Green Zone

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. (10/06/2010)

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. (11/06/2010)

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. (06/03/2011)

I have found that modern war movies probably won't be my thing, even though I have wanted to give the film "Marine" a chance for a long time. "Green Zone" didn't really impress me, even though it becomes a very good movie when it comes to action. Greengrass has already practiced with Matt Damon, but what worked twice for "Bourne" may not be a recipe for a third film. It probably needs a stronger story, a bit deeper critique of the United States and their political intentions. Like this, it's just a movie that takes place on the hot grounds of Iraq, occasionally showing scenes that reveal how those who actually control the world have their fingers everywhere, but there is no significant added value. So, it's mainly a film for action enthusiasts who will enjoy all the shootouts, action in the city, and the gear that soldiers have. It is truly good in how it captures the military environment. Greengrass could probably make a living as a war reporter. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/05/kocour-v-botach-jedna-hodne-blba-svatba.html (19/02/2013)

I can’t avoid the word routine. Gritty editing and rawness are Paul Greengrass's main assets and also the thing he focuses on most in his films, so praising these them seems quite redundant, it'd be like being surprised that a car takes me from one place to another, with nothing else expected from it. The disadvantage of Green Zone is that the topic it deals with cannot be as personal for the viewer as the quest for truth portrayed by the physical person of Jason Bourne, where the viewer can feel and relate to every blow and thought. Here, it’s too global and you are thus detached from the main characters and there is hardly any close connection. The action is good, the pace is good, Matt Damon still knows how to fight, and the music is effective. It simply works well again, but it's only about the story, and that's not enough for me. (17/07/2010)