Green Zone (Paul Greengrass, 2010)

Matt Damon isn’t quite Bourne again.

No matter what Green Zone director Paul Greengrass claims, his latest film which is a take on America’s war on terror, it’s an unofficial Jason Bourne hits Baghdad. The marketers know it, plastering Matt Damon’s face all over the posters with his most Bourne like expression. Matt Damon certainly knows it, shouting and running in his most Bourne like way. The script writers certainly know it, weaving a plot combing action set pieces with a Jason Bourne like quest to find out the truth.

This is by no means a bad thing, the Bourne films make one of the best trilogies in recent times and Green Zone is at its best when it echoes the frantic intense pacing of those films. To review its best bits, is to review its ‘Bourney’ bits.

Enough of the past, the biggest flaw with Green Zone is what it does to separate itself from those films. It tries to be political. Everything about it is knowingly anti-American, which is the trendy thing all film makers appear to be adhering to at the moment. It worked in Avatar, when a few snide remarks from the film’s cornels echoed Bush’s speeches, it backfired in Brian De Palma’s Redacted which was an incoherent mess, and it doesn’t quite work in Greenzone.

The best film to tackle the war on terror so far is the Hurt Locker, which to the untrained eye could appear to be depoliticised. What it does have to say is powerful, exciting and poignant, three things that come all too rarely in Green Zone.

Basing itself in 2003, the story concerns Matt Damon’s character, simply known as Colonel Miller, and his crew looking for Weapons of Mass destruction in the city of Baghdad. Despite their ‘reliable sources’ nothing appears to turning up. The inquisitive character is approached by a local, named Freddy, who is Miller’s first lead to uncovering the truth. Needless to say Miller finds himself knee deep in conspiracy and deceit and battles against the American Government to uncover the truth.

Done delicately it could have been a conceivable plot; instead American politicians are reduced to Machiavellian baddies that would suit a James Bond film better. It is sheer Anti-American propaganda which relies on pure speculation to make its point.

Everything in the film wants to make you believe this is how it happened; the fantastic handheld camera work, minimalistic score and convincing location shooting make an intense journey. However, Green Grass’s determination to make a point about the arbitrary nature of the reason for going to war is under researched and over blown making the premise of the whole film appear ridiculous.

The writers have crammed that much conspiracy theory in there is little time for character expansion. Miller has no back story and little personality. There is very little personality to relate to. The rest of the characters are walking clichés. There is the reporter, determined to get to the truth, the ruthless politician, determined to get his way, and the cold blooded ruthless marine, determined to kill, kill, kill. The only interesting character is the Freddy who the script writers flesh out. Khalid Abdalle, previously playing a terrorist in Greengrass’s devastating United 93, has the only interesting role. Freddy, essentially Miller’s only Ally, provides the film with some much needed laughs and gives the audience someone to care about during all the fire fights.

It is these fire fights that make the film recommendable, and while this alone isn’t enough to save the film, they certainly keep you watching. Greengrass excels in putting the audience in the moment using street level angles and a handheld camera style. The final 20 minutes is a fantastically sustained set piece consisting of long shots and gun shots in which you have to remind yourself to breath.

Verdict

In short, Greengrass should have stayed more Jason Bourne, less Michael Moore. If you want a few hours of action, you could do far worse, but as far as an exploration of the War on Terror goes it is far too heavy handed.

*** (3 Stars)