamics, questioning the persistent civil strife in Sierra Leone and examining its intricate relationship with neighboring Guinea. The film suggests a semblance of peace, but it’s premature to consider the absence of civil war as a true resolution. The country’s wealth is still low, and there is a need for support, especially in the medical field.
Additionally, the film brings attention to the ‘pink diamond,’ a symbol of controversy and rarity, with a reported occurrence of only 1 in 10,000 compared to colorless diamonds. with an appearance rate said to be 1/10,000 of that of colorless diamonds.

Released nine years after “Titanic” (1997), where DiCaprio portrayed a young, struggling artist, “Blood Diamond” showcases his evolution from his twenties to his thirties.

“Titanic” (1997)
“Catch Me If You Can” (2002)
“Blood Diamond” (2006)
“Inception” (2010)

Though set in a land distant from Japan, the film mirrors the turbulent past of Africa, it also captures the ugliness of human nature surrounding the value and rarity of diamonds and other minerals. The narrative compels viewers to question the ethical distribution of wealth generated from these resources back to their countries of origin and if the compensation received is being used appropriately.

Impressive reviews from other watchers

Positive

A Hollywood movies tells an African story full of death and violence and presents it with impressive truth.

Because I lived in Sierra Leone, in fact in Kono, the diamond-mining area of the country, for three years, I had to see Blood Diamond as soon as it came out. It is an excellent movie. Although it was not filmed in Sierra Leone, it captures the reality of the country to a remarkable degree. There is a great deal of violence in this movie, but that violence is organic, realistic, fitting to what happened there. They even manage to convey the fact that the people are as astonished by this violence as we are; Sierra Leone used to be one of the safest countries in the world. The movie tells the facts about conflict diamonds quickly and accurately. DiCaprio’s performance is impressive, certainly the best by him I’ve ever seen: he is totally believable as a white African. Jennifer Connelly’s role is much smaller but she makes the most of it. Djiman Housou has enormous physical presence as the brave Mende fisherman. This movie just gets so many things right that the few places it departs from reality are entirely forgivable. I would heartily recommend this movie to everyone; it is the best Hollywood movie I’ve seen in years.

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1537079/

Negative

Overly Preachy & Clichéd

I was enjoying this very much when Jennifer Connelly entered the story and it began to go downhill after that, big-time. Hey, I always found her pretty fascinating and easy on the eyes, but she seems to play annoying, bitchy characters that I can’t stand.

Connelly’s role isn’t as obnoxious and unlikeable as she was her role in “House Of Sand And Fog,” but she’s still moody, preachy, profane, sarcastic and too full of herself as she plays a journalist in the mode of some woman who thinks she’s some great crusader. According to her, no one in the United States should ever buy a diamond ring for the fiancée/wife because they are akin to murderers if they do. This point is hammered several times and (1) is ludicrous; (2) unrealistic; (3) condescending to any audience of any intelligence.

That’s the trouble with the picture, as a whole: too preachy.

We don’t need points hammered home the way they are here, thinking us – the audience – is that stupid to get the messages the first or second time. The main characters are all movie cliché types – the greedy smuggler, Watergate-type journalist, brave African warrior, rich and uncaring white men running the operations, etc etc.

In addition, Leonardo DiCaprio’s accent is just not believable, perhaps because is something we aren’t used to hearing from him. It may not be his fault, because he’s a good actor, but it didn’t click. The accent didn’t sound right, and it became distracting. Conelley, as mentioned, is just super annoying, only there for her looks. Dimon Hounsou as “Soloman Vandy” overacted. Raising one’s voice here and there and screaming doesn’t make one a good actor.

The cinematography was wonderful. This is nice-looking film which includes spectacular African scenery. It was, by far, the best thing about the movie.

https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1643695/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don`t copy text!