Customer Reviews

Green Zone

5 star:		(58)
4 star:		(44)
3 star:		(25)
2 star:		(24)
1 star:		(49)

 

 

When the credits rolled this afternoon, a gentlemen sitting behind me had to take a deep breath. "Man, I'm just worn out from watching the movie." I agreed with him.

This movie has all the excitement of the Jason Bourne series: hot action scenes, great sound editing, a tight script, a stellar soundtrack and excellent acting by everyone in the film, and I mean everyone!

But I couldn't handle all the camera shakes. In fact, half the movie is like this. I understand Hollywood is lately using hand-carried, un-dollyed camera techniques to create the sense of chaos and panic in a film, but this was just too much. It was like being on a roller coaster ride with the scene moving violently and not you. I regretted eating that pack of Skittles just before the film started. When I got home, I simply had to lie down for an hour.

It's a shame because the story is brilliant, and I love Matt Damon's strong acting style. If you're a fan of the Jason Bourne films, this is right up your alley, but you might want to bring a vomit bag with you. Then again...maybe not.

I was puzzled why Green Zone didn't do so well at the Box Office on its opening weekend; now, I understand why. It's not the film...it's the filming.

Wonderful, wonderful story, but it's just nauseating to watch...literally. Too bad.

I'm glad the movie wasn't in 3D. I wouldn't be able to handle it.

3.8 stars

Look at the comments and reviews for Hurt Locker here; there are dozens of soldiers pointing out how unreal so much of that film is, and how a real soldier wouldn't do much of what that film shows. Now look at the reviews and comments for Green Zone. I see exactly one soldier who thought it was unrealistic...and then only in how Damon's character steps over the political line of not doing what he's ordered to.

Almost all the soldiers in the film were in Iraq, and they made the decisions on the set about how the battle and other army scenes went. The head consultant, Monty Gonzales, was the guy who did in Iraq what Damon does here: look for WMDs. And for those who call this movie propaganda, he says on the extra doc here that he knew there were no WMDs after his first mission looking for them; Damon takes three missions to decide. So is that real-life soldier a liberal Hollywood propaganda plant? I don't think so.

Looking at this film purely technically, it's got one huge flaw: the hand-held cams are way too shaky. That makes it hard to watch with enjoyment at times. I'm pretty tired of handheld=real; that equation's over and done with by now. Let it go, directors. A spice, yes; a main dish, no. Here it just distracts and detracts.

Damon is pretty good, and the soldiers all said in interviews that they believed him as their chief after two days, so they'd know best. The film feels real, no doubt, and it's a good (not great) thriller, political considerations aside. If you're looking for a war movie, this is a decent one. But avoid the blu-ray; the movie was shot in a very grainy way to make it seem more real, and the dvd gets that across just as well for less coin.

Now let's talk about the story. The truth is, we never did find any WMDs in Iraq, and the intel does look in hindisght to be false. Gonzales, the real soldier in charge of looking for them here, says so himself. Or do you know better than him? He points out that this is a fictional film in an online article he wrote after the film, and obviously that's true. Damon's character could never do what he did here and get away with it. Yet neither would the CIA be as upstanding as they appear here, and willing to fight Bush's White House (Abu Ghraib comes to mind). So it cuts both ways, for those who call this liberal propaganda.

Let's be honest: almost everything around this "war" when it was going on was neocon propaganda, and they are the folks who own the defense companies who've made hundreds of billions from all this. Not many liberals are war profiteers, you can at least give them that. So if they want to create their own clearly fictional movie about the war, let them. I'm neither lib nor hawk; I just think we're lied to daily by both sides, dems and reps. I don't trust ANY of 'em.

But I have no issues with watching a movie like this and considering its ideas. If you truly love democracy, you need to hear all three sides of any (war) story: yours, mine, and the truth. From that vantage point, I like this movie more than Hurt Locker. Although it claimed to be apolitical, and "just showed soldiers doing their jobs", how can you possibly separate soldiering and morality? That's like saying the German soldiers who rounded up folks with yellow stars and sent them to the showers had no complicity. Come on. At some point we all have to make decisions as to what we're willing to do for our families, our countries, and the human race in general. Isn't that a big part of what America, and the whole old Hollywood John Wayne/Clint Eastwood mythos, is all about?

That's what makes Green Zone interesting; it goes where Hurt Locker was afraid to go. It lets soldiers make moral decisions. Realistic or not, it's a very thought-provoking idea, and since when is thinking deeply about a war that cost us a trillion dollars, and so much more vitally cost hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis their lives, since when is it wrong to really consider how honest and right the entire war was? Never, I'd say. I want all sides of the picture. Which is why we hear so little about Afghanistan: the money is rolling in for the contractors, and the less we think about that, and what we're really achieving over there, the better for the war profiteers. War is great business, and once you get one going, it's a gravy train (if not for liberals, those poor suckers).

Let's be honest: if we really love our soldiers, why do we want to put them in harm's way? Why do we treat them like trash once they've lost limbs for us and come home to be homeless in many cases? Do we really care about them as people, or do we just want them to die for us so we can wave the flag and feel noble and proud? These are questions that rarely get asked, and any movie that addresses them is worth watching.

As the vet from Iraq who lives next to me says: if we truly love American soldiers, why are we sending them off to die in order to to rebuild other countries, when we're not rebuilding our own? One line here resonates over and over as we watch our country go bankrupt behind this war, for no apparent reason but greed: "Don't be naive."

The Green Zone asks those tough questions, and for that it's worth watching.

It seems that people in general are growing weary of any contemporary war stories. Green Zone was marketed as another slick action thriller, but it still sort of flopped at the box office. I was prepared for another simple, high octane popcorn flick with plenty of explosives and bullets whizzing by. But there is a much greater purpose here than to merely entertain. Director Paul Greengrass is sending out a startling message that hits with ferocious power. Packed with tremendous performances, this gets my vote for the surprise action movie of the year.

Matt Damon stars as Roy Miller, a Chief Warrant Officer on the hunt for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. His frustration continues to mount as each search comes up empty. At a debriefing, he questions the intel that keeps sending his crew on these wild goose chases. His leaders seem pretty disinterested.

Here's where the story gets complex, plus totally fascinating. Loyalties and trust start to dissolve as Miller realizes he needs to take a different approach in order to make any progress. He secretly works with a CIA agent and a Iraqi local in order to track down Al Rawi, one of Saddam's evil henchmen.

The story advances in a gripping, believable fashion. I especially loved the general points this movie made about the media coverage. It is revealed that some well-respected news sources might have the facts equivalent of the tabloids. But still the public gobbles up whatever they are serving, without any second thoughts. The truth is often distorted and subjective.

Green Zone has some intense action, and utilizes the hand held camera movement in order to capture the chaos and confusion of the war. Although dizzying and ultra violent in some parts, really the pacing here is pretty controlled as it builds the story. It makes some profound points that are hard to disregard. Some thought provoking questions about the war. Questions about out leaders, reasons, strategies, and consequences. Melding fact and fiction, Greengrass studied intensively about the entire situation in the Middle East. This movie is his springboard for voicing his conclusions. He isn't preaching, he's providing answers and opinions.


Michael Moore called this "the most honest film about the Iraqi War made by Hollywood." Overall, I enjoyed this film more than last year's Oscar winner The Hurt Locker.

I was a little unsure after reading these reviews if I should rent this movie.
It totally exceeded my expectations as I found it thrilling, provocative and informative.
I think a lot of the negative reviews come from people not wanting to get this movie as it reveals the underbelly of our industrial war complex and our unquenchable thirst for petroleum.
Rent it if you want to be entertained on a more cerebral level.
Don't rent it you're looking for the usual America tears 'em a new one story line.

I expected Green Zone to track more closely to the book upon which the movie was based; "Green Zone, Imperial Life in the Emerald City", and indictment of the Paul Bremer time in Iraq. Instead the movie's focus was on Matt Damon's character and his team of WMD searchers, which was a minor part of the book. The movie perfectly captured the chaos in Iraq at the opening stages of the war as American troops captured Baghdad, and proceeded to consolidate their presence in Iraq. The handheld camera technique emphasized the way unplanned events unfold and the need to plan on the fly as obstacles present themselves. This movie probably captures the feeling of war as well as any movie. Matt Damon is excellent in his role as a chief warrant officer who takes his job seriously and knows when he is getting a lot of b.s. from his superiors. The cast is uniformly excellent and again the movie captures the tension that existed between the CIA and the Defense Department over the authenticity of the information supplied regarding WMD's in Iraq. The CIA was getting it's information from a former Iraqi general in charge of the WMD program whereas the Defense Department was getting its information from a guy code named "curveball" whom even German intelligence said was unreliable. The movie version consolidated the informant into one character, the Iraqi general. There really was a huge disconnect between the civilian political operatives as depicted by the character Poudstone and the military grunts depicted by Damon. Donald Rumsfeld set up is own intelligence operation because he did not trust CIA intelligence or because the CIA was not telling him what he wanted to hear. The movie made it perfectly clear that the CIA and the Defense Department did not get along. I highly recommend this movie since it was not only entertaining but at least 50-75% true account of what happened during that period of time in Iraq.

This was a fantastic movie that really captures the heart of the tragedy that is the war in Iraq part two. I was disturbed and reminded by the facts that led America into an unnecessary war. I think the movie studio's money was well spent creating such a gripping picture. This movie should have been marketed as both a political and action thriller flick based on a true story that is quickly being forgotten after a decade of bloodshed.
Jason Bourne in Iraq speaking the truth about America's horrific mistakes.

It seems as though everything breaks down along political lines these days, even movie reviews on Amazon. Right wingers say this movie is liberal pablum. Left wingers who say that this movie tells the truth that we all knew anyway. But they don't review the film.

So since none of us are David Denby or Anthony Lane, here goes a super brief review:

Matt Damon delivers a purposeful, severe and gritty performance. He doesn't smile once in any scene.

The action sequences are also predictably grim.

Greg Kinnear gives his first bad-guy performance, and he is quite believable.

And then there's Igal Naor, who did such an amazing job of playing Saddam Hussein on the HBO miniseries, shines as General Al Rawi, the man who was "misquoted" about WMD's at a Jordan meeting just prior to Shock and Awe.

The direction by Paul Greengrass is slick and chase oriented, as he did so well in the 'Bourne Ultimatum.'

Regardless how you feel about the Iraqi war, this movie will move you emotionally.

I'm glad I finished the movie and made it past the opening jittery hand held camera action scene. Matt Damon is an amazing actor and despite his good looks is believable as "Chief". Chief is a warrant officer on the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Chief gets caught in a situation of having to decide to just do his job or do what is right. If you can put aside the politics and view this film not as a message film, but entertaining and thought provoking, it's great! A fast paced action film that entertains and highlights underlying ethical issues. It shows enough of the human side of various characters and their sides to allow you to empathize with all the positions. The film does an excellent job of slowly unveiling the complexity of the issues. It makes it clear there are no easy answer. Yet the film ends with a simple conclusion for Chief's part of the story and lets hang the complexity and chaos of the larger problems.

Just a note or two: The movie takes place in Iraq. It is an action drama with Matt Damon at his best. It is about the weapons of mass destruction that were never found in Iraq. Highly recommended for people that love war suspense movies. The technology and movie sets were very realistic.

Once again Matt Damon does a superb job keeping us on the edge of our seats. Plenty of action and excellent support cast make it a great ride (almost to much with the bouncy camera). The truth about the cover up of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) will be viewed with bias just as it was before. Those that believed in the administration right or wrong will call it lies, and those that have open minds or were against the Bush administration will call it an expose. Whichever camp you are in there is no denying it was well written, casted, directed, and executed. When I first heard no WMDs were found during the initial searches in Iraq it did not surprise me. It wasn't so obvious to some as to the propaganda perpetrated by the administration to gain support for the lifes and money that would be lost and that are still being lost for the Iraqi war. Calling it Operation Shield and Freedom doesn't change the fact it was no more than a means to remove an evil man from power only to try to impose our own governments desires. Based on this one has to ask why was Bush re-elected? Although I appreciate this story coming to light I would have to say I wish it had come sooner. Nonetheless it is well worth seeing this movie to get a better picture of all our in-fighting, mistrust, and ignorance on both sides. Even those that hated the Republican Guard did not do themselves any favors by the support for the immediate dismantle of the Iraqi military. If it had been then why almost eleven years later do we still have military in Iraq? Years later they finally tried to reinstate the military and police so that we can withdraw. What does that tell you? The military advisors for the movie did a great job in portraying how our soldiers give service to their country. My prayers go out to those with friends and family that lost loved ones and those that have someone still stationed there. Good quality DVD picture and sound. If you enjoyed this be sure to catch Black Hawk Down.

CA Luster