Before " Blood Diamond" was released in the US last December, the international diamond industry was reportedly concerned about the movie’s effects on their sales. There was even talk of a public relations campaign to counter any possible backlash resulting from the film’s portrayal of human rights violations resulting from the illicit diamond trade. But based on the toothless end-result, De Beers and other gem companies have nothing to worry about. Before " Blood Diamond" was released in the US last December, the international diamond industry was reportedly concerned about the movie’s effects on their sales. There was even talk of a public relations campaign to counter any possible backlash resulting from the film’s portrayal of human rights violations resulting from the illicit diamond trade. But based on the toothless end-result, De Beers and other gem companies have nothing to worry about.

"Blood Diamond" takes its title from the so-called “conflict diamonds” that are illicitly mined by rebels in war-torn countries (such as Angola and Sierra Leone) and sold to finance insurgencies. Although steps have been taken by both the United Nations and the diamond industry itself to address the issue (most notably the Kimberly Process for certifying the origin of diamonds), trade in conflict diamonds reportedly continues.

Set against the backdrop of the 1990s civil war in Sierra Leone, when the rebel Revolutionary United Front (RUF) was using illicitly-mined diamonds to finance its insurgency, the film examines the conflict diamond issue from the point of view of two men at different levels of the trade: Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio), a diamond smuggler; and Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou), a fisherman taken prisoner by the RUF and forced to pan for diamonds.

The two men’s lives intersect when Vandy discovers a rough rare pink diamond as large as a small bird’s egg, which he manages to hide before the rebel camp is overrun by government forces. Archer, in jail after an unsuccessful attempt to smuggle diamonds over the border to Liberia, hears about the diamond from an RUF leader and determines to convince Vandy to lead him to it. Vandy agrees only when Archer promises to help him find his family, who were lost when the RUF attacked his village. In a subplot, the film also shows Vandy’s young son, Dia, being brainwashed by the RUF and gradually turned into a child soldier.

"Blood Diamond" is obviously well-intentioned; in fact it wears its good intentions on its sleeve. It tries hard to raise its audience's awarness about the human cost of the illegal diamond trade. It even includes a scene showing child victims of the RUF, many of whom have had their right arms cut off by the rebels (which oddly feels like a public service announcement in the middle of the film). But "Blood Diamond" ultimately fails to cohere as a powerful statement against the conflict diamond trade.

One obvious flaw is its length. At nearly two-and-a-half hours, the film often feels flabby and slow when it should be taut and tense. One particular scene involving Archer and Vandy’s trip to the site where the diamond is hidden feels put in merely to indulge the two actors by giving them more “character” scenes. Admittedly, the two give strong performances, but the scene simply slows the movie down while not really adding to a deeper understanding of the two men or their relationship. DiCaprio, however, deserves to be singled out for his effective performance. Although he never seems as hardened as the character demands, he still succeeds in communicating Archer’s essential cynicism along with an underlying vulnerability. A particular triumph for him is his last scene in the film, in which he manages to overcome its sheer corniness with his heartfelt acting.

The film also never explores in depth the links between the illicit diamond trade and big diamond dealers, as well as the relationship between American consumerism and the continuing demand for diamonds that fuels the illegal business. Instead, it focuses on human rights issues while pushing other concerns into the background. This robs the film of much of the impact it could have had, especially since its stated aim is to awaken audiences to the possible hidden costs of the diamonds they buy.

Admittedly, there is an exchange between Archer and crusading journalist Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) in which he accuses her of being a hypocrite because American girls like her are the main consumers of the goods he “provides”. But the exchange feels oddly perfunctory, with Archer’s retorts to Maddy’s do-gooder attitudes a dud with no impact.

To be fair, in another scene Archer does outline for Maddy (and the audience) how blood diamonds from Sierra Leone are smuggled across the border into Liberia, and then to diamond merchants, along the way becoming mixed with “clean” stones so that their provenance can no longer be determined. Vandy also declares that Africa’s resources, whether gold, oil or diamonds, have always been exploited. But the movie fails to pick up on these and, in general, prefers to focus on scenes of villainous RUF cadets and brutalized children.

"Blood Diamond" really only comes to life during its action scenes, which are exciting and well executed but which mostly involve Archer and Vandy running away from the RUF. In fact, the film would have been more effective if it had focused on its adventure aspects and moved its message to the background for the audience to discover for itself.

The movie even telegraphs its essential seriousness of purpose by opening and closing with scenes in which diplomats discuss the conflict diamond issue. These scenes could have allowed the filmmakers to communicate important information to the audience but instead they end up a missed opportunity, with the diplomats merely mouthing platitudes while representatives from the diamond industry look on. “The Third World’s resources are not ours to exploit”, indeed!

By focusing on the RUF as the villains, the ultimate effect of the movie is to exonerate (or at least make the audience forget about) the complicity of the diamond merchants while placing the blame on those bad Africans. Thus, it should not be surprising that it did not have its intended impact on audiences. In fact, it’s the kind of film that, instead of making you want to explore an issue more deeply or take action, makes you feel that you’ve already done something about an issue simply by watching the movie.