Green Zone (2010)

In 'Green Zone,' the 'Bourne' action blockbuster team (led by Paul Greengrass and his star Matt Damon) goes to Iraq, or rather to a facsimile staged in Spain and Morocco, switching from a super-assassin's identity crisis to contemporary political and military history.

It seemed like this might be the great Iraq movie Americans haven't had, a blockbuster as exciting and real-feeling as Bigelow's Oscar-winning 'Hurt Locker,' but with real political context. 'Locker' is a superb battlefield action movie but it doesn't delve into the larger issues -- and, lacking a big name star, hasn't been seen by very many people, at least for a movie that won the Oscar for Best Picture. More analytical and contextual Iraq war movies like 'Lions for Lambs,' 'In the Valley of Eli,' 'The Messenger' or 'Rendition,' on the other hand, have been too small, anemic, and downbeat to be big box office. If anybody could turn this around and make an Iraq film that's both exciting and a think piece, the 'Bourne' guys could, right? Unfortunately, no, though the 'Bourne' team's involvement means 'Green Zone' will substantially outperform 'Hurt Locker' at the box office, and they have made an action movie that's boldly political, however deeply flawed. Let's bear in mind that the 'Bourne' movies are smart, but they're fantasy. Dealing with historical events is is a different kind of project.

The focus of 'Green Zone' is on the early stages of the 2003 US Iraq invasion. The writer, Brian Helgelund ('L.A. Confidential,' 'Mystic River') is trying to get across the information in Rajiv Chandrasekaran's non-fiction 'Imperial Life in the Emerald City' while telling an action tale that follows an investigating tough guy played by Damon. As described in the documentary 'No End in Sight,' the US authorities made a number of crucial mistakes in the run-up to the war and how the occupation was run. Helgelund gets all this across, but the result is a mash-up that lacks credibility or logic.

First US mistake: the key pretext for the invasion, Saddam Hussein's possession of "weapons of mass destruction" (or "WMD's"), proved illusory; no such weapons were found in locations where an Iraqi "credible source" said they were hidden. Matt Damon plays Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, who heads a squad charged with checking out places where US "intel" says there are WMD's stored. He points out the intel is bad, and soon finds out his opinion is not wanted by the higher ups, represented by Poundstone (Greg Kinnear), a Bush official who arrives with Ahmed Zubaidi (Raad Rawi) -- a stand-in for the actual Ahmad Chalabi, the US puppet the Bush administration foolishly thought could be put in to head a new government (another mistake). 'Green Zone' shows in a scene how spectacularly this fails.

Second, the allied forces did not prevent widespread looting or maintain the infrastructure. Chaos reigned in Baghdad and eventually the rest of Iraq and the invaders lost the "hearts and minds" of Iraqis, who were enraged at being deprived of safety, food, water, and a steady power supply. This is when Donald Rumsfeld uttered his line "Stuff happens." There's no Rumsfeld stand-in here, but the line "democracy is messy" occurs.

Third, the provisional authority chose to dismantle the

Fmovies: 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 remi

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

Green Zone fmovies. I always find it slightly comical when people complain of hand-held camera-work. It reminds me of an old woman hearing The Chemical Brothers and wincing in pain – "They don't really call that music do they?" Personally, my eyes have been able to follow a moving object ever since I was a child. I have no problem with a hand-held camera.

As for the movie, 'Green Zone' is an excellent action thriller about a US Army Warrant Officer investigating the shady reasons why the military intelligence being fed to the Iraq Survey Group is failing to uncover weapons of mass destruction in post-invasion Baghdad. Much of the ensuing shenanigans are inspired by the findings of both the Iraq Intelligence Commission Report and the UK's Butler Review, which in 2004 found that pre-war intelligence had been highly suspect.

I say 'inspired' because 'Green Zone' is fiction—unless I blinked and missed it, there's no opening title card claiming "based on a true story". Conservatives, so often unable to discern fact from fiction, will view the film as a piece of docudrama reportage and find it deeply flawed, as it would be if it purported to be such a thing. The rest of us will recognize that Greengrass has crafted an excellent conspiracy thriller that simply uses the controversial politics of post-war Iraq as background color, and does so very well. As is to be expected from a director who, at this point in his career, can do this stuff in his sleep, the action sequences are brilliantly choreographed, the tension masterfully built, and the characters multi-layered. The cinematography that others have called "ugly" I found added a sense of realism, particularly in the grainy night scenes. My only complaint is a couple of instances in which Iraqi characters begin spouting embarrassing soap-box polemic. It isn't that such thoughts are out of character, just the way they are expressed; the dialogue being too obvious and cheesy. Thankfully, such moments can be counted in seconds rather than minutes. What's so impressive about 'Green Zone' is the seemingly authentic locations. It really does look as though it were filmed in Baghdad. Instead, it was shot on location in England and Spain. A production designer hasn't worked such magic since 'Full Metal Jacket' converted a London parking lot into the battlefields of Vietnam.

'Green Zone' is an excellent movie that will be thoroughly enjoyed by fans of political conspiracy thrillers. It isn't presented as factual, and only fools would look to a movie for facts. For facts, read books or, better yet, read the Iraq Intelligence Commission Report and the Butler Review. But don't blame Paul Greengrass for your laziness and stupidity in mistaking his excellent movie for a representation of 'truth'.

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...

The Green Zone is that rarest of films—a well-written, rousing action thriller with a political conscience that perceptively deconstructs the idiocy of war. From the very first scene, the action grabs you and throttles you for the ensuing two hours—although the story is fairly complex, the exposition is handled deftly, and—despite the constantly jolting camera work—it's pretty easy to follow along with what's happening. Matt Damon delivers a strong performance as an Army Warrant Officer who truly cares about the justifications for his actions—he has no problem being a good soldier, as long as he knows that there are clear moral reasons behind what he's been ordered to do. Unfortunately, during the early days of the Iraq War, clear moral reasons were in very short supply, and Damon's character battles an array of competing military and political agendas as he searches for the truth behind the military's search for the ever-elusive Weapons of Mass Destruction rumored to be hidden in Iraq. This film is so well done, and Damon is so good in it, that I'm starting to consider the Greengrass/Damon tandem on a par with the Scorsese/DeNiro and Scorsese/DiCaprio pairings. Damon's best work (the last two Bourne films and this one) has come with Greengrass at the helm—here's to hoping they make many more fine films together.