User Reviews (316)

Add a Review

  • This movie is not a sequel to Bourne flicks. It is more in the spirit of Costa-Gravas or Oliver Stone. MET Alpha is Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha. The 85th XTF is the 75th Exploitation Task Force. CWO Miller is CWO Gonzalez. The reporter is, of course, Judith Miller, the New York Times (not WSJ) reporter who sold out to the Bush administration to get bylines. She used her position as shill for Rummy to keep MET Alpha in Baghdad, chasing their tails while American soldiers died trying to find non-existent WMD, for the sole purpose of backing up Bush's lies. Miller's folio is full of information from Curveball (Magellan). The CIA, who knew Curveball was a liar, was also warning Miller. A perpetually smiling Ahmad Chalabi keeps popping up. He is no doubt thinking how fine it is for the US Army to hand him an entire country along with a treasury of several hundred million dollars.

    Miller is angry because he knows his intelligence is bogus, the CIA has told him that much, even though the Army vouches for it, and tells Miller to shut up and follow orders.

    The Pentagon puke tries to bribe Miller with a job if he plays along, and offers a veiled threat if he doesn't.

    The movie is history, and not a simple action adventure flick. It follows actual events very closely. Knowing the facts makes the movie much more fascinating.
  • Green Zone is the latest Iraq War inspired motion picture. I wasn't expecting much and ended up being pleasantly surprised. It's a fast paced and riveting ride from the get-go. The war being fought in the film is more between the Pentagon and the CIA than the US v Iraq which makes it all the more interesting and the film allows you to see things from Iraq's perspective for a change. The premise set up in the film regarding the 'Intelligence' regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction used to justify the invasion is entirely believable. Matt Damon is well suited to his part as a unit leader Roy Miller, as is Brendan Gleeson as the CIA man and Greg Kinnear is refreshingly nasty as Poundstone from the Pentagon - all turn in good performances. Shot on location in Morocco, Spain and in England I could have sworn we were in Bagdad the whole time - settings are very convincing. Yes, there is too much hand- held camera movement that quickly brought on discomfort followed by a headache but that is my only negative and as the film doesn't outstay its welcome I'm willing to concede the shakiness probably lends an 'embedded' realism. Is any of the plot or characters based on real events or people? I have no idea other than learning the film is based on the 2006 non-fiction book 'Imperial Life in the Emerald City' by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, a journalist for The Washington Post. I haven't read the book so I can't comment on how closely the film follows it. I spent a few moments of the film wondering about the story's authenticity but as a piece of cinema entertainment in its own right Green Zone gets the green light from me.
  • Green Zone is a movie about a soldier, leader of the team hunting for WMDs in Iraq, tries to step over the official army bullshit line and the red tape and actually achieve something. He gets a lucky break in finding a lead on general Al Rawi (the Jack of clubs in the famous Iraqi card deck) and stumbles upon a secret that explain not only why there are no WMDs, but also why (or better said how) the Americans came to enter the war.

    As a movie it is a neat action film. A slightly less physical Bourne in Iraq, but with a political edge. It features shootings, helicopters, drama, conspiracies, evil suits, mislead Americans (represented, of course, by a journalist) lots of people speaking Arabic for no good reason other than they are Iraqi and lots of cramped alleyways.

    There was a controversy about how the movie seems to reflect upon a real story. The real-life Roy Miller (actually Richard Gonzales, but shh, Miller sounds better), who also worked as a consultant for the movie, has issued a statement in which he clearly states the plot is a fantasy. I like how he ends the statement: "The real story of the hunt for WMD is, in fact, more interesting. Maybe one day, someone will want to tell that story.". A bit sad and a bit hopeful. Maybe History Channel will pick up on it in a few decades, when the heat is off ;)

    Bottom line: well done action thriller, better than most, but then I like Matt Damon as an actor, so maybe I am biased. Certainly above average.
  • British director Paul Grengrass + American actor Matt Damon = "The Bourne Supremacy", "The Bourne Ultimatum" and now "Green Zone", so we know what to expect here - and we're not disappointed. From the opening seconds, we're into the action with the trademark Greengrass 'in the action' frenetic camera-work and sharp editing. Although the film is said to be inspired by the non-fiction book "Imperial Life In The Emerald City" by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, a journalist for The Washington Post, the conspiratorial storyline is the invention of Greengrass who developed the original script.

    If the tension isn't as excruciating at that other Iraq movie "The Hurt Locker", at least "Green Zone" has a narrative and poses some questions, hard questions that many American viewers would probably were rather not aired: what was the source of the 'intelligence' that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction? why was the source so readily believed when the evidence was so thin? could the bloody insurgency which followed the relatively easy initial occupation have been avoided if the Americans had been willing to work with elements of the Iraqi army?

    See the movie and think about the issues. As a central Iraqi character puts it: "It's not up to you to determine what happens in this country."
  • 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
  • The new offering from Paul Greengrass is an intriguing progression from his previous films. Marrying the political engagement of films such as 'Bloody Sunday' with the blockbuster attraction of the Bourne films, 'Green Zone' was always going to promise attractive viewing, and it doesn't disappoint.

    Matt Damon's character, Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, is in charge of an American Armed Forces unit in search of Weapons of Mass Destruction during the early stages of the Iraq conflict. When their search proves fruitless, Miller begins to question the supposedly 'solid' intelligence that gave the locations of these WMD sites. The plot follows Miller's demand for answers from an unstable command desperate to hide them, revealing a political division at the heart of the U.S administration.

    Yes, this is fiction, but Greengrass has become adept at tapping into our taste for conspiracy, contextualising his stories within a political reality that has become all too familiar to us since the invasion began in 2003. It's thrilling stuff, and I think that is the key word to remember when watching this film. Thriller. Yes, there is political content here, and yes, it does hold up to some scrutiny. For example, the opening of the movie portrays the sense of confusion of conflicting command structures particularly well, really getting into the disorientation and intrigue of a military operation that isn't going as planned. The role of journalist Laurie Dayne (played by Amy Ryan) also provides a well-executed analysis of how the media's coverage of the facts can be impaired by the manoeuvrings of political and military authority.

    There are moments when this political engagement appears heavy-handed, but that is because the director's priority is always, first and foremost, entertainment. For example, there is nothing subtle about Damon's character walking into a scene of Americans drinking and lounging by the pool of one of Saddam Hussein's palaces. Furthermore, the film suffers from conventional Hollywood stereotypes when it tries to depict the 'downtrodden-yet-hopeful' Iraqi citizen, who works with Miller in order to expose the truth about his country. Khalid Abdalla (best known for his lead role in 'The Kite Runner') does his best with the material available, but the role lacks depth and complexity, and for me is one of the few disappointments of the film.

    But, as I said, this a work of fiction, and there are plenty of moments where our taste for excitement and spectacle is satisfied. Greengrass' now familiar 'handycam' filming style is appropriate to the sense that we are never sure as an audience where the threat is going to come from. It provides a kick of adrenaline to the action sequences, making us feel the sand in our mouths as we are thrown to the floor, and adds docudrama realism to the events on screen. Some of the reviews I have seen complained about this style of cinematography, but I think Greengrass has managed to make the technique contribute to the content of his film, rather than becoming overly intrusive or threatening our cinematic experience.

    There is a delicious feeling of melodrama to the piece as a whole – the moustached Jason Isaacs as the sinister Special Forces operative provides a gripping counterbalance to the inquiring Matt Damon. Brendan Gleeson is superb as the CIA agent that won't roll over and accept the demands of the military and political commanders. Indeed, the cast as a whole appears to work well together in a film that successfully marries the need for political engagement with the desire for cinematic spectacle. It is a film designed for box office appeal, and yet despite this it doesn't compromise on the political foundations on which it is based. Its climax is a fine reward for the audience's suspense – in short, a well-worked film that cuts to the heart of our craving for conspiracy and revelation.

    James Gill (Twitter @jg8608)
  • 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 reminder of what happened in Iraq every time you press play.

    Read all my reviews at simonsaysmovies.blogspot.com
  • I do not like movies about the invasion of Iraq, and I have never understood how "The Hurt Locker" that was released straight-to-video in Brazil could win an Oscar. However, "Green Zone" blends truth with fiction about the inexistent weapons of massive destruction (WMD) that was the justification of the American government to invade that millenary country.

    The excellent Matt Damon is tailored for this type of action movie and performs the role of a captain of the American army pursuing the truth about the WMD in Iraq and finds a conspiracy with the involvement of a high level Pentagon representative. My vote is seven.

    Title (Brazil): "Zona Verde" ("Green Zone")
  • Warning: Spoilers
    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 entire Iraqi administrative structure, including all Baath Party members in government and the Iraqi army. With the second and third mistakes the US lost its credibility and made a vast number of unnecessary enemies, and the way was paved for chaos and civil war in the country.

    After Chief Miller comes up with "doughnuts" at every supposed WMD location and becomes convinced the intel is no good in spite of being told at briefings it's pure gold, he becomes a cowboy and sets out on a zigzagged path of his own. He's supported by a high-ranking CIA officer with profound in-country experience named Martin Brown (Brendan Gleeson), who knows the WMD locations are fake and sees a cover-up. Amazing how Miller encounters both Poundstone and Brown right away in the occupation's "safe" "Green Zone" palace HQ. In fact Miller has magical access. He also runs into a Wall Street Journal correspondent called Lawrie Dayne (Amy Ryan), who turns out to have touted the government's dubious WMD stories (received from Ahmad Chalabi) in widely read articles, and she's discovering that she was duped but trying to cover it up. Dayne is a stand-in for the Times's Judith Miller.

    By this point it's obvious the screenplay is as schematic and implausible as 'The Hurt Locker's' is specific and real. Hence it's not surprising Chief Miler runs into "Freddy" (Khalid Abdalla) -- an Iraqi trying to guide any Americans he can find to a meeting of Baath leaders and cohorts held by a big Iraqi general, Al Rawi (Yigal Naor, an Israeli who specializes in playing Arab officials in American movies). Miller now turns into a rogue soldier, with Poundstone ordering him reassigned to his unit and Poundstone's more cooperative military operatives out to get him. Miller forgets about looking for WMD's and is now trying to "save lives" by tracking down Al Rawi, which involves sneaking into a prison with Freddy and a million dollars from his CIA ally, Brown.

    This is where things get really exciting, with everybody chasing everybody else, and Greengrass and his dp Barry Akroyd (who incidentally did the photography for 'Hurt Locker,' as well as Greengrass' 'United 93') fully up to speed in the action sequences. 'Green Zone' is consistently good on that level, but that success is undermined by the overall implausibility. Helgelund is obviously interweaving themes from a book about US mismanagement and aloofness from reality in Baghdad with chases and shoot-outs staged to give his action hero work to do. Will this movie change anybody's perception of the Iraq war? Probably people who go just for the action will look on the political stuff as decoration, as it usually is. But you never know. . .
  • One of the common threads linking films about the Iraq war is a sense of deep ambiguity about it's morality and purpose. "Green Zone" is no exception. Matt Damon skilfully portrays Roy Miller, an Army Warrant Officer whose unit is tasked with searching suspected WMD facilities for proof of the existence of Iraqi chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons. A chance encounter with a sympathetic Iraqi civilian puts Miller on the trail of an Iraqi general who could provide him with the evidence that he needs. However, the Pentagon, the recently deposed Baathists, and the CIA all have different agendas for Iraq's future and Miller finds himself being used by players from all sides.

    This is a tautly paced, engrossing thriller that inhabits a moral world where all colors are shades of gray. The cast are excellent and the direction is top-notch. Particularly noteworthy is the realistic and sympathetic depiction of the Iraqi characters, irrespective of their allegiances. There is no shortage of action and the plot keeps you guessing until the credits roll. Along with "The Hurt Locker" this is one of the best films about the Iraq war and a brilliant night out to boot.
  • I remember watching this when it first came out. Lets watch again see how it applies 10 years later...

    A pretty good representation through action and plot of what exactly the US doesn't belong doing in Iraq, and that's trying to establish the US way of thinking in their government.

    7/10.
  • 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.
  • Numerous plot twists and action sequences are going to unfold in front of Greengrass' camera not necessarily with new ideas but still awesome, making verbs just as deadly as a weapon.

    The directing is consistent: the legendary style of the director doesn't change whether he's filming the chase of a key character or just... a simple verbal confrontation.

    But if the solo walk of Jason Bourne or the confined spaces of United 93 forced him to film in a chaotic way with extreme close ups, Greengrass managed to take a step back regarding his mise-en-scene. The shots end up being larger, almost as if to say that these characters have a future.

    It's also the occasion to film, without insistence, a demolished Iraq because of attacks not always justifiable, the director of photography(Barry Ackroyd) manages to capture pain and suffering with the talent of a war photographer. That image also fuels the anger of a country turned toward civil war because of this need to judge somebody on mere intent.

    So does that make Green Zone an anti-American film? Of course not. There is, through the hero played by Damon or the female journalist played by Amy Adams, the idea that a decent moral world is possible if it's durability is assured by people not corrupted by the system. Overall, an EXCELLENT FILM IN ALL RESPECTS, though it could have had less plot twists.
  • This is the 3rd movie from this director that's unwatchable due to shaky camera. It gets me very nauseous. Not sure why Paul thinks editing a movie in such a way is natural, unless he has a mental imbalance of sorts and sees the world through a shaky lens. From ruining the Bourne trilogy after the first one (loved the first one, NOT directed by g-grass), I'm not sure why anyone would hire a cuckoo 'director'.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Pretty interesting stuff. If anyone needs convincing that genres and cinematic vocabularies are evolving, all they have to do is go to the movies. This one is a part of a new trend, the war-detective genre. It is strictly noir, in the sense that forces outside our hero's world are at work on him. He is an ordinary Joe; he has amazing coincidences happen to him; he is trust into the role of detective and serves as our on-screen surrogate as we discover together some hidden perfidy. So innovation number one is that we have a war-detective genre almost fully formed already.

    The action is there for the same reason that smoke was 50-60 years ago, to enrich the screen. But this is no longer a war movie based on the assumptions of the founding genre. Then, we went to these to help identify as a tribe, to re-enforce that identity by celebrating its natural values and of course we have to win. Not here.

    In this case, we have what is widely known about these wars. They were a mistake, based on fictitious realities coaxed out of tortured detainees. The military here is not used to validate an identity, but to validate that we are estranged from the institutions we used to trust and venerate. Look at the characters: on the US side, everyone is a stock stereotype: smarmy Cheney factotum, grizzled CIA operative, earnest girl reporter, ,wild amoral snakeater, scads of lazy soldiers in battlefield luxury.

    The only two interesting characters are Iraqi. They not only are real men with complex motives, but they are the ones with agency.

    I can see that they had some trouble with how critical to be of the men in uniform. Apparently, a whole subplot about abuse of luxuries at Sadam's palace was jettisoned. Only a few scenes remain, necessary for the main plot. But that whole business, together with the name, is left dangling. I think the movie failed to make money because it is easy to buy into an evil operation managed from the White House. But we still find it hard to not think of the man in theater as anything but noble.

    Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
  • Green Zone has been promoted by Universal Studios with its plot mostly obscured, wrapped around the mysterious figure "Magellan". Watching the trailer, one only gets a vague sense that the film it set in Iraq and that Matt Damon's character, Roy Miller, is searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction in 2003. It looks, perhaps appropriately, like a close cousin to the Bourne movies, of which Paul Greengrass was also director.

    It's not a bad move, since it is a lightning-quick movie in its editing and camera-work (though nowhere near as much as the adrenaline-overloaded 'Ultimatum'), but the film is more akin to Greengrass' United 93. Both films, that one about the fourth plane hijacked on 9/11 that crashed in Pennsylvania, and this one about the whole reason the US went to war, take the viewer back to a point that is fresh in our collective memory- maybe too soon some would say, others not soon enough- when chaos was fully erupting, for a few hours or within grasp of a Pentagon phone call.

    It's not the most light of touches Greengrass takes to the material in terms of the script. The screenplay he has to work with by Brian Hegeland takes some fictional liberties with what are factual cases: the US did take advice from an unreliable source (or rather the US listened to what they wanted to hear), they kept coming up empty-handed after already months of inspecting before the invasion, and they're still told to dig despite the futility. This is all fine, though I wonder if the film would have benefited from just a little more characterization, aside from the types and casting to them (Damon as the determined hero, Kinnear as the clean-cut but sleazy bureaucratic villain, Gleeson as the helpful CIA character, Ryan as the frustrated embedded journalist), and sometimes spelling out too clearly the points of history.

    And yet it's hard to begrudge a film with so much else going on as well. What makes Green Zone powerful is Greengrass' visceral approach to the material, again more akin to United 93 than the Bourne movies. We're wrapped up in each step of the story, like a mystery infused with the purpose and drive of the hand-held camera (done by someone who knows well, Barry Akroyd of the Hurt Locker), and we want to see where it goes. There aren't too many big surprises in the story, despite its slight liberties, since it's always seemingly realistic in its scope of cinematography and technique. When Roy Miller's team does a daytime raid of a place with a suspected Sadaam general, the tension is thick and the payoff is juicy and satisfying. That there turns out to be ambiguity in Miller's situation (the line "Don't be naive" is repeated but necessary) gives some added urgency to Greengrass' direction.

    If you're one of the few people on planet Earth who still are not sure whether there were WMD's in Iraq (and you're probably Dick Cheney if you're one of them), then obviously the film isn't for you. It would seems like a given now, that it was one of those blatant lies that people were told to get over as the US would be there to stay in Iraq for an indeterminable amount of time (this despite the Mission Accomplished stunt, shown here in Green Zone again punctuating the story like a sudden exclamation point). But if Green Zone does approach this material a little thick, it's still in service of the long run historically, and comes second after being an entertaining action-mystery. People years from now can look at Green Zone first as a suspense film, a war film shot rigorously and with its black-white-gray areas surely defined, and then as a history lesson. It's an imperfect but important film for our times.
  • I'm guessing this movie is purely fiction and not based on any facts. It's just the conspiracy theory a lot of people believe concerning W's administration. It's the lefty's version of the war.

    I thought the movie was pretty good and entertaining. I had never heard of it before watching it on cable. Matt Damon plays Miller, head of a military unit. He is questioning the fact that they are sent on missions to find WMD, yet always come up empty. He thinks they are getting bad intel and enlists the help of reporters. From talking to an Iraqi prisoner he helped capture, he finds out whom Magellen is. Magellen is the code name for the Iraqi source for WMD. What he finds leads to even bigger government conspiracies. So he is trying to prove what he knows before the big government guys, like Greg Kinnear, can cover it up and silence people.

    I thought the last part with the chase through the city was filmed well. It made sense, was suspenseful, and I think it had the right ending. You know most of the locals did not like the Iraqi military.

    FINAL VERDICT: a movie worth checking out.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    So many reviews dismiss this film as whimsical propaganda. I long for the day when our American friends across the pond start to understand the real sense of irony here (irony is not like steely but with a bit of iron in it by the way).

    What do these people think that the American and British Government have been feeding us over the last 20 years - you've guessed it, propaganda. And lots of it. In Britain we have spin doctors for this very purpose - in America, you have a President.

    This film is fiction but the basis of the movie is true. There were no weapons of mass destruction and therefore the war was unjust. Now I don't know why the powers that be sought to invade Iraq. Maybe it was to rid the world of a known megalomaniac. Or just payback time for 9/11. Or maybe even by dismantling the country and then wading in with billion dollar contracts to rebuild it. Or a "crude" attempt to corner the oil market (pardon the pun). The truth is, we will never know.

    The film itself is flawed in many areas but the overall message is powerful. Matt Damon doesn't disappoint although on many occasions the motives of his character appear ludicrous. And of course Paul Greengrass's renowned shaky camera style does at times make the film difficult to watch. The film also predictably plays a familiar card - that different elements of the US Government (CIA vs Army) are singing from completely different hymn sheets. This card has been played many times before.

    But the plot doesn't let up, the action scenes are well done and there is a certain aspect of relief that Hollywood, even in a limited way, is prepared to question the morals of a Government who are clearly not being truthful with their own electorate. And for this reason alone, the filmmakers should be applauded.

    The storyline come conspiracy theory may be propaganda but the moral message is indisputably true. And that much greater propaganda formed a coalition which waged war on a country under completely false pretences. This gives this film merit, even if it is not a classic by any standard.

    I look forward to the raft of Afghan war films to be made over the next 20 years with an underlying message that it is war that can never be won. Watch this space - its going to happen.
  • Damon plays Roy Miller, Chief officer of a small unit based in Iraq assigned to search out locations which supposedly contain Weapons of Mass Destruction. The sites they search all turn up empty which leads Miller on a goose chase trying to uncover the truth about the source of the intel that pinpoints to those locations. 'Green Zone' is basically one long extended scene shot entirely in hand-held, hopefully not causing you to throw up half way through the film due to motion sickness. The plot is somewhat nonsensical, but if you can see past the obvious silliness, it could be a very suspenseful ride. The action scenes are well constructed and a lot of the film's budget clearly went into recreating the post invasion mayhem in Baghdad. It does so very convincingly.

    68/100
  • Greetings again from the darkness. The trailers and the involvement of director Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon gave me the initial impression this was to be little more than a "Bourne" rip-off. I am happy to report that's not the case. This is a fantastic story that is a cross between an Iraqi War movie and political thriller.

    Matt Damon plays an officer responsible for following the military intel for WMD locales in the early days of the invasion. He gets more frustrated and untrusting as each target comes up empty. When he questions the intel to his superiors, he is "politely" told to follow his orders. At the same time, he is approached by a grizzled CIA veteran played by Brendan Gleeson. The CIA happens to agree with Damon's character ... the intel is faulty and the belief is an ulterior motive is at play by the administration.

    Of course, this is not a documentary. It is merely another step in the exploration of what the driving force was for invading Iraq in the first place. Were WMD's a cover for the pursuit of Saadam? The script is based on a book, and leads us to believe the WMD intel was rigged because that was a great reason to present to our allies and citizens. The disconnect between the administration and the CIA appears evident. A smarmy Greg Kinnear plays an administration official who has much power ... and a special forces team reporting directly to him.

    The film highlights the blunders and poor decisions made early on in the invasion. Not really sure if they were blunders or if the mission was simply misguided. Either way, this makes for a great story and an intense one to follow. A real statement is made when one of the locals who has been assisting Damon, surprises him and states something along the lines of "You don't get to decide the fate of my country". That's not the exact quote, but it is the key point the film is making.

    The bad news is that Paul Greengrass is at his shaky camera worst. The first 15 minutes of the film and the climax chase scene to, through and outside the safe house were so bad that I felt queasy. I love well placed hand-held camera work, but this was beyond extreme - it was quite simply over the top and distracts from what should have been a near-classic.
  • 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...
  • We just returned from the theater watching the Green Zone. Overall I thought the movie was good. Certainly the sets and action were great and the story line was interesting (although taken from a liberal point of view politically).

    I have to agree with another reviewer. The artificial camera shake nearly ruined this movie for me. I don't mind a hand held camera but this was way over the top. I had to close my eyes several times because it was so bad. I don't know what drives directors to use this technique. It distracted from the overall presentation. I will be leery of viewing movies directed by Paul Greengrass in the future. Perhaps I'll wait to read viewer reviews to see if he uses this camera shake technique before I pay to see one of his movies again.

    I rate this 7 stars taking one star off for the story line and two for the camera shake.
  • 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'.
  • Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon, you say? So another Bourne movie? Although those names combined with the trailer combined with Damon's character Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller going rogue combined with mention of a code name person/project that Damon's character wants answers about might indiscreetly imply the fast-paced action of renegade assassin Jason Bourne, "Green Zone" is entirely different. It's a politically-fueled historical fiction thriller that blends Operation Iraqi Freedom facts with a conventional but effective conspiracy plot.

    Miller is in charge of a unit investigating potential WMD sites, all of which have been fruitless to this point. With no confirmed discovery of WMD, Miller starts asking questions of the intel he's been receiving, questions which wrap him into an amoral vortex of war politics involving a government official named Clark Poundstone (Kinnear) trying to cover up the mysterious intel source called "Magellan" and a CIA man (Gleeson) who plans to use Miller to thwart Poundstone. Also in the mix is Amy Ryan as an American journalist looking for similar answers.

    The action of the film centers around Miller trying to track down the jack of clubs, aka one of Saddam Hussein's men who's on the Iraq's most wanted playing cards. In general, however, there is not a ton of action, at least not the kind of combat that one with Bourne-sized expectations would be looking for. The suspense and intensity comes from Greengrass' guerrilla-style filming. It's like the camera is documenting Miller as he goes on these fairly dangerous missions, much like an embedded journalist would.

    The downside to this gritty feel, which in present times can only be compared to "The Hurt Locker" despite the enormous differences between the films, is a bit of "Cloverfield" syndrome. Don't sit too close to the screen during this film -- after awhile the hand-held camera starts to unsettle even the least motion-sick of moviegoers. Without question Greengrass makes "Green Zone" a unique and much more intriguing film with this technique -- one to stand out among other Iraq war pictures -- but two hours without a single tripod is tedious.

    "Green Zone" is a fairly conventional story adapted by Oscar-winner Brian Helgeland from the book by Rajiv Chandrasekaran. There aren't many surprises and at times it lapses into trite thriller dialogue, namely the poorly nurtured scenes between Ryan's journalist and Kinnear's prick-ish bigshot. One gets the sense that war thrillers that try to stick closely to historical accuracy are not Helgeland's ("L.A. Confidential," Mystic River") strength, but the film moves quickly and for much of the first hour feels rather genuine, taking Americans back to "shock and awe" and reminding us of how at first we truly felt going into Iraq was not only warranted but also right.

    Miller's skepticism of the intel reflects the views of most Americans back in 2003, that desire to hear the reason we were in Iraq when no WMD were found. For an action thriller that's kind of oddly political. The film's anti-war statement (did you see that one coming?) fights with the suspense for your brain's attention, but messages aside, "Green Zone" never gets to the point where it stops being entertaining or interesting. Greengrass might have stuck your retinas in a blender and kept it on high the whole time, but it doesn't undermine his strong ability to convey intensity on film.

    ~Steven C

    Visit my site at http://moviemusereviews.com
  • Directors need to learn that when they don't hold the cameras still when filming, the viewers are really turned off. It makes some of us nauseous and dizzy and this is not enjoyable at all. I don't even know what this movie is about because I cant watch this up down side side up down. Geez!!!
An error has occured. Please try again.