Green Zone

Feel like seeing an action flick, watching bodies fly everywhere, and good guys kill bad guys? Do not see this movie.

Green Zone was a very surprising experience for me. I was on the way to the cinema expecting, as several posters quoted, 'Born goes epic'. Instead, I got a nice combination of politics, moral dilemmas, and maybe even some very light philosophy.

The film takes a popular, but still a controversial & for many people shameful, view on the Iraq war. The plot is complex but relatively easy to follow thanks to a(sometimes too) straight-forward set up, good directing, and sensible scene sequences. The plot does not bring you any traditional action flick twists and rarely pushes you to the edge of the seat, but makes up for it by making you think about some of the more real and worrying aspects of war and politics. The characters could have used some more development and dynamic, but on the bright side it was nice to not have every single thing rotate around Bourne. On the contrary, throughout the whole movie the focus was on a wider picture rather than on any of the more specific details in the story itself. It was nice to see the lines between bad & good drawn in such a blurry manner. I was confused and indecisive in labelling characters as on the goody or the baddie side. The plot had an interesting ending, slightly ruined by a cheesy line from one of the characters, but brilliantly made up for by a fantastic scene of Baghdad at night. I found that whilst the epilogue of the movie was needed to explain consequences, something like a few sentences appearing on a black screen would have finished the movie in a much nicer mood than that in which it finished in reality. The plot took up an intellectual viewpoint on the Iraq war and gave me something to think about on the subject of both the Iraq war and the idea of war in general. This was something that you rarely see in movies like this, and made the movie the enjoyable experience that it is.

The directing & cinematography in the movie were nothing special. Several style ideas were re-used from the Bourne movies, and action was not always as gripping as one might want, or at least expect. However, it was never bad either - all sequences kept a consistent standard of dialogue, special effects, and the little action that there was.

The acting in the movie was one of the few things that I expected. Matt Damon delivered his usual performance: a cool, in-control soldier committed to get to the bottom of things. The supporting actors all delivered their parts well enough, with Greg Kinnear holding his usual cunning, conniving, corrupt, money-thirsty politician role. However, because, as mentioned before, the film focused on a wider picture, the acting did not put me off the movie in any way whatsoever. The one other thing which the movie lacked almost entirely throughout was humour. It's always nice to get a giggle in between moral implications and people dying all over the place.

I have given the movie 7 out of 10 in total, with seven points for wider plot depth, intellectual aspects, directing & cinematography, CGI & special effects, and the last three points deduced for acting, immediate plot depth, action sequences, and humour, or rather the lack of it. It's a pleasant and original surprise, and something that will make you think after leaving the cinema.

MK

British director Paul Grengrass + American actor Matt Damon = "The Bourne Supremacy", "The Bourne Ultimatum" and now "Green Zone", so we know what to expect here - and we're not disappointed. From the opening seconds, we're into the action with the trademark Greengrass 'in the action' frenetic camera-work and sharp editing. Although the film is said to be inspired by the non-fiction book "Imperial Life In The Emerald City" by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, a journalist for The Washington Post, the conspiratorial storyline is the invention of Greengrass who developed the original script.

If the tension isn't as excruciating at that other Iraq movie "The Hurt Locker", at least "Green Zone" has a narrative and poses some questions, hard questions that many American viewers would probably were rather not aired: what was the source of the 'intelligence' that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction? why was the source so readily believed when the evidence was so thin? could the bloody insurgency which followed the relatively easy initial occupation have been avoided if the Americans had been willing to work with elements of the Iraqi army?

See the movie and think about the issues. As a central Iraqi character puts it: "It's not up to you to determine what happens in this country."

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.

This movie is not a sequel to Bourne flicks. It is more in the spirit of Costa-Gravas or Oliver Stone. MET Alpha is Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha. The 85th XTF is the 75th Exploitation Task Force. CWO Miller is CWO Gonzalez. The reporter is, of course, Judith Miller, the New York Times (not WSJ) reporter who sold out to the Bush administration to get bylines. She used her position as shill for Rummy to keep MET Alpha in Baghdad, chasing their tails while American soldiers died trying to find non-existent WMD, for the sole purpose of backing up Bush's lies. Miller's folio is full of information from Curveball (Magellan). The CIA, who knew Curveball was a liar, was also warning Miller. A perpetually smiling Ahmad Chalabi keeps popping up. He is no doubt thinking how fine it is for the US Army to hand him an entire country along with a treasury of several hundred million dollars.

Miller is angry because he knows his intelligence is bogus, the CIA has told him that much, even though the Army vouches for it, and tells Miller to shut up and follow orders.

The Pentagon puke tries to bribe Miller with a job if he plays along, and offers a veiled threat if he doesn't.

The movie is history, and not a simple action adventure flick. It follows actual events very closely. Knowing the facts makes the movie much more fascinating.

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...