Cool News
Mr. Beaks And Paul Greengrass Kick Back In The GREEN ZONE!
Suggested by Rajiv Chandrasekaran's IMPERIAL LIFE IN THE EMERALD CITY, Paul Greengrass's GREEN ZONE places the viewer at Clusterfuck Center during the early days of America's occupation of Iraq, where lies and sheer incompetence combined to touch off a bloody insurrection that left thousands of soldiers and civilians dead. Had the film been strictly "based on" Chandrasekaran's tome, it probably would've been a minutiae-laden docudrama depicting the institutional failure that nudged the door open for the insurgency. But Greengrass and screenwriter Brian Helgeland are more interested in the larger conflict of the Bush administration versus the CIA, and how the former wrecked a country by buying into their own invented reality - concocted to justify the invasion of Iraq in the first place - wholesale. It's big-picture stuff (To De-Baathify or Not De-Baathify), with the build-up to the disbanding of the Iraqi Army playing as one long, surprisingly tense (given that we know the outcome) suspense beat.
At the center of GREEN ZONE is Miller (Matt Damon), a Mobile Exploration (MET) officer who begins to question his WMD-hunting mission when, time and again, his team risks their lives to infiltrate an empty, dust-caked factory space. The intel is consistently wrong, yet everyone - his superiors, his fellow officers, the media - seems to believe it's only a matter of time before the weapons magically turn up. Miller, however, has had enough of following bunk orders, so he strays from the reservation in order to chase down the truth; this puts him in league with the CIA - which, for the first time ever in a left-leaning film, comes off as a semi-competent, non-nefarious organization.
Greengrass openly admits that he's embraced thriller conventions to entertain his audience; as for whether he wants them to feel anything more than satisfaction at having been entertained (i.e. the indignation that books like Chandrasekaran's provoked), he ain't saying. Mostly, he's just proud of his work, particularly the execution of the final action sequence - a frantic twenty-minute pursuit of a moving target which outdoes anything he pulled off in the BOURNE movies.
And, yes, he is done with the BOURNE franchise. He explains why in the below interview.
Mr. Beaks: Do you see GREEN ZONE as a merging of your docudrama and mainstream action-filmmaking sensibilities?
Paul Greengrass: Yes, I do actually. I think that's bang-on. In fact, that was sort of a conscious thing, to see if I could do it and what would be the result. I would say that I wanted it to be leaning more towards the action-thriller. To marry the two.
Beaks: But you do have an obligation to the historical record, obviously.
Greengrass: Right.
Beaks: How do you keep that in sight while still delivering a film that entertains in a relatively conventional manner?
Greengrass: If you make films, you're telling stories. That's what you're doing, really. And you're trying to find stories that people want to listen to. It's not journalism or history: it's making movies. So when you're thinking about "Where can I make a thriller..." thrillers thrive on extremity, don't they. Whether it's extreme physical environments - dangerous places - or extreme moral environments. Preferably, you want both. That's kind of where I started. You don't start with the historical record in that sense. It's important down the line, but you've got to start with the story. And the story always was a story of a guy who shows up in that place with a very noble mission. His mission is not his own; he's doing his duty, which is to find the weapons and disarm the dictator. And when he gets there, there's nothing there.
That's where I started. That was exactly where we all started with this thing - at least, I did anyway, as did, I suspect, a vast majority of people across the world. We had that feeling of "Here it is, we're going to go in and [find the WMDs]," and nothing's there. That felt entirely at one with the historical record. That's what those guys did: they went in with pieces of paper telling them to go to Places X, Y and Z, and there they will find [the WMDs]. And when they got there, they didn't find them. I talked to many of those MET guys - all of the soldiers who are part of Miller's team [in the film] are ex-MET guys who did that job, who went across the border. They had to fight their way through dangers, and then found there was nothing there.
Here's the point: that's such a great premise for a thriller. What you get is a character who walks out and says, "Wait a second. You told us they were there. What's going on?" That's a great premise for a thriller because that's what you want your hero in a thriller to be: a guy who bucks the system, asks the question and won't let go; he'll go to any lengths to get his answer to find the truth. That's the true answer to your question: you start with a premise that is entirely realistic, and then you unfold it in the most dramatic way that you possibly can. It's one man's search for the truth. That's as old a plot as thrillers have ever had. And it's always a great one because it takes your hero into darker and darker conspiracies, and inevitably into more danger. So you've got a great thriller unfolding, but then you're trying to set the background to the world as accurately as possible. For instance, the debates between the CIA guy who's saying, "Look, if we get rid of the Army, there's going to be civil war in six months," and the Pentagon guy saying, "We beat the Iraqi Army. We're going to [disband them]." Those were the debates at the time. The decision to de-Baathify was the crucial decision; it was a very dramatic moment, as anyone who's read Rajiv Chandrasekaran's book knows. That's both true, but also a fantastic backdrop to a thriller because it raises the stakes - which is what you always want in a thriller. You feel like the hero is standing at a vital moment.
Lastly, the real backdrop of Baghdad, going back to what I said about thrillers thriving on extremity, that world was a surreal world. One of the things I'm proudest of with the film is that you really feel that environment in a way you've never felt it before: the Green Zone and the palace... that's all incredibly well-drawn and true-to-life.
You've got to tell a great story. You've got to tell a story that is a thriller. But along the way, you're harnessing it to a real backdrop. I can point you to a hundred thrillers that have done that. It's always great because your audience is then pitched into an exciting environment that means a lot, but, front and center, they're getting a great story of a heroic guy searching for the truth.
Beaks: Having read the book, you've presented the Green Zone exactly the way I imagined it. For me, the book provoked laughter first, and then sheer outrage at the avoidable folly of it all. What exactly are you trying to provoke or elicit from the viewer emotionally with your film?
Greengrass: Honestly and truly? You've got to give them a rewarding experience in a movie theater. That means you've got to deliver for them a genre that they understand and love - i.e. the conspiracy action-thriller genre. It's got to work on that level unquestionably. Along the way, I believe that audiences also like that genre delivered with some intelligence and ambition. That's what I tried to do in the BOURNE movies, and that's what I'm trying to do here. They're different pieces, of course, but I think that that's what you're trying to do. In any given year, how many big action movies are there? They're a tried-and-tested movie that people want to go see. But you can't make them all samey; guys like you would rightly criticize us if we did. You've got to find a way to do those kinds of pieces in fresh ways.
Personally, I think these pieces get enormously re-engergized when you reintroduce them to what's really happening out there - because they're getting the genre piece that's very tried-and-tested and incredibly satisfying, but also getting some sort of originality and intelligence in with it. Hopefully... I mean, it's for you to judge... but hopefully you're getting the really rewarding night in the theater, and then you'll talk about it afterwards. It will stay with you. That seems to me to be a really great ambition to have in the action-thriller genre. I believe these things can be of really good quality; they draw strength from being set in the real world.
But am I trying to make people angry? Not at all. You're trying to give people a rewarding experience, and part of what makes it rewarding is that it's a take on the real world.
Beaks: Anyone who was watching television will be familiar with the issues being argued here, so your film then has to give us a deeper look into it.
Greengrass: You're propelled through it in a way that you've never been before.
Beaks: Speaking of "propelled", I want to talk about the editing of the final action sequence, which has two men frantically chasing the same target for very different reasons. What's fascinating about this sequence is that, even though we're never entirely sure where we are geographically, we're never struggling to get our bearings. We're as focused on the target as they are, so their movement makes sense. How do you keep that straight?
Greengrass: The way you keep it straight, and it's always imperative to me to keep it straight so that you are clear, is by a lot of hard work, careful planning, careful shooting and careful editing. That's the honest truth of it. What makes an action sequence great in my view - and I've done a few, but I'm very proud of that twenty minute sequence at the end - is that your action has got to support character and not the other way around. In other words, your characters can't just run around willy-nilly. Your action is designed to take your character from one type of person to another, so the action movements have got to reflect substantial growth in the character. Then you marry that with thematic development, narrative development, so that the story changes and moves on through the action. Lastly, you've got to render that action sequence with two things that fight each other radically: one is, with the most intense energy, the pace you can summon with the most scrupulous attention to detail so that you understand, as every beat in the action sequence unfolds, what every character in that action sequence is reacting to, or what his or her thought process is. You track it accurately. If you can marry all of those things into one, so that you've almost got a piece of music with acceleration and deceleration and obstacles to overcome, and then a blinding kind of finale flourish... if you can do all of that, then you've got a great action sequence.
The clarity is absolutely imperative. Otherwise, it's just a load of movement and you've no involvement in it or ability to live with it; you're just watching it as spectacle, and that's not exciting. What's exciting is when you're inside it as an immersive thing, and you're within the character's thought process. "He's run there because of that and is now intent on doing this, and this character has now got to do that because of this in order to do that." You're getting the collision of detailed thought processes, and that is the difference between looking at something that's rendered at pace but within pure focus, as opposed to something that is rendered out-of-focus, that is blurred and unsatisfying.
Beaks: How long did it take to pull that sequence together in the editing room?
Greengrass: A long, long time. (Laughs) I couldn't put a time on it, but several months. There were so many complex strands that we were pulling together.
Beaks: What would make a return to the BOURNE franchise rewarding for you?
Greengrass: I've moved on from the BOURNE franchise. I enjoyed my time there. It was fantastic. I am the number one fan of the franchise, but I just felt at the end of [GREEN ZONE] that I wanted to move on to do different sorts of things, and making another BOURNE film was not one of my priorities for the foreseeable future. I explained that to the studio, and they were incredibly understanding.
You know, this is actually what should happen in a franchise. A franchise shouldn't belong to one director. You're just guesting; you come to the franchise and give it whatever you can contribute. And when you've given it your all - as I think I did with those two films - you go "Well, I've done what I can do, and now I need to move on, do different things, and learn some new tricks!"
Beaks: Would that be to continue in the vein of GREEN ZONE, with stories based on reality?
Greengrass: No, I think I need to do something completely different. It's time for my romantic comedy.
Paul Greengrass's GREEN ZONE hurtles into theaters Friday, March 12th.
Faithfully submitted,
Mr. Beaks
That's where I started. That was exactly where we all started with this thing - at least, I did anyway, as did, I suspect, a vast majority of people across the world. We had that feeling of "Here it is, we're going to go in and [find the WMDs]," and nothing's there. That felt entirely at one with the historical record. That's what those guys did: they went in with pieces of paper telling them to go to Places X, Y and Z, and there they will find [the WMDs]. And when they got there, they didn't find them. I talked to many of those MET guys - all of the soldiers who are part of Miller's team [in the film] are ex-MET guys who did that job, who went across the border. They had to fight their way through dangers, and then found there was nothing there.
Here's the point: that's such a great premise for a thriller. What you get is a character who walks out and says, "Wait a second. You told us they were there. What's going on?" That's a great premise for a thriller because that's what you want your hero in a thriller to be: a guy who bucks the system, asks the question and won't let go; he'll go to any lengths to get his answer to find the truth. That's the true answer to your question: you start with a premise that is entirely realistic, and then you unfold it in the most dramatic way that you possibly can. It's one man's search for the truth. That's as old a plot as thrillers have ever had. And it's always a great one because it takes your hero into darker and darker conspiracies, and inevitably into more danger. So you've got a great thriller unfolding, but then you're trying to set the background to the world as accurately as possible. For instance, the debates between the CIA guy who's saying, "Look, if we get rid of the Army, there's going to be civil war in six months," and the Pentagon guy saying, "We beat the Iraqi Army. We're going to [disband them]." Those were the debates at the time. The decision to de-Baathify was the crucial decision; it was a very dramatic moment, as anyone who's read Rajiv Chandrasekaran's book knows. That's both true, but also a fantastic backdrop to a thriller because it raises the stakes - which is what you always want in a thriller. You feel like the hero is standing at a vital moment.
Lastly, the real backdrop of Baghdad, going back to what I said about thrillers thriving on extremity, that world was a surreal world. One of the things I'm proudest of with the film is that you really feel that environment in a way you've never felt it before: the Green Zone and the palace... that's all incredibly well-drawn and true-to-life.
You've got to tell a great story. You've got to tell a story that is a thriller. But along the way, you're harnessing it to a real backdrop. I can point you to a hundred thrillers that have done that. It's always great because your audience is then pitched into an exciting environment that means a lot, but, front and center, they're getting a great story of a heroic guy searching for the truth.
Personally, I think these pieces get enormously re-engergized when you reintroduce them to what's really happening out there - because they're getting the genre piece that's very tried-and-tested and incredibly satisfying, but also getting some sort of originality and intelligence in with it. Hopefully... I mean, it's for you to judge... but hopefully you're getting the really rewarding night in the theater, and then you'll talk about it afterwards. It will stay with you. That seems to me to be a really great ambition to have in the action-thriller genre. I believe these things can be of really good quality; they draw strength from being set in the real world.
But am I trying to make people angry? Not at all. You're trying to give people a rewarding experience, and part of what makes it rewarding is that it's a take on the real world.
The clarity is absolutely imperative. Otherwise, it's just a load of movement and you've no involvement in it or ability to live with it; you're just watching it as spectacle, and that's not exciting. What's exciting is when you're inside it as an immersive thing, and you're within the character's thought process. "He's run there because of that and is now intent on doing this, and this character has now got to do that because of this in order to do that." You're getting the collision of detailed thought processes, and that is the difference between looking at something that's rendered at pace but within pure focus, as opposed to something that is rendered out-of-focus, that is blurred and unsatisfying.
You know, this is actually what should happen in a franchise. A franchise shouldn't belong to one director. You're just guesting; you come to the franchise and give it whatever you can contribute. And when you've given it your all - as I think I did with those two films - you go "Well, I've done what I can do, and now I need to move on, do different things, and learn some new tricks!"
Faithfully submitted,
Mr. Beaks
-
+ Expand All
-
Doesn't seem to do justice to the novel for me. Why even buy the rights and say in the credits that its "based on" the book? It doesn't say "suggested by" in the last trailer I saw. Just give it a different name (they did) and be done with it. Saying its based on that non-fiction book and having Jason Bourne in Iraq is really disingenuous. I'm not a fan.
-
or so it says over on Batmanonfilm.
-
I know some people would hate that but I would be first in line.
-
C'mon. Greengrass Superman. COOL.
-
Mar 10, 2010 11:43:39 AM CST
His brother is having a hard time writing Batman 3it apparently.
by connor187
He wants it to be epic. I am already excited.
-
I enjoyed reading Greengrass' explanation. Best part of the interview.
-
There's a scene early in the film where they establish that he's not an unstoppable badass.
-
Don't know how that happened.
-
It deserves its own talkback. Sorry to post this on here, Greenzone looks good by the way.
-
I agree, D. Vader. From principal to post, he knows precisely what he's going for with those action sequences. They are meticulously orchestrated. And while I agree that there is way too much shaky-cam in movies nowadays, I've found Greengrass's last three pictures anything but disorienting (SUPREMACY's another story).
-
Yeah, I enjoyed that too. His insight into putting together an action sequence was very interesting.
And I understand your problem with the movie to a certain extent... but anything that sheds light onto
what went on in the background is a good thing. Even if it's in the trappings of an action movie. -
Because when I saw the trailer in the theater, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Looks like they just took the basic idea from the book- Life in the Green Zone- and made it a platform for Jason Bourne in Iraq vs all sorts of shady government backstabbers and double-crossers. I was interested in it as a movie. Not interested (and disappointed) in it as an adaptation of the non-fiction book.
-
it opened today
Wow is it an awesome action thriller. Might not have anything profound to say but I was riveted. Tight, slick and dazzlingly well made. I can't see how any talkbacker isn't going to enjoy this one.
and that finale Greengrass talks of here, its a stunner. -
....the main character is no one-man wrecking crew. Sure he's on his own, fighting for what he believes in - but it takes him a long time to get there. Don't for a second think this is Matt Damon kicking ass for 2 hours, because it isn't.
Excellent performance from Damon too.
It'll draw comparisons with Bourne due to the star and director of course, but what it shares in style it totally differs from in terms of execution. -
The vibe I got from the trailer was that Damon gives his superiors the finger, goes out on his own to uncover the truth, meets shady government operatives, and blasts his way through roomfuls of terrorists. I'm glad I'm wrong.
-
Are storyboarded and how much of it is put together in the editing room.
-
but I didn't get that feeling from it in the slightest.
It's good stuff. No surprise alot of critics are reviewing it as not being the film they wanted it to be - rather than reviewing the Saturday night cracker of an action thriller Greengrass clearly set out to make. And there's nothing wrong with that if its done as well as it is here. -
They don't need the Bourne franchise. They are the Bourne franchise. Just change the names, introduce a different back story, instant profits!!
-
From last week's Newsweek to today's Thomas Friedman column in the NY Times, the meme that Beaks is still parroting (i.e. "BUSH LIED! PEOPLE DIED!") in his use of words like "concocted" has quietly become inoperative as even those who declared the war a "quagmire" and doomed to failure are slinking away from their former words and grudgingly admitting that history has shown Bush to be correct in his efforts. That this circa 2005 mindset flick is opening a week after the non-ideological Hurt Locker cleaned up at a controversy-free Oscars shows how lousy the timing is. But we already knew how anti-American Matt Damon was; the disappointment is that Greengrass felt the need to suck the radical Hollyweird Left's knob when he's proven he can make $$$$ for them w/o demonizing America.
-
I don't think any liberal ever disagreed that we need to fix Iraq. But I don't think you're going to find liberals that suddenly believe Bush was right, there WERE WMDs in Iraq, Iraq was threatening us, Iraq and 9/11 etc etc etc . I don't think you're right there, pal. The war has been a quagmire in the past, so you're wrong there too in my opinion.
-
So I strapped my computer monitor to a paint mixer.
-
...to clear out his WMDs. Is that aspect in this film? Didn't think so. Damon in a US military uniform = anti-US film, exception being SAVING PRIVATE RYAN back in 1998 when he needed the career boost. This will bomb, bigtime. You're better than this, Greengrass.
-
This film is about five years too late. DOes anybody really care anymore that US military could not find WMDs? By the way, didn't Saddam gas 5,000 Kurds to death, many women and children, in Halabja. Isn't 5,000 death by gas a WMD? He had done it in the past and he would have done so again. I am glad he is dead. Apparently, Greengrass and Damon wish Saddam Hussein were still alive!
-
http://tinyurl.com/yay7vtkJust like Katrina was a Class 5 storm that only managed to hit but a *single* city, it never ceases to amaze me how sheer logic prohibits someone from considering -- CONSIDERING -- the possibility that Iraq had WMD because -- as they repeat ad nausea -- that Iraq had WMD because we *gave* it to them.Alex D, "By the way, didn't Saddam gas 5,000 Kurds to death"Sir Loin, "Saddam had 14 months thanks to the UN to clear out his WMDs"D.Vader, "But I don't think you're going to find libeals that suddenly believe Bush was right, there WERE WMDs in Iraq"::sigh:: Narratives are so very important to maintain. Especially when we're talking a Derangement Syndrome.And, yeah, D.Vader... I know you people are "independent." That you embrace the far left fringe is only so much coincidence.
-
That 2 million people were murdered during Saddam's reign. Mass graves were found in ditches throughout Iraq. His sons used to get their bodyguards to go to the local university and grab the hottest girls and take them back to their palace where they would rape them for days and then shoot or hang them to death. yet, we are still complaining whether we should have invaded Iraq because no WMDs were found? Fucking hell!
-
That WMDS were moved. Sir Loin says that just because none waere found, doesn't mean they weren't there. By that logic, mythical creatures could exist because their existence has no been disproven, ie, the "fifty-foot shark theory". And "Saddam gassing the Kurds" happened while his regime was being given aid by the Reagan Administration. Aid did not cease after the gassings. Ironically, Ronnie was also selling weapons to the Iranians for hostages, and found what happens "if you give a mouse a cookie", while lying to the American people. NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND OF WMDS BEING MOVED. NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND OF THEM HAVING EXISTED. That was the rationale for the war in Iraq. And, subsequently, 4,000 Americans and thousands of civilians lost their lives, billions were and are being wasted, while private firms with no-bid contracts and ties to the prior Administration continue to rake in the payload. And this is a good thing? BizarroWorld, anyone? Are indefinite detention and torture cardinal virtues in Bizarroworld, as well?
-
I am independent. But I don't know who this "you people" are that you're trying to qualify me as being a part of. Read before you post and you'll look smarter. Did I say there WERE NO WMDs? Or did I say I doubt you'll find liberals that agree with Bush that there WERE WMDs? Point to me.
-
How about a healthy dose of shut the fuck up, hmm? FUCK YOUR CUNTING POLITICS.
-
Mar 10, 2010 11:58:15 PM CST
I can think of a few Directors who can take a lesson from Greeng
by outlawsdelejos
United 93 & Bourne Ultimatum while frantic and cut fast never lost the viewer. Now, something like Transformers 2....I had no fucking idea what was happening when and why in that clusterfuck. And I'm glad he's toned done the steadycam, he had a Tony Scott phase where everything had to be bat shit fast, that fight in the kitchen in Supremacy was two black shadows fighting against a white backdrop. But he's better now....
-
Trailer looks good, but if it's that same distracting camera movement and zooming in and out bullshit from his last Bourne film, you couldn't pay me to see this.
-
All his movies along with Mann's looks like any jackass with a camera could have shot the same shit...they are not very compelling filmmakers at all.
-
If not, this is more one-sided revisionist history about the Iraq war. Enjoy the red meat all you committed Kool Aid drinkers. The rest of America will be staying home.
-
Read the book Cobra II, by Michael Gordon and Gen Bernard Trainor (retd). It draws on interviews conducted by U.S military with Iraqi military figures and politicians after the invasion in 2003.Saddam revealed to his cabinet that Iraq did not possess WMD in the run up to the war, which they were ignorant of due to the high level of compartmentalization within the Iraqi regime. Saddam had maintained a strategy of 'deterrence by doubt' i.e giving the impression of possessing WMD due to the need to counter the regional threat of Iran, while clouding the issue enough to comply with UN weapons inspections.
-
The Russians, British and Democrat leader types were convinced that Iraq was an imminent threat... before it became more expedient to deny it. We have the audio tapes and CSPAN videos to prove it. So, if (and I stress if) Iraq is a fiasco, it is one that is largely shared.
-
I'm not debating who's reponsible, I'm just pointing out that the "WMDS were moved to Syria!" and "If we'd invaded earlier we'd have found the WMD!" arguments are wrong.
-
I see what you mean.
-
Mar 11, 2010 1:22:55 PM CST
Greengrass comments about crafting action make me feel conflicte
by wesley snipes
As far as the shaky cam + quick cutting aesthetic goes, Greengrass' action work is about as clear & rhythmic as that stuff gets. There's *just* enough info provided in bits so that you can tell what's going on, and there's almost always a good rhythm & 'flow' to the scenes so that you neither get bored or overwhelmed (much credit goes to the musical scores in helping the latter). The Moscow car chase in Bourne Supremacy is masterful. Having said that, the base style is still shaky cam & quick cutting, which means the overall amount of stuff you can see is highly limited and you're usually left with a feeling that you're missing out on some of the more spectacular action imagery & beats. Watching the practice footage of the martial arts fights in Supremacy & Ultimatum compared to finished product was saddening: The single take practice footage was more exciting *and* clear than the over-edited finished scenes every damn time. For all of the effort he seems to put into editing the scenes & implementing that style, it seems he could've gotten something better just by cutting less and trusting the content/staging. Still, good director and I look forward to seeing The Green Zone.
-
The Washington Post reports (yesterday):
As troops massed on his border near the start of the Persian Gulf War, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein weighed the purchase of a $150 million nuclear "package" deal that included not only weapons designs but also production plants and foreign experts to supervise the building of a nuclear bomb, according to documents uncovered by a former U.N. weapons inspector.
The offer, made in 1990 by an agent linked to disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, guaranteed Iraq a weapons-assembly line capable of producing nuclear warheads in as little as three years. But Iraq lost the chance to capitalize when, months later, a multinational force crushed the Iraqi army and forced Hussein to abandon his nuclear ambitions, according to nuclear weapons expert David Albright, who describes the proposed deal in a new book.
If you'll recall, after we invaded Iraq we scooped up A.Q. Khan and closed his travelling nuke market. After that, Libya ended a previously undiscovered nuclear weapon program. These are not trivial events.
-
So, he almost had them. And then continued not having them for the next 13 years. So, by that rationale, it would be better to invade countries with an intent to have WMD programs versus those that actually do? Riiiiight.
-
...about his shaky cam style?
-
Paul: "S-s-s-so. Y-y-y-you're m-m-m-married."
Summer: Y-y-y-yeah. C-c-c-crazy, h-h-h-huh?" -
that was based on suppositions and possible WMDs. Hell. They weren't even probable. I'm no nuclear or chemical weapons expert but even I knew at the time that Iraq possessing any stockpiles or remote capability was an IMPOSSIBILITY. How?
Let's see. The entire country was embargoed for over 10 years. Northern and southern no-fly zones in the control of the U.S. and U.K. all that time. It was no surprise to me they came up empty on the search. And I'm just a talkbacker.
Anyway, did you hear how Sarah Palin - the most vocal opponent of government-run healthcare, went to Canada for healthcare? You rightwingers. Always good for a laugh. Except for Fish. Just a pitiful idiot.
-
Mar 12, 2010 1:42:25 AM CST
This movie sounds like what The Hurt Locker could have bee
by ron's jeremy
Sorry to bring this up but The Hurt Locker just seemed like obscene propaganda to me. Like the only atrocities committed in the Iraq war were committed by Iraqis. Thank you Kathryn Bigelow.
-
sorry
-
"Obligation to historical record" and "Green Zone" shouldn't be put together in the same article.
-
then makes a film saying the American government was 'incompetant' in Iraq, lol
-
It had been made six or seven years ago. But today it feels like old news. Are we meant to be shocked when Matt Damon discovers (gasp) there were no WMD? If you've been hiding in a Saddam-like hole for the last eight years that might have been a good ending. But all this stuff has already been said over and over and even admitted by the principal players - Bush and Blair. Also, I note that Greengrass wasn't brave enough to address Israel or Iran's role in the grander scheme of things - that might risk offending audiences or pressure groups.Really, it's just another opportunity for Western audiences to pat themselves on their backs for their retrospective outrage at Bush and Blair. HURT LOCKER did Iraq so much better by making it the story of the soldiers. Here, the characters are representative ciphers - the Iraqi politician, the Ba’athist general, the US diplomat, the journalist, the CIA man etc. Nothing to connect us to them individually.
-
"Anyway, did you hear how Sarah Palin - the most vocal opponent of government-run healthcare, went to Canada for healthcare? You rightwingers. Always good for a laugh. Except for Fish. Just a pitiful idiot."Link, please.You know... Like this one:http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2510700
-
I refer to "You People" as "You People" only because "You People" incessantly insist via numerous claims that "You People" are moderate or that "You People" are independent simply because "You People" claim it to be so when any balanced review of what "You People" claim is to be representative of "You People" is anything but.Bottom Line... if "You People" vote in crap and "You People" defend crap, then chances are "You People" may be for crap.I'm not for crap. Unlike "You People"
-
I thought watching it that it had to be the victim of studio interference. Parts of it are exceptional, brilliant, atmospheric, and tweak scenes you've seen before so they feel fresh. but there's a ton of clunky groaning conventional screenwriting shit that drags the movie down, awful over the top hamfisted dialogue and cliches that i've seen in episodes of 24, etc. There's a pivotal line near the end that's so heavy handed i felt like the jolly green giant was jerking me off. Kinnear talks in bad scriptwriter-ese, and Damon's Miller is never given any dimensionality at all. there are two flawless extraordinary extended action scenes in this film, and an amazing depiction of the green zone in moments, but the rest of it is a huge dissapointment.
-
Or at least, a really big bomb. Yet another anti-US Iraq movie that will lose countless millions for its studio, but earn valuable leftist bona fides for its star and director.
I didn't see it and won't be anytime soon, so can someone tell me if it had a scene where every major spy agency in the world also agreed that Iraq had WMDs? Because they did.
The idea that it was a US conspiracy is insane, sort of like the 9/11 truther madness.
BringSexyBack, you knew it was an impossibility, and yet you did nothing? You fool! You should have alerted the authorities, started a blog - something! No, we're the fools, fools for not listening to BringSexyBack when he knew all along. He knew... all along.
-
As in box office bomb. While the left wing reviewers loved it, most of the country and the rest of the world are ignoring it.
-
I won't pay to see this.
-
Every movie about the Iraq War, except The Hurt Locker, has been an exercise in overly-politicized liberal circle-jerking. I don't give a shit whether you support the war or not: these preachy movies are a dime a dozen. I love Greengrass, and a lot of Damon's work, but I am not throwing down for this one.
-
they're in my pants.
-
I just watched Green Zone and the camera work is the absolute opposite of what you are claiming.
The whole film is shaky-cam hell and at times it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell what the fuck is going on. They literally filmed the whole movie with a guy running after the actors with a camera. Some guys left the movie early after loudly complaining about motion sickness.
Felt like i was watching this movie trough the lense of my fucking 200$ sony handicam. -
Im getting a fucking seizure here.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 151 total posts 140 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 128 total posts 94 posts
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 92 total posts 91 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 474 total posts 70 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 64 total posts 64 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 51 total posts 51 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 116 total posts 41 posts
- Wanna smell like the Hulk? What about Cap? Consider yourself a Thunder God or a unisex God of Mischief? -- 71 total posts 40 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 35 total posts 34 posts