Battle for Haditha
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueAn investigation of the massacre of 24 men, women and children in Haditha, Iraq allegedly shot by 4 U.S. Marines in retaliation for the death of a U.S. Marine killed by a roadside bomb. The ... Tout lireAn investigation of the massacre of 24 men, women and children in Haditha, Iraq allegedly shot by 4 U.S. Marines in retaliation for the death of a U.S. Marine killed by a roadside bomb. The movie follows the story of the Marines of Kilo Company, an Iraqi family, and the insurgent... Tout lireAn investigation of the massacre of 24 men, women and children in Haditha, Iraq allegedly shot by 4 U.S. Marines in retaliation for the death of a U.S. Marine killed by a roadside bomb. The movie follows the story of the Marines of Kilo Company, an Iraqi family, and the insurgents who plant the roadside bomb.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 3 victoires au total
- Cpl. Matthews
- (as Matthew R. Knoll)
- Doc
- (as Thomas Hennessy Jr.)
- Iraqi Translator
- (as Ali Adil Aj-kaa)
- Ahmad
- (as Falah Flayeh)
Avis à la une
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
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 think it's important to point out that 12 of the actors, including Ruiz, who plays Corporal Ramirez, are themselves Iraq veterans. Here are some quotes from Ramirez: "I was 17 when I was sent to Iraq, during the initial invasion. We pushed all the way up to Tikrit and I ended up being wounded, I almost lost my life. It's crazy, people don't know the type of things that we go through. That's what I like about the film, it shows that." The concept of taking Iraq refugees and ex-marines to make a movie with no script is brilliant. I felt the improvisation from these actors was likely better and more realistic than anything professional actors could have pulled off. I was also impressed with the production values, especially since no US funds were available for a fair and honest portrayal of such events.
Only issues I noticed are: That the translation of the spoken Arabic is sometimes misleading and has no relation with what they actually said.
Some of the actors' accents are not Iraqi (Palestian, Egyptian, and others...), but most are Iraqis.
It's still a great movie that shows what happens in Iraq, and that war is ugly.
It's one of the rare movies that show the issue from the other side.
The acting is great, so is the scenery (it does look a lot like Iraq).
I say it again, it made me cry, a lot.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe film was shot in an unconventional way whereas instead of a detailed script, there was only an outline of each scene and where the story was going. Actors would then improvise much of the dialogue based on director Nick Broomfield's instructions.
- GaffesAll of the Iraqi Army soldiers in the film are seen wearing the "three-color" DCU uniform, although in the time period that the movie takes place in (late 2005), the Iraqi military wore the "chocolate-chip" DBDU uniform.
- ConnexionsReferences Breaking News (2004)
Meilleurs choix
- How long is Battle for Haditha?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 10 310 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 1 982 $US
- 11 mai 2008
- Montant brut mondial
- 245 521 $US
- Durée1 heure 37 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1