|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller could teach Sarah Palin a thing or two about “going rogue” — assuming he lives long enough to tell the tale.
In 2003 Baghdad, Miller and his unit are charged with rooting out weapons of mass destruction. Burned three straight times, Miller complains that he and his men have been risking their lives on bad intel. So when his team happens on some first-hand intelligence about fugitive General Al Rawi (Igal Naor), Miller defies orders to chase down the truth about the WMDs that predicated the Iraq War. With that, action thriller “Green Zone” is off to the races.
Those naysayers who questioned the appropriation of the Iraq War for entertainment purposes in the newly minted Best Picture “The Hurt Locker” will have a cow over the latest collaboration of star Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass (“The Bourne Supremacy,” “The Bourne Ultimatum”). Unlike “The Hurt Locker” (incidentally, also shot by cinematographer Barry Ackroyd), “Green Zone” shows little interest in characterization, instead assembling clunky narrative machinery that amounts to an action-packed fiction remake of Charles Ferguson’s 2007 doc “No End in Sight” (rather, the film cites as “inspiration” Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s 2006 non-fiction book “Imperial Life in the Emerald City.”
In some ways, the story here — like Greengrass’ acclaimed “United 93” — seems “too soon” for useful perspective; in other respects, it already feels like old news. Given what we know about WMDs, how can “Green Zone” be anything other than two hours of anticlimax? As Miller, Damon does his best to be a sterling, steely distraction from the script’s deficiencies, but even he can’t make credible the preposterous loose cannon he’s asked to play.
The script, credited to rewriter Brian Helgeland (“L.A. Confidential”), serves up soldiers, spies, politicians, reporters and Iraqi civilians who speak almost entirely in cliches. There’s Brendan Gleeson as Martin Brown, the CIA’s Baghdad bureau chief (who tells Miller, “You’re right. This thing doesn’t add up”). There’s Greg Kinnear as Paul Bremner stand-in Clark Poundstone, a Pentagon rep who spars with Brown and Miller. There’s Amy Ryan as suckered Wall Street Journal reporter Lawrie Dayne (read Judith Miller), whose articles on the intel of mysterious source “Magellan” stoked political support for the invasion. And there’s Freddy (Khalid Abdalla of “The Kite Runner”), a shudderingly angry yet noble local who agrees to help Miller while reminding him, “It’s not for you to decide what happens here.”
Audiences have already proven time and time again that they see nothing escapist in the Iraq War, so why did Greengrass go there, bringing his signature shaky cam? Presumably to get away with telling an “important” story in the guise of a popcorn picture. But “Green Zone” is tired and corny — not meaningful — and frantic in its action rather than genuinely exciting. Despite his ever-impressive command of mise-en-scene (best demonstrated by an opening sequence that gives us an insider perspective on the bombing of Baghdad), Greengrass deals a bad hand from his deck of Iraq War playing cards. “Green Zone” is a study in futility, in more ways than one.
Rated R for violence and language. 1 hour, 55 minutes.
By Peter Canavese
Rated R for violence and language. 1 hour, 55 minutes.
By Peter Canavese
Rated R for violence and language. 1 hour, 55 minutes.
By Peter Canavese
This, I have no interest in seeing. Along with anything with the robotic Matt Damon or anything about Iraq in the movies ever again. “The Hurt Locker” was one of the most absurd and ridiculous movies that ever was made, and it’s Oscar-ization made it even more so, along with Hollywood. The total lack of movies or art shows how dry and hollow our society and country have become … how very sad. It’s also sad that they charge more and more as these movies get worse and worse.
> It’s also sad that they charge more and more as these movies get worse and worse.
It makes me feel like I am saving for a better retirement someday by NOT going to the movies.
It will take a long time for Hollywood to get the Liberation of Iraq right. They hated seeing people freed from monsters, especially of the Stalinist variety.
GWB led the effort to liberate Iraq, and he succeeded, despite severe criticism from the Hollywood leftists. Any honest movie about the Iraq war would recognize him, and salute him. It would also offer the view that it was a low cost effort, both in blood and treasure, considering the immense consequences of its success.
>They hated seeing people freed from monsters, especially of the Stalinist variety.
That’s pretty funny since most of the movies made, and almost 100% of the media was supportive. Especially compared to Viet Nam. Your comment just seems like a retread blaming of the Liberal Media.
Iraq is not yet Liberated, and despite actors that may be good in movies not many paid much attention to the likes of Sean Penn who was against the war. Looking back on it, let’s say we have “liberated” Iraq … for how long, and at what price, and what is the real issue in the Middle East. Why should our government have to fake everyone out by associating Saddam Hussein’s Iraq with 911 if they cannot get popular support the war.
As for “low cost” I do not think it was a good trade off for the vast majority of Americans to go so deep into debt it has crushed our economy at a time when we need deficit spending to stimulate economic activity and cannot. It was not a good tradeoff for the vast majority of Americans to possible have to give up their health care or social security so the military can keep their training up to date.
2.2 trillion dollars over and above the normaly military budget of about 800 billions, and look where we are, and look where Iraq is. Is the price of oil any less? Is Iran any less of a threat?
Yeah, just ignore the facts because they are all against you, and blame it on the LIBERALS.
Anon,
You actually have some decent points, even if they are mostly wrong. However, they are intelligently posed. Good for you.
The movies and TV products, thus far, are farcical exageration pieces. Nothing serious yet, in terms of an understanding of the real issues. Hollywood is groping, because they expected a real defeat, ala Vietnam, but it didn’t turn out according to script. So why not make some cowboy war movie, just in case? However, it doesn’t excuse the various leftists in Hollywood, and about the world, from recognizing how important the Liberation is. Who is Sean Penn…who cares?
Oh, and it ain’t about oil, it is about an opportunity to change the Islamist world into a reasoanbly democratic and free people. If that happens…end of OBL and his group of thugs. Oil will be the resource that drives the process for the Iraqis. It is happening as I speak.
The real issue issue in the MidEast is Islamic fundamentalism and Stalanist Baathism. The Iraq Liberation is the answer. Watch Iran and Syria follow its lead. It’s only a matter of time, if Obama does not blow it.
The cost/benefit analysis is beyond argument. The approximatley $1T cost of this war, as a percentage of our GDP, is miniscule compared to a similar analysis for various other wars we have faced. Not even close, especially considering the consequences. For those who complain, it reminds of those who complained about Reagan winning the cold war. Clinton was clearly willing to spend the “peace dividend”, and the Soviet Block slaves are now glad to be free.
The way to consecrate those brave American soldiers who died, or were wounded, is to celebrate their sacrifices in a VERY noble cause. The way to start this consecration is to acknowlege that GWB, like Lincoln, stood tall, while the meek stood small.
No time like the present for Hollywood to genuflect to reality and put out a film extolling the great leadership of GWB. They have proven that they can do it, re: FDR and JFK. A little hagiography would be appropriate. Who knows, maybe even the PA city council might come around, and pass a resolution supporting the Libertion of Iraq…but don’t hold your breath.
Imagine the price of oil had Saddam consolidated his control of that oil.
Gary,
>> You actually have some decent points
Wish I could be congenial and return the compliment.
First you take on my supposedly “wrong” points, but never mention or refute them before you go on to bow to George W. Bush and take more cheap shots at Hollywood, not a daunting task and hardly rigorous. When one does not consider the people and goes on automatic letting others do their thinking for them one is likely to end up in the weeds, or crashed into a power tower.
Everyone in the US that uses their brain was concerned that Iraq would end up like Vietnam, and if had been up to the Bush cabinet who stalled for 3 years doing everything wrong while 3000 soldiers died before the surge and a change in tactics precipitated by critics of the war, we would be in another Vietnam most likely. This is well detailed in the documentary “No End In Sight.
And I am not even touching on Afghanistan and the mess we have there, Pakistan, etc.
As far as Hollywood I am much more forgiving of people who make their living with fantasy entertainment than I am of say Fox News that makes it living off fantasy news. There was no excuse for the right wing coverage of Iraq, the rush to war, any more than there was for the Bush inspired rush to to the Wall St. Bailout. There is hardly any excuse for your point of view to raise its head on computer forums anymore it is so universally dismissed, but … good for you for having the colorfulness to try it anyway.
If a trillion dollars means so little to you why not write a check to Palo Alto and help the city out of its financial woes?
“Everyone in the US that uses their brain was concerned that Iraq would end up like Vietnam”
I have a very big brain, and have rejected the various lefitst nonsenses that I used to believe in. I was NOT conerned about Iraq becoming another Vietnam, because GWB was in charge. I DO have some conerns about Obama blowing it, but even he would need to be emptier than I have suggested to succeed in doing it. Of course, anything is possible, even that.
The Iraq Liberation is one of the greatest revolutions of modern times. Watch and learn….
I have to agree with Gary on all points.
Iraq was never in danger of becoming a “Vietnam”, not only because of all the reasons Gary said, but because Cronkite and Rather are no longer the sole shapers of American public opinion. Their successors tried to have us snatch defeat from victory, like they did in Vietnam, but failed, because we now have truly open news sources.’
I am down to seeing, perhaps…5% of anything that comes out of Hollywood. Even the Disney type movies have been politicized so much they make me nauseated. No sense in paying for Pravda-level “entertainment”, thankyou.
>> because we now have truly open news sources.’
LOL, is that a comedy routine, are you kidding? The embedded reporters in this conflict have been the most selected and controlled journalists in the history of the US if not the world. If not for the history of those who had the guts to defy the government we would not know the half of the story of the war, not to mention the amazing mess and expense with Blackwater.
Notice the news from Iraq over the next years and see what happens in Iraq, this is by no means over as you claim anyway – now we are seeing radicalization all over the area like flying embers spreading fire.
Almost all of what you are saying has been thoroughly refuted even by Fox media.
I was against the war to start, then when we made the commitment I said we had to see it through. Sad that it was seen through in the longest most incompetent and expensive way in lives and money, and it has done nothing for the home front at all. No doubt people with an unchanging jingoistic point of view have some connection to making money out of all of this sadness. If we still had a fair draft and war profiteering was illegal the supporters of the war would be very few indeed.
By the way, few seem to remember that when we started this thing, we bombed Bagdhad several times firing huge groups of missiles into residential neighborhoods claiming we were aiming for Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi leadership. Blocks of civilians were killed and as we know the leadership was still in place for a long time or escaping. That action alone says a lot about how the military thinks about these things. We had a choice as to whether or not to bomb civilians, and that was a bad choice, as most of the prosecution of the war under Bush/Cheney was – to reiterate 3 years of doing nothing while money flows and lives were lost for no benefit to anyone.
“Sad that it was seen through in the longest most incompetent and expensive way in lives and money, and it has done nothing for the home front at all.”
This is yet another example of the sophistry of the left. This statement cannot be accurate, because the Korean war is still ongoing, and it was MUCH more expensive in blood and treasure compared to the Iraq war. Yet the consequences of the Iraq liberation are much more earthshaking, compared to beating Stalin in Korea (as important as that was).
The Liberation of Iraq is an astounding and historical thing. The Arab Muslims now have an opening to express themselves. Some do it with bombs, but many more are doing it with purple fingers. Iraq has a great future in front of it…as long as Obama does not blow it.
It does not surprise me in the least that leftists are behind the curve of history, instead of in front of it.
Gary, when asked whether the French Revolution was a good or bad thing, Chairman Mao said, “It’s too early to tell”. Maybe a typical leftist, maybe a insightful comment from a human being who studied history.
The problem with the right, and its faux intellectualism, not to mention it’s Faux News, and you in particular is you can no sooner talk about any of the thing you are taking for granted than you can predict tomorrow’s headlines. If you pick the right points in a bunch of noise you can draw any line you want through it, but it’s wishful thinking at best.
As to who is with or against history, again it’s too early to tell but precedent is not with you despite your desire to rewrite history with red, white and blue Republican hearts and flowers in it.
Ah yes, always quote Chairman Mao, if one cannot make a rational argument. Mao is probably turning over in his grave, as he watches market forces taking over his socialist revolution. He is just an old dead yellow man. His most palpable legacy is tens of millions of murdered Chinese, and a failed social revolution. He is in the dustbin of history with Lenin and Stalin and Marx. The left should forget about him, but all those pink diaper babies have a hard time letting go…it would mean admitting that they were on the wrong side of history.
Political power can come out of the barrel of a gun, but it is best to make sure that freedom, not slavery, is the outcome. Lincoln knew this, as did GWB. Castro and Mao and Hitler did not.
We should be cheering the blooming of a hundred flowers in Iraq, yet the lefties refuse to do so. History will not treat them well.
The Hurt Locker is a very well made movie save for some technical inaccuracies, it has generally been well received by our military.
We had to do something to terminate Saddam, he was a threat to the free worlds economy by monopolizing the energy supplies from the Mid East. He tried to assassinate Bush 1 and was a mass murderer
He defied multiple UN resolutions and the best information at the time was that he had and would use WMDs.
Afghanistan is a somewhat different matter, its only asset in opium and we can now take out terrorist there by drones any time we want to.
It is not of any strategic interest nor threat the US, it does not have any money to buy WMDs and it does not have any ports to ship them to the Atlantic and our shores.
We should hold on to Bagram Airbase to launch such attacks, but the policing is really up to Pakistan and India, if they can square that circle.
It appears that Pakistan has come to heel, as they should, given the amount of money we give them, other states that we give money to, like Israel will also have to come to heel and stop being loose cannons as far as US interests are concerned.
We need to be focused and frugal in pursuing our interests in a region fraught with religious, tribal and territorial disputes that go back a long way
We succeeded in the much smaller and less lethal situations like Northern Ireland, which Clinton, Mitchell and Blair resolved.
The issue is, what is in the best interests of the US?
We will execute our policies in alignment with those interests
Nothing more, nothing less.
Actually Gary, China, with its lack of a financial class and stock market has a much more vibrant and competitive economy than almost any other country. It is hard to find out about how China works, and much of the way they work has negative consequences for us and other countries, but they at least know their responsibilities to their people, whereas in the US we have to keep triaging higher and higher classes of citizens and jettisoning them so we can afford the wonderful military that you so cherish.
Not everyone who made a memorable quote is held up as a hero. If you cannot grasp my point about history without getting your knickers in a twist at the sound of a communist maybe you have ADHD. China has come a long way, and somehow as China grows at an astounding rate and does it best to support its people, and the rest of the western developed world supports their people with education, jobs, health care, etc … the unsustainable juggernaut of this country barrels along at full speed not looking at the results so far of the trajectory of the future.
—
The “Hurt Locker” is totally phony. I admit, I saw it, and it was dramatic and kind of sucks on in, but when the main guy went off the deep end I lost interest in it. It really does not contain some “minor technical inaccuracies”, the whole basis of the plot and setting, the personality shown is fantasyland baloney. Since that is basically the whole movie, I wonder what else you must have been thinking of Sharon?
The US cannot keep disenfranchising its citizens, hollowing out its economy in order to pay off corrupt governments abroad to act like our friends, it is unsustainable, and it is was certainly nothing the framers of the country ever hoped for.
I would like to see reciprocity become a central component of our foreign policy.
Anon, you lost me with China’s “lack of a financial class”…such a breathtaking ..um..the best that can be said of such a statement is…breathtaking inaccuracy!
Orwell, you were a prophet.
Perspective … maybe I was misinformed … so tell me, where are the hedge-fund operators in China, and the stock market, where is that?
Chinese stock market:
“At the end of 2007, the Shanghai Stock Exchange had 860 listed companies with a combined market capitalization of US$3.95 trillion[3], making it the largest in China and second largest in the world.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Stock_Exchange
Chinese hedge funds:
“Data showed that hedge funds account for 0.6% of the GDP in the USA, 0.35% in Europe, 0.2% in Asia, while only 0.1% in China. It is expected that China’s GDP would quadruple in 10 years time and hedge funds would be about 0.4% of the country’s GDP.[1] In this case, China’s hedge funds would expand 12-fold, and place China second in the world for hedge fund investments.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_fund_industry_in_China
It is not surprising that leftists fail to do their homework, because their own narrative, in their own minds, obviates the need…they already know the truth, so what is the need to check the facts? This is one of the reasons that history has passed them by.
My new favorite quote ..by Mark Twain ( Samuel Clemens), one of the all-time greatest wits..and great advice for leftists
“Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”
Mark Twain
You did a 3 second web search for that. I don’t think the Chinese stock market as such, even though you are talking about it as a stock market is like what we have in the US and you are projecting quite a bit into an uncertain future.
Not to mention generalizing to all “leftists” whatever that means.
“They [Hollywood, presumably] hated seeing people freed from monsters, especially of the Stalinist variety.”
Surely you do not refer to Saddam Hussein, the favorite pet dictator of the Reagan and early Bush 41 administrations. But, hey, you have to admit that Desert Storm produced some really prime entertainment – our Barcalounger Brigade just loved the CNN coverage, live and in color, with sound. It set the standard for war entertainment that Bush 43 tried to, but could not quite, match. Not even with his Mission Accomplished strut in San Diego harbor.
“Surely you do not refer to Saddam Hussein, the favorite pet dictator of the Reagan and early Bush 41 administrations”…blah blah. Saddm was suefual vs. the Mullahs in Iran, but no American president supported his essential message (Baathist socialist…Stalinist…solution).
FDR’s favorite dictator was Stalin. He even undermined Churchill, in favor of Stalin. It took his underling, Truman, to step up to the plate.
Hollywood only rarely criticizes Stalin, because pink diaper babies and grandbabies think socialism is the historical imperative. An example of such egregious attitudes is how Hollywood went to the wall in favor of Alger Hiss. It was a huge effort to protect him, because he betrayed the U.S. to Stalin.
History has already passed by the leftists…time to move on, Paul.
“time to move on”?
Move on where? To a phony right wing without principles that flip flops in the fickle winds created by its masters to suit their purpose of the moment, like the situational ethics of the 60s lefties?
Take Saddam for an instance. Reagan and Bush 41, the rightists of their day, loved him. He was their kind of dictator. Bush temporarily flip-flopped for Desert Storm, but walked away from his war in the rightist fashion. He left Saddam on his throne (remember the 1992 bumper stickers: “Saddam Hussein still has his job. Do you?”), and he watched as Saddam exterminated the Kurds and Shia that Bush had encouraged to revolt. His boy George toppled Saddam, then lost interest after his little Mission Accomplished skit.
Your hero Churchill “loved” Stalin? Hey, give it to him for consistency, he promised “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.” Churchill needed Stalin in order to win WWII. What war did Saddam help Reagan and Bush win? The Iran-Iraq war? Ha! That was a stalemate like all our right wing wars.
Hollywood overlooked Stalin? Well good buddy, there’s your chance. Rent a camera, grow a mustache, make that blockbuster, and collect your Oscars like Kathryn Bigelow. Don’t just whine like some garden variety right wingnut.