Directed by:
Paul GreengrassScreenplay:
Brian HelgelandCinematography:
Barry AckroydComposer:
John PowellCast:
Matt Damon, Greg Kinnear, Brendan Gleeson, Amy Ryan, Khalid Abdalla, Jason Isaacs, Igal Naor, Raad Rawi, Said Faraj, Michael O'Neill, Faycal Attougui, Sean Huze (more)VOD (5)
Plots(1)
Paul Greengrass directs this non-stop explosive action thriller with the signature style that redefined action movies with The Bourne Supremacy and the The Bourne Ultimatum. The time: 2003 .. The place: Baghdad, The mission: locate Weapons of Mass Destruction hidden by Saddam's regime. Chief Miller (Matt Damon) leads and elite Army team searching for WMD's instead they uncover a deadly conspiracy of murder and deception reaching to the top. As Miller hunts through covert and faulty intelligence that either clears a rogue regime or escalates a war in an unstable region, he discovers that no-one can be trusted and the deadliest enemies are those who claim to be on his side. (Fabulous Films)
(more)Reviews (11)
A politically engaged Bourne in Iraq? I’d like to use a line from the movie “don’t be naive", but that wouldn’t be altogether true. As a comparison it rather fits. A lot. A shame about the last third of the movie, however, when it turns off the hitherto path of the story down over-simplified and naively presented political agitation, aimed in the right direction, but the delivery... (especially the last dialog between Miller and Poundstone is just beyond the pale; I would never have expected anything like that from Greengrass). P.S.: Although I understand that a book in newspaper article form which is a bureaucratic odyssey where the left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing, or: “How the Yanks failed to understand that an Arab land after years of tyranny, sanctions and war is not the same as any State of the Union following a natural disaster" is darn hard to turn into a non-documentary movie, but why on earth make a movie about weapons of mass destruction or botched attempts at finding them if there is no mention of either in the book?
()
Paul Greengrass tried out the style he applied in Green Zone in two parts of the Borneo series, thus creating a prototype of a modern action hero set in a realistic environment and using top combat techniques, but one that is far from the action superheroes of comic or game adaptations and routine thrillers. Moreover, he moved from pure entertainment to a deeper reflection on a specific political problem currently affecting America. His Green Zone is an excellent war action film that also perfectly functions as a mapping of the roots of war against Saddam and the subsequent civil war in Iraq. The film is a synthesis of all the motifs that played a role in creating today's complex situation, namely amateurism on the part of strategists, manipulated information from secret services and the American government, underestimation of the watchdog function of the press and media in general, unpreparedness for long-term occupation, and logistical failure. Of course, the film has its flaws and the five stars I'm giving it are not flawless, but in this case, I am happy to add them because the film stands very high above the genre average. The fictional hero of the story, Miller, has too much initiative and is too independent in his thinking for a lower-ranking army officer (possible members of the armed forces will forgive me), and above all, he does not hesitate to disobey orders and defy authority in a significant way. Also, the handheld camera, which plays a dominant role in Greengrass's films, is unnecessary in some cases, and the film contains some minor logical lapses. I doubt, for example, that a wanted war criminal, whose likeness is on every American soldier's playing card, would be driving around the streets of Baghdad in a car registered in his name several weeks after the occupation. But the action sequences, be it shootouts, wild chases, or fights, are filmed in the highest quality, and the entire story is set in a functional environment and corresponds to what actually happened in Iraq despite the fictionality of the main character. Matt Damon has already tried out a similar type of hero in the character of Jason Bourne, and his work with the director is top-notch. The entire film is incredibly dynamic and captivating. Overall impression: 90%.
()
It would not be dignified to compare this movie to the Jason Bourne series. Let’s overlook the fact that Green Zone does not have Bourne’s entertaining drive, has no compelling music, and takes place from beginning to end in a location that looks like a single dark construction site and tells us nothing about its characters. It is easier to compare it with Ridley Scott’s thematically related Body of Lies, which I rated with three stars and which entertained me more. Green Zone is just a black-and-white militaristic exercise with a directing style that has been applied more successfully and with more vivid colors in other movies.
()
When I compare it to American Sniper and Lone Survivor, Green Zone comes out pretty bland. I like Matt Damon, but he couldn't save the film in my eyes. The action is rather sparse and uninteresting, the finale in the dark rather annoyed me, and overall it tends to deal with political and other uninteresting stuff for me. Unfortunately I didn't have much fun, but the technical side was decent. 60%
()
Technically speaking, it’s a flawless political-military thriller (not combat action), but to me it’s the weakest viewer experience that I’ve ever had with Greengrass. I get what Green Zone probably wants to say, but I believe they could have got more out of the premise. Given the level of the game the creators are playing, I can’t say the script is good enough – the deus ex machina character of Freddy is especially awful. But I’m not disappointed, because the genre (which I’m not a big fan of) didn’t lead me to expect much.
()
Ads