Green Zone

A word that is often used in connection with cinema is "disappointment." I think I know why, but I’m not going to share it. Fears that Greengrass and Damon would merely swap running around the world's capitals for the dusty roads of Iraq have not come to fruition. Leaning on one spectacular screw-up by the Bush administration and Helgeland's script, they’ve created a compelling, rather conversational thriller that is given momentum by the restless cinematography and Powell's pulsating score. Expecting an action geyser is not worth it because Green Zone is, despite all the impressive set design, a rather modest film with no ambition to entertain, and yet is not at all afraid to point fingers at specific people. It’s based on the lesson that was the motto of a certain spirits advertisement: "There’s always a reason." (06/09/2010)

It would not be dignified to compare this movie to the Jason Bourne series. Let’s overlook the fact that Green Zone does not have Bourne’s entertaining drive, has no compelling music, and takes place from beginning to end in a location that looks like a single dark construction site and tells us nothing about its characters. It is easier to compare it with Ridley Scott’s thematically related Body of Lies, which I rated with three stars and which entertained me more. Green Zone is just a black-and-white militaristic exercise with a directing style that has been applied more successfully and with more vivid colors in other movies. (06/11/2010)

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. (03/06/2011)

Technically speaking, it’s a flawless political-military thriller (not combat action), but to me it’s the weakest viewer experience that I’ve ever had with Greengrass. I get what Green Zone probably wants to say, but I believe they could have got more out of the premise. Given the level of the game the creators are playing, I can’t say the script is good enough – the deus ex machina character of Freddy is especially awful. But I’m not disappointed, because the genre (which I’m not a big fan of) didn’t lead me to expect much. (06/10/2010)

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? (05/27/2010)