Green Zone

I have found that modern war movies probably won't be my thing, even though I have wanted to give the film "Marine" a chance for a long time. "Green Zone" didn't really impress me, even though it becomes a very good movie when it comes to action. Greengrass has already practiced with Matt Damon, but what worked twice for "Bourne" may not be a recipe for a third film. It probably needs a stronger story, a bit deeper critique of the United States and their political intentions. Like this, it's just a movie that takes place on the hot grounds of Iraq, occasionally showing scenes that reveal how those who actually control the world have their fingers everywhere, but there is no significant added value. So, it's mainly a film for action enthusiasts who will enjoy all the shootouts, action in the city, and the gear that soldiers have. It is truly good in how it captures the military environment. Greengrass could probably make a living as a war reporter. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/05/kocour-v-botach-jedna-hodne-blba-svatba.html (2013-02-19)

If I wanted to compare it to the five-star Body of Lies (and that's a hell of a comparison), I'd say that Damon is a bit worse than DiCaprio, Gleeson is a bit worse than Crowe, Greengrass is on par with Scott in terms of action, but in the moments when there is no shooting the film, it gets a bit lame. But Green Zone is lucky that I don't want to compare the two films. I have to admit that the film is one of the top in its genre and it surprised me with a pleasantly conspiratorial and quite intelligent script (Helgeland, of course), realistic action scenes that draw you into the plot perfectly, and a monstrously built-up ending with one great chase. I believed everything about Matt Damon's Miller (thankfully no flashy superman type like from The Hurt Locker), and I liked Kinnear's Rat and Jason Isaacs' awesome character. A bit weaker five stars, but still five stars. (2011-03-06)

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? (2010-05-27)

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%. (2010-12-03)

This action-packed probe into the war in Iraq turned out to be as good as both of Bourne’s little brothers. Greengrass, Damon and Powell step on the gas absolutely everywhere, but the final action sequence (perfect camera) is unequalled. The tempo, suspense, and the perfect directing workmanship... just superb. Helgeland’s screenplay, based on a lie that was (as always) intended to serve a good cause despite all the dynamics remains in the forefront and points out mistakes that should never be forgotten and swept under the table. If anyone knows how to mix ingenuity and entertainment in one movie, it’s Greengrass. Everything fits nicely together and makes Green Zone a seriously good watch. (2010-06-10)