A Batalha por Haditha

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.

It's almost impossible to be totally objective regarding a subject about which one is truly passionate. The war in Iraq is a subject that divides people like no other in recent times. As with any conflict, the war in Iraq has its supporters and its detractors. There is no middle ground. There are no grey areas: everything is just black or white. Either you believe it's a justifiable war, or you don't. This brings me to Nick Broomfield's new film, "The Battle For Haditha". The subject of the film is controversial as it deals with an incident in the city of Haditha, allegedly involving the US Marines. Broomfield uses actors, some of whom are former US Marines and Iraq veterans, as well as Iraqi refugees, to fashion a film that successfully straddles the gap between a regular documentary and a straightforward feature film. The film encompasses three points of view: those of the Marines, the insurgents, and the families who lived near where the roadside bomb detonated. This film is a fictionalised account of what actually happened at Haditha. It shows quite graphically, the horrors of war and what the Americans as well as innocent Iraqis have to go through almost on a daily basis. There are deaths on both sides, but it's Iraqi civilians who are caught in the crossfire and who have to bear the brunt of dealing with men who have been stretched to breaking point. The film in no way condones the actions of either the insurgents or the Marines. It just shows the audience what might have occurred on that fateful day, and it's for those in the audience to make up their own minds as to who was in the right and who was in the wrong. When reading some of the comments posted on the message board for this film, I find it somewhat puzzling that some contributors write that "Battle For Haditha" is anti-American. Just because the US Marines are shown in a less than sympathetic light in this film, does not mean the film is on the side of the insurgents. What the film does demonstrate is how quickly things can get out of hand, in a situation such as that in Haditha. By all means criticize a film on its merits, or lack of them. Please, though, do not label this film as un-American just because it doesn't fit a blinkered view of the way the world is.

Made me cry.

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.

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.

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.