Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Green Zone (2010)
8/10
Verdict: Solid and relevant.
14 March 2010
In some ways it feels like the Iraq invasion was just yesterday, and it all happened so quickly. It was as if the whole U.S. government mobilized itself, intent on propelling the country into a war with an expediency rarely seen by our massive, highly bureaucratic government. It put all its combined, monolithic weight into driving the war movement forward, sweeping up reputed journalists in the momentum, and then charging into Iraq with unparalleled military might. All in the name of neutralizing the world threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

In the aftermath of military action, the world was left with two questions: What happens to Iraq now, and just where are those WMDs? The former was (is) a serious problem for the Middle East and all countries involved), and the latter became perhaps the biggest political mystery of recent times.

"How do you have highly detailed intelligence that's totally wrong?" – Michael Bronner, former CBS newsman and co-producer of Green Zone.

What better backdrop for a political thriller by Paul Greengrass, director of the Bourne series and former director of the non-fiction current affairs program, World in Action?

Overview

Green Zone is an action thriller, and I would classify it as historical fiction as well. This may be slightly confusing to viewers, since the film tries very hard to intertwine its fictional story with a very real backdrop that sits in the gray area between history and current events. While watching it, I decided to put aside the question of "What's real and what's not?" and judge it as pure fiction.

The plot flowed well and kept me curious and attentive, but we've seen this basic recipe before. It may be using a heavier dose of 'reality' than usual, but it's hugely reminiscent of the Bourne films—same actor, same shaky cam style, same fast pace and tension. The silver lining for me was that it was refreshing to have an ordinary guy for a hero in place of a multi-skilled, not-quite-superhero like Jason Bourne. I also appreciated that the mystery was much larger than the hero himself. It kept me from reacting to events on the screen with questions like "So what?" or "Why do I care?"

Weighing Fiction Against Reality

It's important to realize that the story in Green Zone is pure fiction, but many of the events that take place are real, with many of the characters symbolizing real people. Rajiv Chandrasekaran's best-selling nonfiction book "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone" was optioned for the movie and forms the backbone for the real events that take place in Green Zone. The book has been widely acclaimed as being an accurate, impartial insight into the actions of the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority), the "transitional government" after the invasion. To make the movie, they layered a much simpler, Hollywood style plot on top of those events, with clear heroes and bad guys.

The reporter in the movie, Lawrie Dayne (Amy Ryan), appears to represent New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who broke the story about aluminum tubes back in 2002. The Iraqi exile responsible for false intelligence is loosely reminiscent of Ahmed Chalabi and the INC.

Green Zone went out of its way to present an accurate imitation of military affairs. Chief Miller (Matt Damon) leads Mobile Exploitation team Delta (MET D), a team responsible for tracking down WMDs after the invasion, and Greengrass hired MET A leader Monty Gonzales as a military adviser for the film.

"Once the reality on the ground changed from what we expected it to be, to what we discovered it to be, our mission became a search for the truth, rather than a search for weapons of mass destruction," says the chief. "Because it became more and more clear as the operation went on that it was unlikely we'd find anything." – Monty Gonzales, leader of Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha (MET A)

"The vehicle configuration, the way the people are grouped, the equipment, the organization–everything is almost exactly as it was when we were there in 2003," says Gonzales.

Many of Damon's fellow cast members were Iraqi veterans as well.

"What you see us doing in this film is an accurate representation of what we did over there. It's what we experienced" – U.S. Army vet Brian Siefkes, who played Keating, Miller's right-hand man in Green Zone. In 2003, Siefkes was also a WMD hunter in Iraq, working alongside Gonzales.

What makes a hero?

One stark truth stands out when watching this movie: Matt Daemon's character, Chief Miller, never existed. No one person was able to put the truth above their mission and risk life and limb to uncover it. That's pure fiction, but it's also this film's strongest statement: just doing your job isn't good enough when the truth is on the line. That message seems obvious when the mystery and clues are handed to us on a silver platter (everything's 20/20 in hindsight, after all), but the underlying implication is very, very relevant: Information control and mis-information management is able to occur when information and objectives in an organization/entity are localized and heavily fragmented.

In this type of situation, our hero becomes the otherwise-ordinary guy that's driven to see the big picture, which is an interesting modern adaptation of what makes a hero.

How to enjoy this movie:

* Don't expect it to blow your mind. It's a well done action thriller, but nothing amazing.

* It's not based on a true story, so don't let yourself get too confused by the fiction/history mish-mash. If you're not sure, file it under "fiction."

* Consider it an introduction to the political turmoil in Baghdad's green zone in 2003.

Weak Points:

* Doesn't score too many points in the originality department
17 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Verdict: Righter and Wronger.
11 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Wow. You know how sometimes watching a movie feels like being immersed in a different world? Brooklyn's Finest is like that, and that different world is like the twilight zone. It's just like our world, but there's something horribly wrong about it. In this twilight zone—called "Brooklyn"— everyone is selfish and aggressive, violence is everywhere, and there's a constant level of tension in the air. Talk about depressing. Walking out of the theater was like breathing air again for the very first time. It felt good… but what does that say about the movie?

Overview

In Brooklyn's Finest, "right" and "wrong" have very little to do with anything. There are no heroes and no villains—only actions and motives. The film follows the stories of three Brooklyn cops and puts their lives under the microscope, revealing the inner-conflicts that are broiling beneath the surface. Each cop is trapped in a figurative cage of their own making ("Be careful what you wish for…"), and the over-arcing story is about their struggles to escape, and the consequences that follow.

Looking at the plot, the film doesn't follow any standard Hollywood formula, and it doesn't meet the expectations it cultivates in the first half. You might expect plot points to twist and tie together brilliantly at the end, but they don't. They get close to each other, but barely touch. The tension doesn't ratchet up and lead into an explosive climax. Instead it felt fairly constant throughout the movie. In a way, the film-making style is transparent and doesn't try to manipulate the audience at all. Everything just is.

Brooklyn's Finest is an exploration of motive and violence in a seedy culture that I'm not sure actually exists. If dark, pseudo-realistic crime dramas intrigue you, then give this one a try. Moviegoers looking for a standard Hollywood Blockbuster fix may be disappointed, however.

Cast

One reason to consider seeing this movie is the acting. The leads are all operating out of their comfort zones—Richard Gere is lacking his usual sophistication (still has a thing for prostitutes, though), Don Cheadle is thuggish and aggressive, Ethan Hawke is hardened and speaks with grit in his voice, and Wesley Snipes is, well… not an action hero. They all succeed in delivering convincing performances that feel true to life, and I enjoyed that.

How to enjoy this movie:

* Expect to walk into a dirty world full of depression, prostitution, drugs and violence.

* Focus on the subtle character acting.

* Keep your eye out for what's "righter" and what's "wronger." You'll know what I mean after the first 20 seconds. The remaining two hours of the movie are all exempli gratia (cases in point).

Weak points:

* The plot's not brilliant and doesn't culminate in some amazingly clever climax.

* The ending doesn't entirely resolve in a satisfying way.

* You may want to take anti-depression medication with you to the theater.
16 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Verdict: Engaging, entertaining, and intelligent — if you let it suck you in.
11 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Have you ever lost your orientation under water? Fallen into a river and momentarily become unsure of which direction is up and which is down, for example? It may only last a split-second, but it's a terrifying experience. While never frightening or terrifying, Shutter Island brought me as close as any movie has to becoming that disoriented, and it can do it to you too… if you let it.

Overview

The movie starts out rough. Some wooden dialogue is exchanged between two detectives on a ferry. Honestly, it had me worried those first few minutes. Fortunately it doesn't take long for the mystery to begin, and after that it's hard not to get pulled in by the questions that build up. The movie keeps you chasing after answers like a carrot on a stick. If you pay attention, virtually every scene adds more questions to the mystery, and any answers that are given become increasingly tenuous.

While the unanswered questions about Shutter Island drive the story forward, there's more than mystery to keep you entertained. That's an important point — the movie holds its own even if you're familiar with the plot. Most of the dialog is clever. While the characters are flat and 2-dimensional, each one functions well within the story. Interesting silhouettes all, you could say. Possibly the most intriguing aspects of the film are the dream sequences. To me they felt very dream-like (a hard trick to pull off), and they intertwine with the plot brilliantly.

The Cast

Every actor is well placed in their part, and it's an interesting assortment of talent. Ben Kingsley is a stand-out and manages to convey the position and feelings of his character with simple glances and expressions. Leonardo DiCaprio… well, as always, his acting is excellent in some ways, but at times I felt like his voice was too controlled and somewhat stiff. I also have a suspicion that he intentionally seeks roles that don't suit him just so that he can show his breadth of range. Once or twice during the first half of the film I found myself wondering about this once. As the story progressed, however, I began to identify with him more and more as Teddy Daniels, and I began to see less of DiCaprio. I could have sworn that his acting got better as the movie progressed, but that might have been my mind playing tricks on me.

Some of the most interesting acting went into the minor roles — Patricia Clarkson, Emily Mortimer, Max Von Sydow, Ted Levine and Robin Bartlett all deliver memorable, if brief, performances.

The End

Without going into details, all I'm going to say is that the end of the movie is very satisfying, in a thought-provoking way, and not because of any "twist." The last line, in particular, has interesting interpretations. (Note: If you've seen the film and you're confused about the last line, I've written a few brief words on it)

How to enjoy this movie:

* Commit yourself to trying to solve the mystery of exactly what's going on, and just go along for the ride.

* Don't expect a whole lot of action. This movie is full of suspense and mystery, but not much of a thriller.

* Don't expect the main character to make all the right moves. It's easy to think "He should be doing this," or "Man, what's he thinking? I wouldn't do that," but then again we have a bird's eye view of this story's progression.

* Pay attention to where people cast their glances throughout the movies. Very telling? Maybe, maybe not. Very interesting, for sure.

* Don't put the weight of your judgment on "the twist" (this one applies to all twist movies). I don't understand people who do their best to guess what the twist is going to be, only to whine and complain when they get it right. They set themselves up for disappointment and then blame it on the movie rather than themselves. My advice: Don't fall into that trap. Simple as that.

Weak Points:

* If you try to get the better of this movie, or try to be smarter than it, you might succeed… but then you won't get anything out of it. Intellectual masochists beware.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Alice in Wonderland (I) (2010)
7/10
Verdict: Lacking in muchness
7 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Tim Burton's 2010 version of Alice in Wonderland was full of surprises for me. My first surprise was that it isn't a modern adaptation of Alice in Wonderland, it's a Hollywood sequel. This Alice is 19 years old and makes her second foray into Wonderland in this movie. My second surprise was that I was watching an action movie that has as much resemblance to C.S. Lewis' "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe" as it does to Lewis Carroll's original story. Rather than meandering around a nonsensical Wonderland in the spirit of curiosity and discovery, this Alice is given a very straightforward (and bizarre) "mission" right from the start.

In other words, there's an Alice in this story, and a Wonderland too. But this isn't The Alice in Wonderland. It's Hollywood's.

Overview

Try, try, try as I might, I couldn't appreciate much about Tim Burton's spin-off version beyond the visual extravaganza. The plot was too simplistic and straight-forward. Each character is clearly painted as either good or bad (well, white or red, in this case). Alice is lacking in depth of character. Johnny Depp's unpredictability has become so predictable it's not fun anymore. The nonsensical wit and charm of Carroll's original have been all but removed. But is it a bad movie? Is it not worth seeing in theaters? I'm not so sure about that. It has two redeeming qualities: It's visually spectacular, and what Burton was attempting to achieve with this movie is there, it's only been buried under the other aforementioned weaknesses.

Vision

Wonderland is amazing to gaze upon, and this is probably the most bizarre interpretation of it to date. That's no small achievement and may be enough justification for some to see the movie in theaters. It doesn't feel particularly real, however. It has nothing to do with the special effects—they're tremendous. Instead I chalk this up largely to the small cast of characters, which becomes particularly unbelievable around the climax of the movie, where a large crowd would be expected.

Speaking of vision, I can see what Burton was attempting to do with this movie. He wanted to build a babushka doll of illusions, each one being a new surprise. The purpose of the event in the beginning of the movie, a secret behind Alice's friend's marriage, the nature of this Wonderland (compared with the audience's traditional, childish conception of it), the truth behind the Red Queen's grotesque court… all not what they appear to be at the onset, and surprises to either Alice or the audience. In my humble opinion, however, this doesn't quite come across during the watching. I didn't come to see his "vision" until writing this review, and the only satisfaction it's given me is that I don't have to completely pan this film. Burton just didn't take it far enough to make it remarkable.

I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that someone will read this review, watch the movie, and enjoy it because they know what to expect and can see that Burton at least tried to add dimension to his work.

Origins

Lewis Carroll's original novel is best known for being "literary nonsense," and in my opinion the value of such nonsense is that it lightheartedly calls into question our preconceptions about "logic" and common sense. Regardless of what was done to the plot, I was optimistic that this unintelligible intelligence would be carried over into this new rendition. I was wrong, and am hence terribly bummed.

I recommend anyone with a curiosity toward Wonderland read the original novel. Also, the 1951 animated Disney version is dated (it's over half a century old, after all), but it's still worth giving a try.

How to enjoy this movie:

* Pretend you're going to watch a strange mish-mash of The Chronicles of Narnia and Alice in Wonderland. You won't have to pretend very hard once you're in the theater.

* Soak up all the 3D, computer generated goodness.

* Don't expect too much more than your run of the mill Hollywood fairy tale.

Weak points:

* The plot was too simplistic and straight-forward.

* Each character is painted as clearly either good or bad (white or red, in this case, I suppose).

* Alice is lacking in depth of character.

* The nonsensical wit and charm of Carroll's original have been all but removed, to be replaced with a handful of silly words. This one hurt the most for me.
26 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed