La ciudad de las tormentas

One of the common threads linking films about the Iraq war is a sense of deep ambiguity about it's morality and purpose. "Green Zone" is no exception. Matt Damon skilfully portrays Roy Miller, an Army Warrant Officer whose unit is tasked with searching suspected WMD facilities for proof of the existence of Iraqi chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons. A chance encounter with a sympathetic Iraqi civilian puts Miller on the trail of an Iraqi general who could provide him with the evidence that he needs. However, the Pentagon, the recently deposed Baathists, and the CIA all have different agendas for Iraq's future and Miller finds himself being used by players from all sides.

This is a tautly paced, engrossing thriller that inhabits a moral world where all colors are shades of gray. The cast are excellent and the direction is top-notch. Particularly noteworthy is the realistic and sympathetic depiction of the Iraqi characters, irrespective of their allegiances. There is no shortage of action and the plot keeps you guessing until the credits roll. Along with "The Hurt Locker" this is one of the best films about the Iraq war and a brilliant night out to boot.

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.

Green Zone is a film that deafly navigates the possibly disastrous path of action saturation, creative liberties and touchy subject matter. Matt Damon's and director Paul Greengrass' third effort after The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum tells the fictionalized but accurate account of the span following the opening siege of Iraq, where the supposed WMD program of Saddam Hussein failed to unveil itself. Green Zone will keep those looking for a sharp action-war film entertained and enrapture those interested in the politically charged events of the war without alienating either group.

This may not be the hard hitting expose for which some may be yearning, but it is all we could hope for in a mainstream Hollywood product. Greengrass is certainly no stranger to the events surrounding Iraq, having already helmed the highly touted United 93 which tells the story of one of the doomed planes on September 11th of 2001. His obvious passion for the subject gives Green Zone the gravitas and grounding a film like this needs and with the exception of multi-Oscar winner The Hurt Locker and Ridley Scott's Middle Eastern thriller Body of Lies this is the strongest of the growing glut of such movies.

Damon stars as Roy Miller, a chief warrant officer who is at the forefront for the search of WMD sites, all of which were gathered from a mysterious source known only as 'Magellan'. When site after site turns up empty, Miller begins to ask questions that high ranking officials do not want asked. With seemingly his only friend in all this, Marin Brown (Brendan Gleeson) a veteran CIA operative, and an Iraqi interpreter named Freddy, Miller goes rogue to uncover the truth. Standing in his way are the remaining loyal insurgents, a Whitehouse bureaucrat named Poundstone (Greg Kinnear) who wants to keep things on track and his asset on the ground who is tasked with stopping Miller's inquiries.

Matt Damon is extremely solid here. He has no weepy dramatic scenes or big blow-ups through which to act showy. He is very believable and low key and is an infinitely charismatic and commanding presence on screen. Kinnear is also quite good as the slimy suit that stands in the way of our hero and the lesser know supporting cast all drive home noteworthy performances as well. Much has been said about Greengrass' hand-held camera technique which seems to leave some on the nauseous side. I have however, come up with a theory in light of all the critics starting to get on my nerves and actually managing to turn my attention to the so called shaky cam, which has never before bothered me.

Take for example film critic James Berardinelli who seems to be on the line when it comes to that style of shooting. For the latter two Bourne films, he made ample criticism of the shaky cam and it would seem that his overall consensus reflected such. For Green Zone he claimed the vibration was far more restrained, which is in contrast to most other critics who claimed it was the worst yet. My theory? One's perception of the film is not due to the camera movement, but rather the inverse. Depending on how engrossed a person is with the material, performances etc that is how watchable they perceive the film to be. So in the case of Berardinelli, the camera movement was likely fairly similar, but he found Green Zone's material simply better.

Cinematography aside, Green Zone is a rousing action film with a spectacular climax. Not only will it keep you entertained on a Friday night, but it will serve as a reminder of what happened in Iraq every time you press play.

Read all my reviews at simonsaysmovies.blogspot.com

Green Zone is a movie about a soldier, leader of the team hunting for WMDs in Iraq, tries to step over the official army bullshit line and the red tape and actually achieve something. He gets a lucky break in finding a lead on general Al Rawi (the Jack of clubs in the famous Iraqi card deck) and stumbles upon a secret that explain not only why there are no WMDs, but also why (or better said how) the Americans came to enter the war.

As a movie it is a neat action film. A slightly less physical Bourne in Iraq, but with a political edge. It features shootings, helicopters, drama, conspiracies, evil suits, mislead Americans (represented, of course, by a journalist) lots of people speaking Arabic for no good reason other than they are Iraqi and lots of cramped alleyways.

There was a controversy about how the movie seems to reflect upon a real story. The real-life Roy Miller (actually Richard Gonzales, but shh, Miller sounds better), who also worked as a consultant for the movie, has issued a statement in which he clearly states the plot is a fantasy. I like how he ends the statement: "The real story of the hunt for WMD is, in fact, more interesting. Maybe one day, someone will want to tell that story.". A bit sad and a bit hopeful. Maybe History Channel will pick up on it in a few decades, when the heat is off ;)

Bottom line: well done action thriller, better than most, but then I like Matt Damon as an actor, so maybe I am biased. Certainly above average.

I saw trailers for this movie on t.v (in Australia)...it seemed to be an action hero type movie...I actually wondered if this was the new "Bourne" movie for Matt Damon! Perhaps this promotional approach was due to a recent run of movies critical of the US in the current Iraq war being box-office misses. Anyway, I was prepared to watch the movie based on the trailers, but had second thoughts when the nature of the movie was mentioned on a movie review show on TV here in Australia. That nature concerned the movie venturing into the rationale of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

So, taking a punt, I saw the movie armed with this new information. It's actually good...not depressing like movies with this type of theme can be. Not sure how much reality there is to it...it seems to cover the bases on the reasons given as to why the US invaded Iraq and the underlying reality on the ground.

What's particularly interesting is how the Pentagon and the C.I.A. are depicted. No doubt there are numerous American movies where both organisations are depicted as suspect or evil. Here, one organisation comes off as acting in good faith and acting morally. Don't know enough about the war to say for certain if any US organisation can claim to have acted ethically, but this dichotomy is illuminating for the factoids it throws at the audience.

If the movie does have a lot factual truth to it, then some of the events in it are truly disturbing...e.g. how the U.S. deals with people who may be able to disprove the official government line on the reasons for the war. Maybe this is just artistic license, or perhaps it's real politic as far as the U.S. goes...and anyone who has read Noam Chomsky knows that the U.S. goes all the way.

I'm reminded of General Colin Powell's hand-on-the-heart moment in the U.N. where he showed satellite photos of vehicles and swore that these were mobile weapons of mass destruction delivery vehicles. Turns out that they were milk trucks...like the Iraqis said they were. It's this 'evidence' which convinced a reluctant U.N. to take the US' assertions as true and to authorise the invasion of Iraq. This movie's trailer is like General Colin Powell's moment of infamy...the trailer bears no relation to what you actually see. But it's more compelling than what the general's photo turned out to be.

Matt Damon (as Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller) makes for a good lantern-jaw type hero...if such a figure actually exists, you'd think they would have have been run out of the ranks for not towing the official line. Anyway, the movie is about Miller's role in finding those elusive weapons of mass destruction that President Bush assured us were there. When he doesn't have much luck finding them, he wants to find out why...