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, 12 March 2010 - 09:57 AM.