Jump to content

Green Zone - Damon and Greengrass


John Drew
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is it to early to start this thread? With all the attention <b>The Bourne Ultimatum </b>is currently receiving, I figure, why not?

<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0947810/" target="_blank"><b>Imperial Life in the Emerald City</b></a>. Based on the book by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post, while covering life in the "Green Zone" during the tenure of L. Paul Bremer and his Coalition Provisional Authority.

Don't know how Greengrass is going to approach this material... it could be a straight-forward, scathing indictment. Or, he could opt for The New York Times slant on the book.

<!--QuoteBegin-The New York Times+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The New York Times)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A visceral � sometimes sickening � picture of how the administration and its handpicked crew bungled the first year in postwar Iraq. . . . Often reads like something out of <b>Catch-22 </b>or from <b>M*A*S*H.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Anyone out there read the book?

Edited by Baal_T'shuvah

Formerly Baal_T'shuvah

"Everyone has the right to make an ass out of themselves. You just can't let the world judge you too much." - Maude 
Harold and Maude
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, why is this in the "Film Criticism and Appreciation" forum?

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, why is this in the "Film Criticism and Appreciation" forum?

I've moved it to the general "Film" thread.

"I feel a nostalgia for an age yet to come..."
Opus, Twitter, Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny you should mention this IO just read the Guardian's interview on Greengrass this morning (at about 3am :() where he talked about this film.

Damon has also signed up for Imperial Life in the Emerald City, currently in preproduction and due on screens in 2009. Despite being one of his political projects, Greengrass is chary of the urge to wag fingers. "I think one should always beware of polemics. The book isn't polemical at all. I think if you really want to understand what happened in Iraq you have to avoid condemnation and acquaint yourselves with an agenda of hope and engagement with the world. People talk about Bush and Blair as if two sovereigns met on a muddy field somewhere and decided to invade Iraq . . . I mean, I don't find that a helpful way of understanding the world. I'm not justifying it, but when we make this next film we must explore things with compassion, not polemicism".

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... the film will be improvised? Wow. That really will be an authentic recreation of the early days of U.S. officials in Baghdad!

(That is, if I'm to believe what I see in No End in Sight.)

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm... I think that the term "inspired by the book..." is being used about as loosely as possible here. While the trailer looks entertaining (although much too much like Body of Lies), I don't think many of these situations actually occurred in the book. Looking at the cast list, none of the characters seem to be based on the real people from the book.

Formerly Baal_T'shuvah

"Everyone has the right to make an ass out of themselves. You just can't let the world judge you too much." - Maude 
Harold and Maude
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Collider.com says this is the official synopsis released by the studio:

On March 12, 2010, Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass (
The Bourne Supremacy
,
The Bourne Ultimatum
,
United 93
) re-team for the electrifying thriller
Green Zone
. In the film, Damon stars as Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, a rogue U.S. Army officer who must hunt through covert and faulty intelligence hidden on foreign soil before war escalates in an unstable region.

Two things stand out. One, no mention of Iraq whatsoever -- not directly, at any rate. Two, the way this synopsis borrows its language from the synopses of your garden-variety action thriller in which the officer who "must" do something "before" something else happens usually succeeds in preventing the something-else in question -- but as we all know, this particular story is set several years ago, and the officer in question almost certainly will NOT succeed at whatever he's doing because war did, in fact, escalate (culminating, perhaps, in that development known as "the surge").

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Film critic and Gulf War veteran Kyle Smith says the film is "appalling" and "absurdly awful":

I would never have accused director Paul Greengrass, who made the astonishingly powerful “United 93,” of being simplistic. But he has made a $100 million war film in which American troops are the bad guys.

Make of that -- and the other points he makes -- what you will.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike D'Angelo: "No End in Sight: The Action Flick ('10 Greengrass): 39. Heyyyyy, there *were* no WMD! Bad Bush administration! Bad! zzzzzzzz."

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter likes it...

The movie takes its inspiration from a nonfiction book by former Washington Post Baghdad chief Rajiv Chandrasekaran, "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone." It's not, strictly speaking, an adaptation because Brian Helgeland's script is fiction. Rather, the book supplies something of a beacon for the filmmakers, guiding them in their interpretation of the folly of ignorance and ambition emanating from inside the Green Zone, a safety area including the old Republican Palace where American decision-makers remain cut off from the Iraqi reality.

Greengrass and his "Bourne" team -- cinematographer Barry Ackroyd worked with him on "United 93" -- do a magnificent job of turning locations in Spain, Morocco and the U.K. into a realistic Iraq, a region tumbled into chaos and devastating destruction to its infrastructure. That chaos tips over into the action of the movie as the film hurtles from one destination to another in a race against time. John Powell's propulsive music eggs the action ever forward, and Christopher Rouse's rapid-fire editing nervously stitches the stunts, chases, fights and confrontations together.

Formerly Baal_T'shuvah

"Everyone has the right to make an ass out of themselves. You just can't let the world judge you too much." - Maude 
Harold and Maude
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D'Angelo again: "Forgot re GREEN ZONE: Those like @msicism who carped that HURT LOCKER made the Iraqis faceless villains need 2 b careful what they wish 4."

Patrick Goldstein:

Smith also proposes the quasi-preposterous claim that the film's Judith Miller-like reporter character is portrayed as working for the Wall Street Journal rather than the New York Times "because Hollywood liberals can't accept that The Times ever gets anything wrong." In fact, according to my colleague John Horn, who just wrote a post about the fictionalized reporter character, "in the film's original screenplay, [the character] was identified as a reporter for the New York Times, but the legal departments at Universal Pictures and producing partner Working Title Films changed her affiliation to the Wall Street Journal so that audiences wouldn't confuse the character with an actual journalist."

I'm not so sure that the Journal will be flattered that a big studio film is portraying one of their reporters as being duped by government misinformation, especially when it was their arch rival whose reporter was the real dupe, but it seems clear that the studio did it for legal reasons, not political ones. But when conservatives ridicule Hollywood movies for their politics, it's a rarity for anyone to let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Um, okay, so they avoided mentioning the New York Times for legal reasons. But was there any legally compelling reason to pick the Wall Street Journal and not, say, the Washington Post or any of a zillion other papers?

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D'Angelo again: "Forgot re GREEN ZONE: Those like @msicism who carped that HURT LOCKER made the Iraqis faceless villains need 2 b careful what they wish 4."

Patrick Goldstein:

Smith also proposes the quasi-preposterous claim that the film's Judith Miller-like reporter character is portrayed as working for the Wall Street Journal rather than the New York Times "because Hollywood liberals can't accept that The Times ever gets anything wrong." In fact, according to my colleague John Horn, who just wrote a post about the fictionalized reporter character, "in the film's original screenplay, [the character] was identified as a reporter for the New York Times, but the legal departments at Universal Pictures and producing partner Working Title Films changed her affiliation to the Wall Street Journal so that audiences wouldn't confuse the character with an actual journalist."

I'm not so sure that the Journal will be flattered that a big studio film is portraying one of their reporters as being duped by government misinformation, especially when it was their arch rival whose reporter was the real dupe, but it seems clear that the studio did it for legal reasons, not political ones. But when conservatives ridicule Hollywood movies for their politics, it's a rarity for anyone to let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Um, okay, so they avoided mentioning the New York Times for legal reasons. But was there any legally compelling reason to pick the Wall Street Journal and not, say, the Washington Post or any of a zillion other papers?

Doesn't the problem go deeper than that? Clearly, the character is meant to represent Judith Miller, whose actual reporting on WMD did help to build the case for war, and did turn out to be disastrously wrong and based on bad sources. To cover that up by saying "but it's all just fiction" and changing the name of the paper "so that audiences wouldn't confuse the character with an actual journalist" strikes me as moral cowardice. Talk about "letting the facts get in the way of a good rant."

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kyle Smith @ New York Post:

Even for Hollywood, "Green Zone" is dumbfoundingly brazen in its effort to rewrite the facts. As any reasonably informed person knows, many intelligence services (including the French, German, Chinese, Russian and British) believed Iraq had WMDs. And the CIA (which along with Chief Miller is a hero of "Green Zone") was among them. Plus, such intel reports predated the Bush administration -- and Saddam's refusal to allow the UN weapons inspectors to finish their work gave us every reason to think he was hiding something and sealed his fate.

Marshall Fine:

“Green Zone” is hard-charging stuff, a compelling action movie built on a false premise: that honest soldiers telling the truth helped the press raise public awareness and turn the tide of opinion against the war. The facts – including the press’ shameful performance and polls showing that a solid 50-plus percent of Americans still believe we actually did find WMD – would suggest otherwise.

Anthony Lane @ New Yorker:

What lends the film its grip and its haste is also what makes it unsatisfactory, since the end result of Miller’s hectic hunt is to “solve” the puzzle of W.M.D. “If you pull this off, you might just save the country,” Brown tells him, but that is a fantasy more lurid than anything in the Bourne franchise. One of the charges against the Bush Administration was that it sought to encase Iraq in a narrative far too naïve and restrictive for any nation to bear; and, in its small way, “Green Zone,” a left-wing movie that looks and sounds like a right-wing one, suffers from the same delusion. The story of American involvement, in the eyes of this film, is neither a monstrous folly nor a patient, difficult path to democratic peace. It’s a wrap.

Ray Greene @ Box Office:

The credits say Green Zone was directed by Paul Greengrass, but don’t you believe them. This is Seth Brundle’s work—I’d know it anywhere. You remember Brundle—the technocrat in David Cronenberg’s The Fly who wants to perform miracles but instead creates a monster of mutation. In Green Zone’s case, the ill-spliced DNA is a hybrid of rogue cop antics, high tech chase scenes that fetishize a military the movie disagrees with and the shaky-cam aesthetic of the Bourne films, all grafted onto a brittle skeleton of limousine liberal messaging.

If Greengrass, not Brundle, was
really
the director of this movie, he would have sensed how setting Matt Damon loose in Baghdad like a helmeted version of Clint Eastwood’s Man With No Name reduces contemporary political tragedy to mere fodder for sensation junkies unable to get to the next level on their Call of Duty video games. Greengrass, whose resumé includes not just the Bourne trilogy but also the superb, fact-based dramas Bloody Sunday and United 93, would have understood that by assigning responsibility for the American fiasco in Iraq to a fictional character he’d be negating his own point. And surely Greengrass, especially while working with the gifted screenwriter Brian Helgeland, would never have had the chutzpah to end a political fantasy with a Big Statement from its two-fisted protagonist about how the truth always matters—an aphorism Green Zone gives the lie to with every frame.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Roger Ebert's 4 Star review..

"Green Zone" will no doubt be under fire from those who are still defending the fabricated intelligence we used as an excuse to invade Iraq. Yes, the film is fiction, employs farfetched coincidences and improbably places one man at the center of all the action. It is a thriller, not a documentary. It's my belief that the nature of the neocon evildoing has by now become pretty clear. Others will disagree. The bottom line is: This is one hell of a thriller.

Formerly Baal_T'shuvah

"Everyone has the right to make an ass out of themselves. You just can't let the world judge you too much." - Maude 
Harold and Maude
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I'm curious to see how what sort of audience this film finds.

Movies about the Iraq War and/or the "war on terror" haven't done particularly well, as a rule. With the exception of Michael Moore's election-year documentary and Oliver Stone's 9/11 survival story (which didn't involve the subsequent military operations in any significant way), none of the films I can think of have made more than $50 million or so domestic, regardless of genre (though a few of them have done a fair bit better overseas).

  • Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) -- opening $23.9 mil, total $119.2 + 103.3 = 222.4 mil
  • Dear John (2010) -- opening $30.5 mil, total $79.4 + 9.2 = 88.6 mil (so far)
  • World Trade Center (2006) -- opening $18.7 mil, total $70.3 + 92.7 = 162.9 mil
  • Syriana (2005) -- opening $11.7 mil, total $50.8 + 43.2 = 93.9 mil
  • The Kingdom (2007) -- opening $17.1 mil, total $47.5 + 39.1 = 86.7 mil
  • Munich (2005) -- opening $7.6 mil, total $47.4 + 82.9 = 130.4 mil
  • Team America: World Police (2004) -- opening $12.1 mil, total $32.8 + 18.1 = 50.9 mil
  • Green Zone (2010) -- opening $14.3 mil, total $31.5 + 28.8 = 60.3 mil (so far)
  • United 93 (2006) -- opening $11.5 mil, total $31.5 + 44.8 = 76.3 mil
  • Brothers (2009) -- opening $9.5 mil, total $28.5 + 8.2 = 36.8 mil
  • W. (2008) -- opening $10.5 mil, total $25.5 + 3.9 = 29.5 mil
  • Traitor (2008) -- opening $7.9 mil, total $23.5 + 4.1 = 27.7 mil
  • Reign Over Me (2007) -- opening $7.5 mil, total $19.7 + 2.6 = 22.2 mil
  • Remember Me (2010) -- opening $8.3 mil, total $17.6 + 5.4 = 23.0 mil (so far)
  • The Hurt Locker (2008) -- opening $0.1 mil, total $16.4 + 20.5 = 36.9 mil (so far)
  • Lions for Lambs (2007) -- opening $6.7 mil, total $15.0 + 48.2 = 63.2 mil
  • Stop-Loss (2008) -- opening $4.6 mil, total $10.9 + 0.3 = 11.2 mil
  • The Ghost Writer (2010) -- opening $183,009, total $9.7 + 11.7 = 21.4 mil (so far)
  • Rendition (2007) -- opening $4.1 mil, total $9.7 + 17.3 = 27.0 mil
  • A Mighty Heart (2007) -- opening $3.3 mil, total $9.2 + 9.8 = 18.9 mil
  • In the Valley of Elah (2007) -- opening $1.5 mil, total $6.8 + 22.7 = 29.5 mil
  • In the Loop (2009) -- opening $191,866, total $2.4 + 5.4 = 7.8 mil
  • The Messenger (2009) -- opening $44,523, total $1.1 + 0.1 = 1.2 mil (so far)
  • Redacted (2007) -- opening $65,388, total $0.1 + 0.7 = 0.8 mil
  • Grace Is Gone (2007) -- opening $13,880, total $0.1 + 0.9 = 1.0 mil
  • Nothing but the Truth (2008) -- no opening, total $0.0 + 0.1 = 0.1 mil

But Green Zone is being sold as a sort of Jason Bourne-style movie, and the last two Bourne movies -- the ones directed by Green Zone director Paul Greengrass -- both made over $50 million in their opening weekends alone. So it will be interesting to see where Green Zone falls on this spectrum.

Is the list above missing any titles? If so, let me know and I'll add 'em to the list.

(Side note: Where a film opened in limited release before going wide, the "opening" figures above indicate the first wide-release weekend, not the limited weekend.)

EDITED TO ADD: I just remembered Dear John, which is partly about a romance involving a soldier that is affected by 9/11 and its aftermath. I've added it above, with its current totals, but it's barely more than a month old, so the totals will almost certainly increase over the next month or two.

EDITED TO ADD: I was just reminded about Stop-Loss, so I've added it to the list above.

EDITED TO ADD: Ack! How could I have forgotten A Mighty Heart and especially The Hurt Locker, of all things? And of course we now have Remember Me -- which reminds me, Reign Over Me kind of fits in here somewhere. I've added them all above.

EDITED TO ADD: I just remembered Oliver Stone's W., which I tend to think of as more of a biopic than a war movie, per se. But it fits, so I've added it above. And then of course there is The Ghost Writer, which is loosely modeled after Tony Blair's involvement in the Iraq War.

EDITED TO ADD: Oh, of course! Brothers takes place partly in Afghanistan! I've added that one to the list, too.

EDITED TO ADD: Just remembered In the Loop and Nothing but the Truth. I've added those to the list above, too.

EDITED TO ADD: And The Messenger. Recent double Oscar nominee and all that. Must add that one to the list, too.

EDITED TO ADD: Just remembered Grace Is Gone. Have added it above, along with Green Zone itself.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've held my tongue on all sorts of suspect Roger Ebert reviews, but the excerpt quoted above it too much. Attacking critics of the film for their politics getting in the way of their interpretation of this film? Give me a break! The film is one big harangue. I've seen more than one review from critics who are by no means George W. Bush supporters that acknowledge as much.

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike D'Angelo:

Seriously, though: Who cares? Yes, the government lied to us in order to justify the invasion it wanted. Yes, that invasion quickly turned into an endless debacle. We know all that, and it’s neither edifying nor entertaining to watch Matt Damon laboriously catch up with the bad news, step by step. Screenwriter Brian Helgeland (whose script was “inspired by” Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s nonfiction book Imperial Life in the Emerald City) hasn’t invented a single compelling character, intriguing moral dilemma or suspenseful set piece, and Greengrass directs the occasional action bits on shaky-cam autopilot. There’s just nothing to Green Zone, apart from its sense of outrage—it’s a tract, not a movie. If you really still need to work up some righteous indignation on this ancient subject, the award-winning documentary No End in Sight covers most of the same material with far more perspicacity and many fewer tediously earnest monologues.

Speaking of which: While most critics (including this one) praised last year’s Oscar-winning Iraq drama The Hurt Locker, a few dissenters carped that it took its apolitical stance too far, reducing the Iraqis to faceless victims and villains. Green Zone suggests that, where American films set in Iraq are concerned, that might well be the lesser of two evils. Few moments in recent cinema have been more painful than the speeches written for Miller’s Shiite informant “Freddy” (Khalid Abdalla), who rambles on at numbing length about his love for his country and his concern for its future, and who sternly tells Miller at the film’s climax, “It is not for you to decide what happens here.” Okay, we’re all suitably chastened. Can we go home now?

There is certainly an interesting question to be raised here about the film's portrayal of the locals. Teasing it out might involve spoilers, though, so I'll refrain for now.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a spoiler to say that Freddie was the only character I cared about, the only one who had more than one shade, whether or not he was given to speechifying.

Mike is dead on when he calls the movie a "tract." I haven't felt this preached at since the last time I watched a Cloud Ten production.

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend e-mailed my A.O. Scott's review of this film this morning, and asked for my thoughts. I'm copying what I sent to him.

I thought it was lousy, but who cares? I'm an easily dismissed Bush-supporting neocon.

From Scott's review: "And the inevitable huffing and puffing about this movie’s supposedly left-wing or 'anti-American' agenda has already begun."

There's a reason for this. The movie is a left-wing fantasy -- it's the Left's "Rambo," a revisionist history where everything goes the way its audience wishes it had gone, except this time the Iraq War is stopped rather than the Vietnam War "won."

The movie is plodding and preachy. I liked Greengrass' Bourne films more or less, although I noted some politicized content in the final film. "United 93" is great. I've heard excellent things about "Sunday, Bloody Sunday."

But this is a great test case for putting deeply held beliefs before everything else. I didn't find the movie very engaging as an action film, or even as coherent as the shaky-cam "Bourne" films, which had their own moments of incoherence. Here Damon is always preaching, making declarative statements about the Truth! (Rean Ann Hornaday's review for a much more balanced view of the film.)

I've worked in a Christian subculture where films that include bald evangelistic monologues are hailed because, well, as Christians, we believe the Gospel is the Truth. What better purpose could there be to art than to use it as a means for communicating the Gospel verbally?

Those movies, with very rare exceptions, are very bad, precisely because they're sermons, not films. "Green Zone" is EXACTLY the same thing, but for the antiwar crowd, this is their "gospel," something that can't be declared too loudly, or too often.

It's not a good movie, no matter what Roger Ebert or A.O. Scott says -- and I'm a big fan of both of them.

BTW, the Rambo analogy occurred to me while I was talking to my wife about the film. The next day, I clicked on Nick Schager's review and saw that he led with the same comparison. I'm guessing other critics did as well.

My "original" thoughts are not so original. :(

Edited by Christian

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, the Rambo analogy occurred to me while I was talking to my wife about the film. The next day, I clicked on Nick Schager's review and saw that he led with the same comparison. I'm guessing other critics did as well.

You guess correctly.

Joshua Rothkopf (Time Out New York) wrote,

Not since a Nam-scarred Sly Stallone asked, “Do we get to win this time?” in "Rambo: First Blood Part II" has an American action star been deployed to rewrite history so thoroughly.

And I (Decent Films/CT Movies) wrote (quite independently, I assure you!):

It’s tidy, comforting revisionism, like sending Rambo back into Vietnam so we can win this time. Instead of a morass in which the search for WMDs simply peters out, we get the closure of a smoking gun, a scapegoat whom Miller can buttonhole with righteous fury like Harrison Ford lacing into the president at the end of
Clear and Present Danger
.

My "original" thoughts are not so original. :(

Oh, that's an unhappy spin. The correct conclusion is "Great minds think alike." :)

Edited by SDG

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. And yet, as I think about it, it occurs to me that Rambo is actually more honest, in a sense, than Green Zone. Rambo doesn't give us a comforting fantasy rewrite of the actual Vietnam War -- just a silly fantasy coda. Whereas Green Zone is a fantasy version of the actual 2003 search for WMD. Not the same thing.

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*SPOILERS*

There were no WMD found in Iraq!!!!!!!!!

The script is a mess. I actually thought the film was intense in parts but every action and theme is telegraphed over and over ad nauseum. The phrase WMD is spoken at least 25 times in the first 15 minutes just to make sure we know that the characters are looking for them. Every single plot point and action has some lame line of dialogue to tell the audience what is happening.

Basically, Greenzone is the film version of the bumper sticker "Bush lied people died."

Edited by rjkolb

If there were no God, there would be no Atheists.

G. K. Chesterton (1874 - 1936)

I'm still an atheist, thank God.

Luis Bunuel (1900 - 1983)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rjkolb wrote:

: Basically, Greenzone is the film version of the bumper sticker "Bush lied people died."

Except it isn't, not really. It's "Greg Kinnear lied people died."

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...