I was reminded of Wag the Dog, a political movie that in fact did very well at the box office. However, Wag the Dog had a couple advantages over War, Inc. First of all, it had the megastar wattage of Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro...together. Second, the movie clearly explained what it was trying to do, and it didn't deviate from its central theme throughout the film. Audiences clearly knew what they were watching. It was easy to write the blurb.
War, Inc., on the other hand, is much more frenetic and disjointed. It's primary theme is the outsourcing of wars to private contractors. What would happen, the movie asks, if an ENTIRE war was outsourced to a private contractor? Furthermore, what would happen if a Middle Eastern teenage pop icon found her life controlled not only by the world press but also by a war zone, a patriarchal culture, and her own need for self-actualization? And what would happen if a CIA hitman, who was thrown into the 'Emerald City' in Turaqistan, was trying to carry out a hit while dealing with his own personal demons, self doubt, growing conscience, and distraction by a left-wing reporter (Marisa Tomei, one of my favorite actresses)? And where exactly is the fictional country of Turaqistan? And why does Ben Kingsley have a southern U.S. accent?
See? No wonder American audiences couldn't follow it.
Roger Ebert did not like the movie. Roger Ebert did not understand the movie. Roger Ebert has difficulty with complex plots. Fine. That's his own problem.
Bottom line...War, Inc. is a very funny, very ambitious movie that frankly should have received much more attention. It has a top shelf cast (John Cusack, Joan Cusack, Marisa Tomei, Hilary Duff, Ben Kingsley, and Montel Williams in a surprise role), it has clever writing, it has lots of action and explosions, and it has a sharp political message.
Just don't watch it with Roger Ebert. You might have to explain it to him.