Metascore

Universal acclaim - based on 28 Critics What's this?

User Score

Universal acclaim- based on 50 Ratings

  • Summary: The first film of its kind to chronicle the reasons behind Iraq’s descent into guerrilla war, warlord rule, criminality and anarchy, No End in Sight is a jaw-dropping, insider’s tale of wholesale incompetence, recklessness and venality. Based on over 200 hours of footage, the film provides aes a candid retelling of the events following the fall of Baghdad in 2003 by high ranking officials such as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Ambassador Barbara Bodine (in charge of Baghdad during the Spring of 2003), Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, and General Jay Garner (in charge of the occupation of Iraq through May 2003), as well as Iraqi civilians, American soldiers and prominent analysts. No End in Sight examines the manner in which the principal errors of U.S. policy – the use of insufficient troop levels, allowing the looting of Baghdad, the purging of professionals from the Iraqi government and the disbanding of the Iraqi military – largely created the insurgency and chaos that engulf Iraq today. (Magnolia Pictures) Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 28 out of 28
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 28
  3. Negative: 0 out of 28
  1. May be the best and saddest film of the year so far.
  2. 100
    Who is Charles Ferguson, director of this film? A one-time senior fellow of the Brookings Institute, software millionaire, originally a supporter of the war, visiting professor at MIT and Berkeley, he was trustworthy enough to inspire confidences from former top officials.
  3. The most coolheaded of the Iraq war documentaries, the most methodical and the least polemical. Yet it's the one that will leave audiences the most shattered, angry and astounded.
  4. 80
    From the first frames of Charles Ferguson's No End in Sight, replaying some of the oddest and twitchiest podium performances of Donald Rumsfeld during those heady days of spring 2003, you may feel the crushing weight of an almost Sophoclean impending doom.

See all 28 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 26
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 26
  3. Negative: 3 out of 26
  1. NigelM.
    10
    Frightening, fascinating and vital, this should be seen by as many people as possible, whatever your political persuasion. Lessons have to be learnt from the mess that Iraq has become and this film asks all the right questions, even if it doesn't have all the answers. The Bush administration have fueled terrorism beyond anything Bin Laden could ever have done, through ineptitude, carelessness and pure ignorance. Expand
  2. JayH.
    8
    Very thought provoking, most always maddening, and the staggering cost of the war makes me sick, considering the current economic state. It they divided up the money spent in the war between all us citizens, we would all be millionaires. Bush and his cronies are incompetent disasters. What a mess they created. Expand
  3. RichD.
    7
    Very detailed and even though I agree with the director's point of view, I do believe he should have found some less negative commentators. I suppose he could have gotten some people from Fox News. Expand
  4. Josh
    2
    The movie is at times incoherent; it sneers at U.S. forces for doing nothing to stop looting in 2003, but later in the film, it makes the troops look like storm troopers for arresting suspects. Throughout, the audience gets only one side of an argument, plus scary music, so it can congratulate itself for being so much smarter than these guys. But there was no simple answer to anything in Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld invaded with a smallish force because he wanted to tread lightly in a region where Americans are viewed with suspicion, not because he was a fool. De-Baathification of Iraq is presented as a disaster, and perhaps it was. But that wasn't obvious at the time. Picture the alternative: a rebuilt military packed with our sworn enemies and headlines reading "Saddam's forces still in power in U.S.-backed government." There is nothing cinematic about the project - these suits and analysts belong on TV - but it is a useful summary of what happened in the early days after the taking of Baghdad. The star emerging from the mess is Col. Paul Hughes, director of strategic policy for the occupation in 2003, who comes across as an invaluable adviser whose warnings went ignored. Somebody give him another job in Iraq. Hughes' boss back in D.C., Walter Slocombe, is hung by his own words and seems incompetent at best. Some details caught on the fly are vivid and shocking: A professor says he came across a freshly minted Georgetown graduate with no experience in anything who was put in charge of all Baghdad traffic. Most of the film, though, rehashes information you already knew and tries to inflate trivia into scandal. The American head of the provisional government, Paul Bremer, didn't speak Arabic? So what? Douglas MacArthur didn't speak Japanese. OK, President Bush had no combat experience. Neither did FDR. Expand

See all 26 User Reviews

Trailers

Related Articles

  1. Ranked: The Best and Worst Iraq/Afghanistan War Films

    Ranked: The Best and Worst Iraq/Afghanistan War Films Image
    Published: June 25, 2010
    This week sees the release of the latest big screen look the Afghanistan conflict, "Restrepo." How does the new film compare to previous movies about the two wars? We rank the best and worst.
  2. Ten Years of Metacritic: The Best (and Worst) Movies of the Decade

    Ten Years of Metacritic: The Best (and Worst) Movies of the Decade Image
    Published: December 17, 2009
    Our best of the decade coverage continues with a look at the past ten years in cinema. While the decade's best-reviewed movie may not have been a commercial blockbuster (or even in English), our lists turn up plenty of recognizable names in addition to obscure gems you may have missed.