Green Zone

Green Zone

For a film that's been accused of both anti-American sentiments and oversimplifying the Iraq conflict, Green Zone doesn't feel like a political statement.  In fact, at times it barely feels like any kind of statement at all. If you're expecting an edgy political thriller along the lines of Syriana then you'll be sorely disappointed.

Where Green Zone does score is in its unrelenting pace and realistic action sequences, and in that respect at least it almost feels like a fourth Bourne movie. The fact that The Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum director Paul Greengrass is behind the helm only adds to the impression.  Matt Damon + Paul Greengrass surely = Jason Bourne.

While Green Zone borrows much of its energy and appearance from the Bourne movies, however, it doesn't quite match up to the series' many high points. Instead it gets bogged down in a political situation that has already been analyzed by more incisive films than this, as Greengrass can't seem to decide whether he's making an action movie or a political statement.

The end result is fun to watch, but struggles to make a lasting impression beyond Matt Damon's kick-ass moves.

Damon plays Roy Miller, Chief Warrant Officer in the hunt to uncover Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The only problem is that these weapons seem not to exist, and Miller gradually realizes that their informant may be leading them on a wild goose chase.

Pentagon official Clark Poundstone (Greg Kinnear) is quick to shoot down Miller's suggestions of deceit - almost too quick - but he finds an ally in CIA bureau chief Martin Brown (Brendan Gleeson). Pretty soon Miller has to make a choice: whether to follow orders, or chase the lead himself. And you just know that he's going to opt for going rogue without a moment's hesitation.

It's this all-action-and-no-deliberation attitude to the story that makes Green Zone such a great action movie, but such a terrible political thriller. Miller barely seems to blink before he's shrugged off his uniform and is running around Baghdad following his own agenda, and yet neither the character nor the screenplay ever seems to question this flagrant disregard for procedure and authority. He may be a great action hero, but Roy Miller isn't exactly an ideal soldier.

The action-heavy approach undermines much of the film's political message too, and by the time the credits roll you'll be wondering exactly what point they were trying to make. The clumsy blurring of reality and fiction doesn't help, occasionally treading a fine line between fictionalization and slander. It's no wonder that some political analysts got so hot under the collar.

Green Zone still emerges as a solid action movie, but with Damon and Greengrass both coming fresh from the Bourne movies it feels as if it should have been so much more. While it aims for the Intelligent Action Movie genre, it winds up being just the same old parade of shootouts and car chases. Ultimately the problem isn't that it's anti-American, or disrespectful of those who put their lives on the line in Iraq - it's simply not as smart as it thinks.

3/5

Green Zone: So Much for

WMD: Some seek'em here, some seek'em there. Matt Damon seeks'em everywhere

While this film may not have the visual quality and technical special effects that make the masses flock to see movies like "From Paris With Love," it contains the rare element of truth that has become the object of the affection of a small minority of folks on the globe who still use that stuff between their ears and don't swallow every bit of NWO propaganda blowing their way.

Green Zone, which also could have been titled, "The Way to Start a War in the 21st Century" describes the reason why in our era of enlightenment 1.5 Million Iraqis had to bite the dust thus far on behalf of our democratic concepts of liberty and justice for all... cough, choke... excuse me, that was my lunch!

Who cares? Right. Who does, when you're sitting up on the top of the world with your remote and a cool Bud?
Well, apparently the makers of this film cared enough to put a few million bucks in the sand for the love of that greatest of taboos of the 21st century called truth, and while it certainly isn't your average fix of "Here we are now: entertain us!" - you can learn something from it.

Namely, how to start a war in the 21st century: You take some high ranking government official from D.C. and have him call some career-horny journalist (what better place to find those than Wall Street?) and tell them some fairy tale about an inside informant on WMDs hidden in big bad terror country (remember: anything that wears a head covering is guilty, if you're a true American), and off the boys are to wreak havoc over there, yielding millions of bucks in those politicians' pockets, trillions more for the tax payers' unpayable debtload (and their children's and children's children's), heaps of corpses, and just about any evil imaginable beneath the sun, except them darn WMDs which seem to have dissolved into thin air like the Scarlet Pimpernel: "Some seek them here, some seek them there..."

But no worries, those politicians know their flocks: they know that after a few months of slaughter, nobody will give a hoot about that cheap excuse to start another war. After all, it's just another one in a long line of wars since the beginnings of the greatest icon of democracy and enlightenment since the world began...
And the good thing about bearing that image is, you can't possibly ever be wrong, no matter how much blood you shed in the process.

Would I recommend this movie if you're looking to be entertained? Not in your life!
Would I, if you intend to make use of that clot of mass between your ears in this life-time?
You bet.

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: The Matrix , Fratello sole, sorella luna , The Visual Bible: The Gospel of John

There IS no spoon!

Last updated: 2010-04-11 03:41:17 by McDozer

Green Zone

Green Zone


Starring: Matt Damon Directed by: Paul Greengrass

Grade: D

Synopsis: Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller (Matt Damon) is certain that Hussein has been stockpiling WMDs in the Iraqi desert, but in their race from one empty site to the next, they soon stumble across evidence of an elaborate cover up. As a result, Miller realizes that operatives on both sides of the conflict are attempting to spin the story in their favor. Now, as Miller searches for answers made ever more elusive by covert and faulty intelligence, the truth becomes the most valuable weapon of all. Will those answers prove pivotal in clearing a rogue regime, or escalate the war in a region that grows increasingly unstable with each passing day?

My Thoughts: I honestly feel like I have seen this movie before. Oh yes: The Bourne Identity, Suprimacy: Altimatuim. When is Damon going to do something else. I applaud Greengrass’s efforts to shed some light on the whole Iraq debackle, but really does it need to be on my movie screen. This movie had some great fight scenes but ultimately it bored me. Earnestly, I have sen it before. I often found myself wondering was there something else better playing in the next theater. #FAILMINOR

Rafael Solece

Green Zone - ***1/2

Directed by:  Paul Greengrass

Starring:  Matt Damon, Greg Kinnear

Review:  I was pleasantly surprised by this movie.  What I thought was going to be a run of the mill action/war movie turned out to be a truly good statement movie about America, American intelligence, and the war in Iraq.  I'm gonna say it, I liked this better than The Hurt Locker.

The best part about The Hurt Locker was it's ability to create tension and make you care about the characters without much of a storyline really.  This is one of the rare instances where I would actually say the directing was better than the movie itself.  Normally a hard feat to achieve but reason enough to give Kathryn Bigelow the Oscar.  However, as an overall movie, Green Zone exceeds where The Hurt Locker failed.  Maybe it's because the point of the movies was different, and I recognize that, The Hurt Locker was about one man and his love for doing something with his life, Green Zone is an indictment on the war in Iraq.

My initial thought on this movie, starring Matt Damon and directed by Paul Greengrass of The Bourne Identity fame, was that this was going to turn into "Jason Bourne travels to Bahgdad."  However, I was pleasantly surprised to find that was not the case.

The movie centers around Sargent Roy Miller as a leader of a small group of individuals searching for WMD's in Iraq.  After 3 raids go awry Miller begins to question things.  It is Army intelligence that has been giving them the locations to raid and Miller wonders if the intelligence is faulty.  When Miller brings this up to the powers that be, he is rebuffed with the standard that their source has been vetted and is reliable and that he should just shut up and do his job.

Miller knows this is what he is supposed to do but it doesn't sit well with him.  He aligns himself with a CIA agent who has been stationed in the Middle East for quite some time and who also believes like Miller does that something is amiss.  Together they begin to unravel some details of what set the war in motion.  I will stop there so as to not ruin the plot for you.

What made this movie so enjoyable is the storyline.  It presents a very politically charged story that doesn't claim to be the truth but does claim to raise some questions.  The movie brings to light the fact that there is a good chance our government wanted to go to war with Iraq whether there were WMD's or not, whether the end game was necessary is not the question.  The movie questions the government's motives and methods.  The movie also brings to light the ineptitude of American intelligence and the failures of the CIA.  Fact of the matter is, the CIA is one of the worst intelligence agencies around, the rest of the world has had intelligence for much longer and is just plain better at it.  The US's best intelligence weapon is money which they try to throw at everything and hope it solves the problem.  It rarely does.

This movie brings all the points together in an engrossing plot.  At some point it does start to slip into unbelievability that a Warrant Officer is able to operate like he does and get so deep in the middle of something like this.  However, the movie is able to keep it from slipping completely off the edge and still retains an element of believability.  The movie doesn't use it's main character as a hero, rather, the main character is used to propel the story.  Normally, this makes for a bad movie that is so focused on it's story, however, the makers of this movie were skilled enough to keep everything in line and make it extremely enjoyable.  Definitely worth your time.

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-03-31 10:40:42 by FadingMemory

Green Zone (Paul Greengrass, 2010)

THE SCOOP
Director: Paul Greengrass
Plot: Discovering covert and faulty intelligence causes a U.S. Army officer to go rogue as he hunts for Weapons of Mass Destruction in an unstable region.

Genre: Action/Drama/Thriller/War
Awards: -
Runtime: 115min
Rating: NC16 for violence and language.

IN RETROSPECT
One of the leading contemporary filmmakers of the last decade, Paul Greengrass’ directorial consistency is quite remarkable. He alternates between making crowd pleasers and critically-acclaimed pictures, and still manages to put a distinctive stamp onto each. The evidence is there for all to see: Bloody Sunday (2002), The Bourne Supremacy (2004), United 93 (2006), The Bourne Ultimatum (2007), and now Green Zone.

His courage to tackle controversial issues has been rewarded with a directing Oscar nomination (United 93) and a Golden Bear win (Bloody Sunday) in Berlin. His latest release, Green Zone, is the closest the British director has come to making a controversial crowd pleaser, merging the two sides of his filmmaking style in a bid to expand his range. The result is an excellent film but his range remains limited to his trademark “Greengrass” style – kinetic visuals shot in shaky cam and viscerally edited to give a nauseous, you-are-there kind of experience – one which he still does ever so expertly.

The director’s trademark style when coupled to John Powell’s strong rhythmic music creates a unique brand of action-suspense, allowing us to be engaged in a trance-like state. The screenplay breaks down its seemingly complex plot into digestible pieces of information and throws in stereotypical characters like a probing journalist and a high-ranking governmental official who tries to stop the protagonist at all costs. Viewers will find the film easy to follow but intelligent enough to be thought-provoking.

As a Greengrass film, Green Zone does not disappoint. It is essentially a war film but with strong action-thriller elements. Set in Iraq in the context of the controversial war set forth by the Bush Administration after the 9/11 incident in 2001, the film questions the grounds in which America went to war. The American government had confirmed the existence of WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) sites in Iraq and successfully toppled Saddam’s regime but was left in the “shit hole” when they failed to restore peace. Rumors that the reason of WMD was a fabricated lie to get US military forces into Iraq and using it as a base to democratize Middle East were proven to be more true than false.

This sets up the plot of Green Zone which centers on Officer Miller’s (Matt Damon) personal mission to expose these lies after his team is unable to find WMD in sites reported by intelligence to contain them. “The reasons we go to war always matter,” says Miller. He is smart and tactical; he is like Jason Bourne but in military disguise. His statement brings out the essence of Greengrass’ film, which questions the ethical behavior of the US government and puts the blame entirely on them.

Green Zone shares similar traits to Kathryn Bigelow’s Oscar-winning bomb squad drama The Hurt Locker but goes one further by incorporating political themes. While the latter is a nerve-wreck of a cinematic experience about soldiers in constant life-and-death situations, Greengrass’ film resonates more strongly because it insists on asking why these soldiers are there in the first place. The answer could not have been any clearer.

SCORE: 8/10
[www.filmnomenon.blogspot.com]
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED!
 

Recommendations: Toy Story 3 (Lee Unkrich, 2010), To Kill a Mockingbird (Robert Mulligan, 1962), The Visitor

Singapore's Most Prolific Film Blogger @ www.filmnomenon.blogspot.com

Last updated: 2010-03-27 08:42:57 by eternality_tan

Film Review: GREEN ZONE (2010)

Rating 8/10

BOTTOM LINE: “Green Zone” may not be a Bourne film as suggested in the previews, but it proves to be a great thriller, with an honesty and authenticity that questions the purpose of the Iraq War and the mis-handling of it by the Americans to get a victorious headline and to achieve their objective of removing Saddam Hussein.

THE GOOD: Matt Damon plays Chief Roy Miller of the US Army, who is searching Iraq with his team for Weapons of Mass Destruction in the weeks following the initial invasion in 2003. Miller is frustrated because every site they inspect based on the intelligence comes up empty, and he begins to question what is happening. This does not go down well with his superiors, although he has CIA station chief Martin Brown (Brendan Gleeson) on his side who knows that the “intel” is faulty. Following his instincts, Miller goes out on his own to find out what is happening and discovers a scandal that goes right to the heart of the reasons why America invaded Iraq. “Green Zone” is an excellent thriller, largely due to its honesty and authenticity, both in setting the scene and in its performances. Damon in particular does not just act like a soldier, he IS a soldier and he makes you believe it. The rest of the cast is also perfectly on song. The staging of the sequences and the attention to detail is meticulous and engaging. Despite not being filmed in Iraq, director Paul Greengrass creates images that really make you believe you are seeing the real thing, and the use of computer generated images to fill in the blanks is barely noticeable. The integration of the invasion bombing at the beginning of the film is virtually identical to the real footage we saw on television. Greengrass steadies his camera a lot more than in his previous films, and despite so much of it being handheld, the images are always clear and we always know exactly where we are. Another great aspect to watch is that this film gives you as good an insight as any film in to how life is like for soldiers on the ground in Iraq; it will make you feel angry about why they were sent there in the first place, which goes to the film’s central point that officials in Washington used WMDs as an excuse to invade the country and get rid of Saddam. Even the way the American media was sucked in to the lie is covered, with a subplot involving a journalist who reported on WMDs based on the faulty intelligence. Miller asks her at one point: “did you ever bother to check the validity of your source?” to which she replies, “he was a high ranking official in DC? He had the data!”. “Green Zone” is a winner, and is engaging from start to finish.

THE BAD: The only issue with the film that robs it of an overall dramatic punch is that we all know what happened in Iraq. We know there were no WMDs, so we know that Miller’s journey can only end either with his death or not finding the WMDs. Despite Greengrass’ best efforts to enhance the drama and thrills of the story, the film is handicapped by us knowing that Miller’s search is futile. The only dramatic climax we get is Miller telling Pentagon Chief Clark Poundstone “I know what you did”, punching him in the mouth, and Miller sending what he knows to every news outlet in America. Aside from this, “Green Zone” is absolutely worth watching on the big screen.

(Read Less...)

Todd Murphy <br />
http://www.allaboutmovies.net

Green Zone

Director Greengrass, could you hold the friggin' camera steady for a few seconds so I can throw up?

One Word Movie Review: GOOD

Green Zone is a morality tale about why nations go to war. If that doesn't sound very exciting, well it isn't supposed to be. Emotionally, the director Paul Greengrass wants audiences to feel the frustration of the common soldier to the FUBAR fog of war and one man's attempt to make personal sense of his actions in Iraq.  Matt Damon stars as the soldier, Roy Miller and both Damon and Greengrass combined to make the Bourne movies hits.  Those movies placed an amnesiac assassin at the center of a fog of espionage and one man's attempt to make sense of - hold on a minute! Is this the same damn movie as those Bourne epics? No, this is not another Bourne movie, proof of which comes early as Damon gets his ass kicked by a special forces dude, a guy that Jason Bourne would have folded into a pretzel with one thumb and an index finger. But the major theme is the same, the lone sane man surrounded by devious government hacks with hidden agendas so far up their asses they can't walk without scowling at anything that moves.

The man with the hidden agenda is the ominous Greg Kinnear as Clark Poundstone, mandarin and architect of the Weapons of
Mass Destruction (WMD) justification for the Iraq war. First of all, Greg Kinnear is not an ominous guy, but he's asked to be the puppet master of mayhem. His path crosses with Damon when the WMD sites all turn up empty and Matt starts asking why instead of just soldiering on like a good little political pawn. He just seems out of his league in this film.

The truth is the end game in the Green Zone and all helicopters lead to the Jack of Clubs in the Iraq card deck of devils. As Damon closes in on the Iraq general who holds the truth about WMD, thanks to some incredible luck stumbling across a brave Iraqi citizen willing to come forward and help Americans hunt down his countrymen, the full brunt of the American war machine steps in to stop him. Will the truth be set free? Duh, this is a Hollywood movie after all.

The Story

The story is told from Chief Roy Miller's point of view, for the most part. We feel his frustration at risking his squad's lives for empty WMD sites, time after time. We root for him to break open the deception even as he goes rogue, makes alliances with the local CIA head and breaks God knows how many military rules in pursuit of the truth. His big chance arrives in the shape of citizen Freddie, a one-legged Iraqi war veteran who offers information on a big Iraqi meeting of Saddam's generals. Off we go to crash the meeting, find a book of safe houses and chase down the Jack of Clubs, General Al Rawi who may know the real story behind the WMD's.

The sub-plot of a Wall Street Journal reporter seeking confirmation of her stories about the existence of the WMD's bubbles under the surface for most of the movie until the final pay-off. Another sub-plot concerning the informer Freddie doesn't resolve in any satisfactory way, but does have symbolic resonance as the face for the failed American policies to rebuild Iraq..

The final wrap is a little too pat for my taste but what can you really expect when you juggle one questioning soldier, one manipulating mandarin, one gullible reporter, one pragmatic Iraqi general and a patriotic hot-headed Iraqi citizen?

The Genre

The war drama genre is a complex space to be in, with a crowded field of great movies on point. American films on war strive for authenticity, identification with the ordinary soldier and the helpless casualties caught in the exhaust of the great war machine. Each of America's real wars spawned a stellar field of classic films starting with the 1930 classic about WWI, All Quiet on the Western Front. WWII continues to inspire a long tradition of heroic war films like From Here to Eternity, The Longest Day, Saving Private Ryan and Letters from Iwo Jima.

The absurdity of war was explored early on with Dr. Strangelove, M*A*S*H* and Kelly's Heroes. Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter took us into the minds of soldiers and how they cope with death and the random terror of combat. Green Zone belongs in the morality club of films exploring the rationale for war and the just cause behind the slaughter. Are we fighting the good fight against a greater evil? If not, why are we here?

Our need for a just war is compelling, and any doubt over the morality of a nation's call to arms undermines the authority of our leaders. This political dimension to Green Zone was obviously part of the rationale for making this film and, even if it is heavy-handed in tone, one has to applaud the effort to make something more than simple thrills and exploding bombs. It is certainly not in the league of the journey up-river into madness which audiences experienced with Apocalypse Now, but you certainly share the disconnect between the soldier on the ground in Baghdad and the political/publicity battle fought on the battlefield of the nightly news.

The Overall Quality

When the camera stops jiggling enough to register a face or a building, it looks authentic. Baghdad in the immediate post-shock and awe days is rendered in glorious detail. Morocco subs for Iraq and, judging by the army of carpenters listed in the credits, the facades of Baghdad have been faked with awesome skill and craft.

The cast includes dozens of real soldiers recently back from Iraq and Afghanistan, adding true authenticity to the dialogue and action scenes. The Iraqi characters are played with distinction, without the common stereotype performances one usually gets in films set in the Middle East. I was especially impressed with Kahlid Abdalla as Freddy, portraying a proud, patriotic ex-soldier with the same frustrations as Miller but without the firepower and organization behind him. His outrage matched Matt Damon's portrayal, as did his sincerity and honest affection for his homeland.

The real complaint I have with Greengrass continues to be his love of hand-held camera shots, his jerky pans and quick cuts and framing of characters partially blocked by the heads of others. Yes, combat is frenetic and disorienting and yes, we never have conversations where each person's face is perfectly in frame. I get all that, but why be so relentless in your direction to the point of audience nausea. I had to look away several times to find the horizon again before diving back into another Greengrass firefight. Who needs that?

Movie/Market Analysis

MarketBOB’s sentiment indicators, the GQS (Genre, Quality, Story) rate Green Zone an emotional BULL. As Miller yells to his troops to get their f-ing game face on, you get immersed in the mechanics of war, leadership and the value of truth. The resolution of this morality tale is satisfying, realistic and oddly optimistic, which is a positive for audiences. Finally, any movie that employs this number of technicians, carpenters and assistants like those listed in the closing credits has to be good for the economy.

Just take a Gravol before you see this movie, or you might wish you brought a barf bag to the theater.

Craig Forgrave (MarketBOB)

Last updated: 2010-03-26 13:28:01 by user08

Green Zone

I had low expectations for "Green Zone."  I thought  that Paul Greengrass'  direction of "The Bourne  Supremacy" and  "The  Bourne Ultimatum" got progressively worse one film to the next and  this was being billed as the next Greengrass/Damon action movie.   Surprisingly, it is more than that.  Not too much more, but Greengrass  seems to be getting better.
 
     "Green Zone" takes place  not long after the US  invasion of Iraq.  Matt  Damon plays Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, assigned to  investigate suspected hiding places of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.   (Big surprise, he isn't finding any!)  Miller soon begins to suspect  that the intelligence they are using is unreliable (another shocker) but  his superiors don't believe (or don't want to believe) that the  intelligence is to blame.  Enter Brendan Gleeson as CIA operative Martin Brown.  Brown is at  odds with his superiors about the post invasion strategy (because there  wasn't one) and recruits Miller to help him find the source of the  faulty intelligence.  After that there's more 'plot' than an action  movie should have, a lot of fast action, explosions, chase scenes and a  heavy handed attempt at a moral.   
 
     Greengrass'  style of shaky camera action actually works for most of the combat  scenes, and the editing is not so fast that it makes the action  sequences unintelligible; the chase scenes, however, are another  matter.  There is an attempt to build suspense or turn "Green Zone" into some  kind Bourne style mystery/thriller, but there really is no mystery.   (Unless, of course, you haven't paid any attention to the news for the  past seven years.)  There are no weapons of mass destruction, the  intelligence is faulty, and it is quite obvious who, in the movie, is to  blame for that, and you spend half of the movie, literally, chasing  that answer.  Top all that off with a less than satisfactory ending (we  are STILL there, after all) and a very heavy handed 'moral,' and you've  got something in between a passable action movie or a laughable  suspense/thriller/spy/Bourne/whatever flick. 
 
     "Green Zone" is pure  popcorn fodder.  If you can turn off your brain for a while, you might  enjoy the explosions.  If not, then don't bother. 
 
 
P.S.   A few real people and companies who appear in "Green Zone" have had  their names changed so this can be a work of fiction.  The basic  premise, however, is not fiction.  We went into a sovereign nation on  bad intelligence and had a poor plan for after the war.  If you can't  bring yourself to admit that by now, just go back and watch Fox News.  They'll protect you  from the scary truth (with their scary distortions.)  On the other hand,  simply pointing out the reality of a seven year old situation is not  enough reason to like a movie. 

(Read Less...)

Brian
Ciné Critique Américain

Last updated: 2010-03-22 11:43:37 by BrianSmith

Review: Green Zone

* * * out of four stars
Someone on the news said that Americans aren’t going to many war movies anymore. Maybe it’s because we’re so sick of war, we’d rather be watching films about vampires. “Green Zone,” the new movie from “Bourne” director Paul Greengrass, is a war movie outraged at the war it’s portraying and the people who put us there. This is an action war film that wants so badly to send a message to not just the viewer, but to America as a whole.

The film takes place in Iraq and was filmed in Morocco, Spain and the UK. The locales are very convincing and effective. You really believe it’s Iraq. Matt Damon is Miller, a soldier in the US army in Baghdad in the year 2003, about the same time President George W. Bush announced the military forces in Iraq “have prevailed.” Miller is stuck leading a team into areas rumored to have WMDs, Weapons of Mass Destruction. The problem is, every place they inspect is empty and deserted. Miller suspects something about the intelligence, but can’t come up with a solution. So he goes to the source, and what he finds is an intricate web of deception and espionage, leading him to dead ends, loose ends and final action-packed end on the streets of Baghdad.

In 2007, I gave Paul Greengrass a “Best Director” Lauden Award (the annual awards I give every year… 2009 coming soon!) for his work on “The Bourne Ultimatum.” The work he does here is excellent as well. However it fails to show any versatility in his directing abilities. Excellent chases, cool gunfights and frantic shaky photography (love those hand-held cameras!) are becoming sort of staple with not just Greengrass, but with many other directors as well. It’s also now a very popular technique in more Straight-to-DVD titles these days. Guys, if something gets that popular, maybe it’s time for something new.

But let’s look at everything else. Brian Helgeland’s script, “inspired by” a book by journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran, is just a shade ticked off. In the film, Miller is constantly searching for an answer to who’s behind the contact codenamed “Magellan.” The film spends a little time speculating, but Helgeland’s script gives us a pretty good tip at the beginning. Matt Damon, who starred in all three Jason Bourne films (with Greengrass directing the latter two), one again gives a strong performance as the tough guy hero, but again, nothing new.

“Green Zone” looks great, is well-written and acted and never loses your interest. The message is clear and strong. But with Greengrass and Damon, we’ve been here before.

Green Zone

After discovery that the intelligence his team is relying on to find  weapons of mass destruction, Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller decides to  find more than WMD’s he wants to find the answers.
After going to multiple sights that are said to have WMD’s (weapons  of mass destruction) Chief Miller (Matt Damon) starts to question the  validity of the information that is risking his teams lives.
Miller comes across a local Iraqi named Freddy(Khalid Abdalla) who  loves his country and wants to help its liberation, he notifies Miller  that a group of high level Iraqi military leaders are having a meeting  down the street and leads miller to them. After the confrontation Miller  acquires a book that contains critical information, that both the  department of defense and CIA have interest in.
This is the third teaming up between Damon and Director Greengrass  following the last two Bourne films. Greengrass uses a similar hand held  style of filming that some will find a bit nauseating but it does give  the viewer a feeling of being embedded in the action.
Green Zone is ultimately a movie that questions the motives of going  to war and how nothing is as clear as it appears to be, it is a film  that wears its feelings about justification for war on it’s sleeve. The  most deciding factor on your enjoyment of the film isn’t the  performances but rather your politics.Grade-80

(Read Less...)

When Speaking of the Truth - What You See May Not Be What You Get

It is April 2003 in Baghdad, Iraq. Matt Damon as U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller and his men are on their second search for WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction). The place or neighborhood is called Diwanyia. Another Army unit sustained some casualties so Miller's unit could access the site. Their search is going to not turn up anything related to WMD, despite the fact that the 'intel' that Miller has been given, had come from a 'reliable and trusted' source, and had been vetted according to Miller's superiors. Soon, he will again come up without results at a place called Al Mansoor. And that’s when he begins to think about what is going on.

This is how the Paul Greengrass helmed Green Zone begins. Brian Hegleland has the screenplay credit and Rajiv Chandrasekaran is the author of the 2006 non-fiction book, Imperial Life in the Emerald City, which was the source or inspiration for the film.


While this film is a breathless action movie with all of Greengrass's Bourne-esque signature style, this is not a Bourne film. The main differences are that Bourne is a fictional character created by author Robert Ludlum, and the hunt for the weapons of mass destruction and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 really happened. And there's one more difference, in the Bourne films, his character was troubled after trying to re-establish who he was as his training (as an assassin) and his chosen occupation which was bereft of morality came more and more into focus in his head. Whereas Miller seemingly was troubled not by what he was doing but why he was doing it as more and more info came to light.


I've not read the Chandrasekaran book (I am on a short waiting list at my public library for it), nor can I say with any certainty that I followed the event closely by means of the televised news coverage of the war in the comforts of my own living room. All I can remember are terms like "shock and awe, embedded reporters", and CNN's Wolf Blitzer's talking head.

Basically this means I'm not going to discuss the film's verisimilitude. I don't think as a movie goer, I want to be concerned with how true to the Chandrasekaran book this film is, or how true the film is to the real events. This is a movie and an entertainment, not a documentary. I'll leave that to the scholars, war historians, think tanks, and others who I am sure will produce copious quantities of words on that very subject.


Meanwhile, back in the movie theater, you're going to get caught up in the story. Greengrass knows how to put an action film together. And he apparently can mix the action quite well with the elements of a political conspiracy thriller. You’re going to once again have to deal with the jittery hand-held camera technique employed by Greengrass, but I won’t call it a deal breaker. Instead, think of it as adding a touch of realism to the film. However I must say, that employing the same technique while we watch two men sitting at a table is kind of unnecessary and actually waters down the effect.


The film is basically Miller's search for the truth. There are six main characters that propel the story forward, and my main gripe with the film is that each of these characters are so very paper-thin. None of the characters are given any back story basically because they're all either composites of real people, roman-a-clefs of real people, or stock characters based on the realities. Besides that, depending on who is on screen at the time, the truth offered then, could be quite different than the truth offered moments ago. Let's have a look.



Matt Damon as C.W.O. Roy Miller: hero or rogue? Watch the film then decide for yourself. Damon does a great job in his portrayal of Miller who begins the film searching for the WMD, and then finds himself searching for the truth. Damon gives the character determination, toughness, singlemindedness, and drive. But we don't really get to know anything about him, or his family, or why he says, "...the reasons we go to war...always matter."

Greg Kinnear as Clark Poundstone: here we have the villian of the piece. You know it seems that it is always a suit placed in corridors of power that gets to wear the black hat. Think Pelican Brief, Rendition, Clear and Present Danger, and No Way Out. This time we don't get to watch the back-room dealings. Poundstone found a source, didn't like what he was told, and tossed it all aside. Instead he served up his own recipe of the truth, and leaked it out to a reporter for a well known newspaper. Kinnear can't do much with this role to improve it or mess it up. But he does succeed in having us hate him.



Amy Ryan as WSJ reporter Lawrie Dayne: There's not much to see or hear about this character. Somehow Dayne has access to Poundstone. She's given access to some of the Poundstone's synthetic sit-reps of "Magellan's" debriefing. And she's off to tell the world. In short doing Poundstone's work for him. It's not so much that she was suckered - she's just a tool in this film, and as such, Ryan's performance as Dayne is neither here nor there. And don't expect this to be an eye-candy set up like Jennifer Connelly's reporter Maddy Bowen in Blood Diamond. This Dayne character might just as well been a Larry Dayne - balding, be-spectacled, and portly.



Speaking of balding and portly, Igal Naor as General Al Rawi: This is the man called Magellan. Miller wants to bring him in, Poundstone wants to make sure Miller can't get to him. Al Rawi himself is content to bide his time, to sit out the power vaccuum created by the deposing of Saddam. He counsels his fellow Iraqis that the Americans will bring him a deal. Naor's performance as Al Rawi is riveting, and he conveys plenty of street smarts, backroom capabilities, and menace.


Khalid Abdalla as Freddy: Here is the Iraqi everyman who wants to help himself, his country, and his people. To do so, he passes on some important intel to Miller, and becomes his de facto translator. Abdalla's portrayal of Freddy is searing, and indelible. In fact he has the single most important line in the whole movie: "It is not for you to decide [the future of our country]".

Brian Gleeson as Martin Brown: Gleeson's turn as the CIA Chef de Mission - Baghdad is also memorable. For once, the CIA character is a good guy. He might be playing Miller for his own ends, which are clearly to have things his way rather than Poundstone's way, but Gleeson is very effective. And he too has a quotable line. When Miller asks Brown, "Aren't we all on the same side?", Brown's response is "Don't be naive!"


So those are the thumbnail sketches of the film's main players. As I said above, they're all rather sketchy and light weight. Maybe a food metaphor can best describe the movie. When Greengrass and Helgeland toss the actors and their roles into the mixing bowl, the result is a tasty croissant of a movie, you know - a delicous crusty flavor, but truly lacking in substance. Still if this is what you get, it will never be confused with an overcooked or over-stuffed turkey. 

Recommendations: Chak De! India

Last updated: 2010-03-13 21:36:26 by JustMeMike

Green Zone: Movie Review

The 2003 invasion of Iraq is a very touchy and controversial topic until now. The Americans attacked Iraq on three key topics, one is to dethrone its dictator Saddam Hussein, to free the people of Iraq and most importantly, to stop and disarm the development of WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction). Sadly, no WMDs were ever found. Some say that the U.S. made a basis for the attack not to stop Saddam or free the people of Iraq but to actually get something for themselves. Now, we are not conspiracists but something really smells fishy with the attack. "Green Zone" tries to put a fictional backbone into the factual events in Iraq. Read on to find out if the story is real enough to make you think. 
/</gispan style="display: inline;"/>/gi
Roy Miller (Matt Damon) and his team are tasked to find WMDs during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Roy starts to question the Army's intel reports when for the third straight time, the place located was a complete dud. When Roy voices out his concern about the inaccurate reports during a mission briefing, he is approached by a CIA agent Martin Brown (Brendan Gleeson) and tells him that he is right about his suspicion. Roy is approached by an Iraqi man named Freddy (Khalid Abdalla) and tells him that there is a suspicious meeting on-going at a nearby house. Roy decides to take a risk on Freddy and when they arrived at the house, they discover that the meeting was attended by General Al Rawi (Yigal Naor) - the man who was leading the WMD program of the Iraqi military. Now, Roy must find a way to locate Al Rawi and discover the truth on where the WMDs are. 

"Green Zone" gave us deja vu all over. It was so reminiscent of the Bourne films that we could have seen this as a fourth film in the series. Now this could be bad and be good at the same time - it depends if you hated or liked the Bourne series. The problem with "Green Zone" is that it did not bring anything new into the table. Yes, the story was interesting and it was successful in mixing the real facts with fiction but it had cliche` written all over it. It also did not help that the secondary characters were not developed at all. If you ask us, we just couldn't see the importance of most secondary characters in the overall story. Now if you hate the shaky cam phenomenon then you must simply avoid "Green Zone". This movie just decided that the camera should shake every single second - even on parts where there were no action at all. Bad decision making there right? Overall though, "Green Zone" is still interesting and most people would find it okay, just okay.

Rating: 3 reels 






Why you should watch it: 
- thrilling movie very reminiscent of the Bourne films 
- the story is believable and would make you think if this is what really happened 
- Matt Damon was awesome 

Why you shouldn't watch it: 
- even though the story was believable, it was too cliche` for our tastes 
- secondary characters just went in and out from time to time which makes them really dull, flat and senseless 
- the camera was very unstable even outside the action sequences 

 source: http://www.reeladvice.net/2010/03/green-zone-movie-review.html</span>

(Read Less...)

Recommendations:

Green Light For Green Zone

Green Zone is the latest Iraq War inspired motion picture. I wasn't expecting much and ended up being pleasantly surprised. It's a fast paced and riveting ride from the get-go. The war being fought in the film is more between the Pentagon and the CIA than the US v Iraq which makes it all the more interesting and the film allows you to see things from Iraq's perspective for a change. The premise set up in the film regarding the 'Intelligence' regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction used to justify the invasion is entirely believable. Matt Damon is well suited to his part as a unit leader Roy Miller, as is Brendan Gleeson as the CIA man and Greg Kinnear is refreshingly nasty as Poundstone from the Pentagon - all turn in good performances. Shot on location in Morocco, Spain and in England I could have sworn we were in Bagdad the whole time - settings are very convincing. Yes, there is too much hand- held camera movement that quickly brought on discomfort followed by a headache but that is my only negative and as the film doesn't outstay its welcome I'm willing to concede the shakiness probably lends an 'embedded' realism. Is any of the plot or characters based on real events or people? I have no idea other than learning the film is based on the 2006 non-fiction book 'Imperial Life in the Emerald City' by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, a journalist for The Washington Post. I haven't read the book so I can't comment on how closely the film follows it. I spent a few moments of the film wondering about the story's authenticity but as a piece of cinema entertainment in its own right Green Zone gets the green light from me.

Vincent Snavely