Battle for Haditha

I saw this film at it's London premiere at the Odeon West End as part of the London Film Festival.

I guess Nick Broomfield was getting sick & tired of seeing Michael Moore ripping off his Documentary style so made this his Second feature film in as many years. Like the earlier film, Ghosts (www.imdb.com/title/tt0872202/), the Battle for Haditha is based on fact.

The film tells story of the events of November 19, 2005, when a troop of US Marines exact revenge for an earlier attack which killed one of their number in the Iraqi town of Haditha.

The Film focuses on three different viewpoints, the first of Iraqi insurgents, which in this case isn't some mad Mullah but an old man, who we learn is an ex-Army officer and his son. The second focuses on a Corporal Ruiz, a young Marine who you feel wants to be anywhere but Iraqi and the finally the film focuses on a young Iraqi couple and their extended family.

The film is shot Cinéma-vérité style and at times is very harrowing. But it's to Broomfields credit that he to my mind he doesn't simply demonize the US soldiers. Instead you get to understand how young men put in a situation that you the viewer couldn't understand let alone cope with, could just lose it after a comrade is killed. Likewise, in the films portrayal of the insurgent fighters Broomfield manages to make you think what would you do, if, as in the film, your a professional soldier made jobless by a an Occupying force. How do you feed your family, and wouldn't you feel some resentment to the occupation forces for making you jobless. But it's in the Iraqi families, caught between the US forces and the Insurgents that the film is at it's best. They can't do the right thing for doing wrong. It is they who bear the brunt of either Insurgency retaliation or US Forces heavy-handedness. They who ultimately will and are the losers in Film.

This is a powerful film which deals with all aspects of the problem fair mindedly, but doesn't shy away from the truth. Don't let those who haven't watched the film put you off seeing the best portrayal of the War on Terror to date.

Black Narcissus

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=14198203

i personally never heard of Mr. Bloomfield, so i had no real intention of watching this film till i saw it mentioned in the message boards for other films. that said, i must say this was the best in the recent slew of Iraq war films (like Redacted, Home of the Brave, etc.) i half expected it to be like Redacted and was pleasantly surprised to find it much better. i think it really brought out the fact that there are multiple sides to a story, and did so without too much bias. being a Muslim myself i must admit that it seemed a little inclined towards Iraqis, with Marines portrayed as undisciplined and emotionless (though one of the protagonists feels guilt and in reality this incident caused an uproar). there are no A-list actors, which in a sense, actually made the movie better because you almost see the actors as the characters themselves (especially since a lot of the dialog is improvised). i think it was well made, and well thought out. better than expected. i wonder what the US reaction would if/when it has a release there? unlike Moore's work (as stated by another user here) neither party is shown as completely innocent or completely evil. i'm not sure if this is exactly how the incident took place, but if it is, then there is certainly some food for thought in this movie.

I just saw this movie at the Toronto Film Festival, and it's going to create much controversy as the weeks pass until this film finally opens. I think those who are against a movie before they even see it are saying something about themselves, not the film. Watch it, and then make up your mind. This movie, like United 93 or Bloody Sunday, is told moment to moment, keeps it's head down and just moves forward without judgment or commentary. The movie isn't aware of the past or future, it only knows what it knows through the characters we follow, some of whom are American soldiers, some are innocent Iraqi families, others are terrorists. This movie does a wise thing by simply showing things from all points of view. I can't wait until it's released because it needs to be talked about.

At the premiere for the film, we learn that many of the actors on the American front are actually soldiers who fought in Iraq. The head of the platoon is especially good, and could go on and have a career as an actor.

After reading through some of the reviews I felt I had to chime in, though I am sure almost no one will read this. Before I give my observations on the movie itself I would just like to point out that many who stated this movie was an accurate portrayal clearly has no experience or expertise that would qualify them to make the statement. Something I hope people keep in mind when reading other reviews. As a Marine who actually served in Haditha as well as many other locations, reading many of the reviews sickened me because it shows how little people actually understand, just as I usually wear a long sleeved shirt because my USMC tattoo brings on questions, praise, or derision from the clueless masses who for some reason believe they have some insight to any reality outside their own convenient world.

That said, I feel this movie is much better then most. The film clearly had an agenda and bias, and completely off the mark in terms of representing military tactics, equipment, etc... that is pretty much standard for any movie. I appreciated how the movie wasn't overly dramatic when showing issues faced by and actions of the various parties. One thing I wish the movie did take in to account is bullets pass through those walls like paper. I would wager that a large number of civilians were killed simply during an exchange of fire between the Marines, fighters, and then civilians who may have just seen a loved one fall. I have seen this happen often and I hope one day that reality is brought to light rather then showing young Marines on a blind rampage. However, no one knows exactly what happened except those who were there, and even that "reality or truth" depends on the perspective and state of mind of the observer.

Another positive is how the movie doesn't really show any right or wrong, good or bad, that things just are and "sh!t happens". If anything, I do think that is the true agenda of the movie even if there was a bias in its portrayal. Also, I appreciated the use of Iraqi dialect of Arabic instead of modern standard, Egyptian, Syrian, etc. Another accuracy plus was how close the town/city looked compared to cities of the region. Though clearly not Haditha, I have not seen any movie closer to the truth in that regard.

On a personal note, I think many of the comments made by Cpl Ramirez were spot on if a bit staged. I am not going to comment on any particular comment because you either understand or you don't. Also, and I know this is a bit of a stretch, but I refuse to give credibility to any one who may seek to either attack or defend (verbally) our war fighters because context is everything and the most people don't have or understand the context.

I recommend this movie to anyone who is able to take if for what it is worth by dropping the expectation of realism while not adding meaning where there is not. Also, I hope people realize that no matter how many actual Marine veterans or Iraqi's (most westernized), the film is a product of the film maker and subject to their interpretation. I only wish I could have had my say about the movie sooner, if only to plant the seed that people should take this movie, and the other reviews including mine, with a grain of salt.

I'm afraid I can't agree with all the gushing praise being heaped onto this film. It really didn't cut it for me. The way the story was presented made it unbelievable and for a war film there were way too many technical errors to believe the director even consulted the military before or during filming. On top of this, the suddenness of the atrocity which I assume was the core of the film, beggars belief.

I won't list all of the technical errors I spotted because after a career in the military which spans more than 40 years and three major conflicts I spotted quite a lot. But the following were the most obvious and, for all serving and former military personnel, quite laughable: The casual way the soldiers patrolled both in vehicles and on foot, the .50 Cal machine guns that are never loaded, the extras who appear at the IED site with weapons but no webbing, the Humvees parked in nice little rows along the side of the road with no protection, armour or weapons. And as for anyone standing directly in front of a metal gate and firing a burst into the lock in order to gain entrance, well if he hadn't shot himself or his team with ricochets the first time he did it he certainly would have on subsequent occasions.

I assume these were errors because if they reflect the current tactics and drills of the US Marines then the quality has really deteriorated seriously since I served alongside them in Vietnam.

I can't fault the acting and I think this is the only thing which saves this film. However, the continuity and story left a lot to be desired. For example, in the film Ramirez didn't order the executions - he ordered his teams to clear the houses which is a normal action when in contact with insurgents. The marines took it upon themselves to throw grenades and fire indiscriminately into the rooms. That is what the film showed. But if he did order the massacre then the things he'd been through must have been progressively leading him to this time and place, but we don't see any of that in the film beyond a short dialogue about him having frightening dreams. So the big question that we are left with is why did he allegedly give the orders which, as I said, it isn't really all that clear in the film that he did so? Why were all of the NCOs charged with murder? Where was the investigation?

I thought it was a good idea to include their perspective but the dialogue amongst the civilians was almost too much to bear. I know the film was unscripted but they must have been instructed to say whatever they want but make sure it makes American audiences feel that their presence in Iraq is welcomed, albeit an unnecessary evil that the civilians must put up with. But did they have to be so effusive about it?

And as for the men who planted the IED and fired the first shots on the troops - why should they have an excuse for doing so that would gel with western audiences? Why couldn't they do it, for example, just because they wanted to hurt the occupying forces? But they, like the Americans, were 'just following orders' weren't they? They, like the solders, were pawns in a game being played out by loonies with power but no intention of doing the dirty work themselves. But we need these kind of explanations don't we so that we don't leave the cinema wondering why things happen. But not everything has a tangible and logical reason. We had a wonderful saying in Vietnam - s**t happens so just get over it and move on. Why couldn't the insurgents have, as their reason for planting the IED and firing on the troops, that they are who they are and we are who we are and that is there is to it? It seems to work so well for other mujahadeen.

I know that this film is based on actual events but I'm afraid that the whole thing was trivialised by poor script (well, there was none and this shows), poor casting (am I the only one who noticed a likeness between the marine captain and the imam?), poor technical direction, and poor directing.

Sorry - a big thumbs down from me.