Ryan McNeil
If one were to step outside into the Iraqi sunshine in The Green Zone, they might see people taking photos like tourists. They might see administrators in suits walking to and fro like they owned the joint. In short, they might think that since The Coalition took Baghdad and fortified this ten square kilometre area, the success of the mission was well in hand.
But as all the political maneuvering of Matt Damon’s latest film shows us, one shouldn’t be so naive.
GREEN ZONE begins with American forces having already taken over Baghdad; they are now tossing site after site in the hunt for weapons of mass destruction. Chief Roy Miller (Matt Damon) leads a squad that has searched site after site, and so far has come up with jack squat. making his mission all the more frustrating is the fact that Miller and his team are working off page after page of American intelligence, all of which is getting systematically disproven.
After Miller finally speaks up – and quickly gets shut up by senior officers – he is approached by a CIA employee named Martin Brown (Brendan Gleeson). Brown has specialized in Middle East intelligence for years, and seems to understand what is going on better than anyone else. He suggests to Miller that things aren’t what they seem, and that he might want to dig a little deeper…on his own.
Contradicting Brown’s ideas is Clark Poundstone (Greg Kinnear), a high-ranking Washington administrator. He is convinced his heavily guarded source “Magellan” has given him credible inside intel, and has no problem saying so to Miller, and likewise to New York Times reporter Lawrie Dayne (Amy Ryan). If a high ranking Washington administrator tells you that a CIA employee is off base, and that the raw data is to be trusted…he probably knows what he’s talking about, right?
GREEN ZONE is well aware of its mission, and that mission isn’t to be a totem of the antiwar movement. It sacrifices validity for entertainment. Its story of a soldier calling his own plays and working in direct competition with his own commanding officers won’t be used as an example in any debate of American policy anytime soon. But you know what folks? There’s nothing wrong with that.
GREEN ZONE is more interested in taking a building-block kernel of truth and using it to construct an intense bit of political intrigue. The audience follows right in step with Chief Roy Miller for every intense moment of the play he has called. It doesn’t matter to the movie, nor to the audience, that Miller couldn’t possibly call a play like this. The success of this clearly needs to be credited to the creative pairing of director Paul Greengrass and star Matt Damon.
There are few directors working in Hollywood today who seem to be able to do intrigue and action better than Greengrass. Admittedly, his use of hand-held “shaky cam” can be a bit much for some viewers, but he has a way of grounding action sequences. The action becomes more plausible and intense, and less about mach-six editing and expansive pyrotechnics. Damon meanwhile works rather well as an action star because he finds a way to retain his everyman demeanour, shrugging off the superhero persona that makes many A-list actors unbelievable in moments of peril.
While GREEN ZONE isn’t terribly much more than a straight-up action flick, it takes direct aim at our collective conscience by continually reminding us that America’s rallying cry for the need to invade Iraq was at best questionable, and at worst dead wrong. In the opening act, the frustration is palpable as Miller’s teams keep coming up empty in the search for weapons of mass destruction. Hindsight makes that frustration infinitely worse.
"In the opening act, the frustration is palpable as Miller's teams keep coming up empty in the search for weapons of mass destruction."
I completely agree with this, as I thought the film got off to a great start in these opening moments where we just see Damon and his squad securing these sites with bad intel and coming up empty.
From there on out, I thought it dissolved into something more standardized and explicit. But as a straight-up actioner this side of the Bourne series, it certainly has its moments – it flew by.
I forgot, I also wanted to add that while "Green Zone" may not be anti-war in a grand-sweep way, it is certainly anti-Iraq, which is what I was trying to get across in my review.
"It doesn't matter to the movie, nor to the audience, that Miller couldn't possibly call a play like this."
I guess personally, it did matter to me. So much that it took me out of the movie at points and got me annoyed.
It bothered me how contrived everything was too. The inciting incident of the movie happened simply due to a random iraqi civilian who tells Damon where a meeting is taking place. I mean, c'mon. That's just lazy writing, as was prevalent throughout the rest of the movie with flat dialogue and flat characters. I almost laughed out loud when Damon was interrogating the guy they caught in that meeting. It went something like this:
"Ask him where the general is! Where did he go!?"
"Ok. Ok. Good! Now how do I find him?! How do I find the general?!"
It just wasn't all that exciting for me.
I also found the characters in the movie to be pretty flat as well. Nobody changed throughout the movie, which i guess isn't as important in a straight-up action flick, but still would have been nice to see some attempt at depth.
I thought this was a pretty good movie. Was it historically accurate? How the hell would I know?
Although I found some of the action a bit confusing – just as I found Greengrass' action in the last two BOURNE films – it was still pretty exciting.
I firmly believe that this movie taught one lesson that many people might be reluctant to embrace . . . there are NO REAL GOOD GUYS when it comes to politics and war. Everyone basically has his or her own agenda. I suspect that Damon's character – Roy Miller – finally learned that lesson. I hope so.
Your attempt to get across the message that THE GREEN ZONE was anti-Iraq didn't wash with me. I found this statement rather vague.
Great review! I'll probably check it out one of these days before it leaves the theaters.
@ Chase… Yeah, that opening really doesn bring us back to a frustrating mindset, doesn't it? It is pretty standard, but I really believe that it was just aiming for good action, not to be any sort of beacon.
@ Casey… But how far-fetched is that? I'd wager that there are in fact civilians in places like Iraq that know better than the running intel, because locals don't seem like as much of a threat to enemy forces.
No?
@ Juanita… No – it's not historically accurate. Nor does it ever claim to be. And I'm not claiming the film was anti-Iraq. Where do you get that impression?
@ Drehar… Thanks – give it a look!
I do want to see this, but I'm not anxious for it. I'll see it eventually…
@ Encore… Consider how little else is out right now, I'd be tempted to move it up the cue if I were you.