At one time he collected a collection of tapes that were released in rental, but do not have a very high rating. The journey of endless searching led me to this picture. The film interested me with its synopsis in the best traditions of spy action films a la Jason Bourne. And your expectations will not be deceived, but I want to dwell on this film and share my impressions. We scratch the keyboard and begin to share impressions of what we saw and some thoughts about this work.
A narrative criterion or narrative. In the Green Zone of occupied Iraq, territory controlled by the United States Army, CIA agents search in vain for traces of weapons of mass destruction. The bias of the investigation becomes apparent to Officer Roy Miller, who tried to publicize the findings. But how far can generals go if they decide to bring order to an unstable region? The writers decided to play the same card that Ridley Scott had previously played in his “Collection of Lies” and Catherine Bigelow in “The Lord of the Storm”. From the first in the film, there is widespread deception and opposition between what is reported in the media and reality, but if the story is apolitical in the Lord, then the writers of this film are buried in it. The plot is straight as a rail, the characters at the functional level are good, few have character. CIA agent Martin Brown turned out good, but again without any past or internal monologues.
Visual criterion, or technical support of the tape. Well filmed, nothing bad to say, but the views of the deserts are impressive for the time being. The pace of storytelling jumps. At the beginning, everything is more or less dynamic, then in the middle you will miss, but when all the cards are revealed, action will begin in the best traditions of Bourne’s superiority and ultimatum. The dialogue of the film eclipses the dynamics, but in them you can catch the thread of the narrative. There are day and night scenes, in which the lighting is muted, but not terrible. If you feel what is happening, you will not be bored. Barry Ackroyd's camera work deserves a positive word. It is also worth noting the good work of craftsmen with sound and composer John Powell. Musical experiments allow you to emphasize the mood of each scene, the intonation is predominantly pathetic, some melodies would be well listened to in isolation from the film. Some melodies are worth visiting your music collections.
The acting game is able to please. Matt Damon practically does not change facial expressions, although this time his character knows a little less than Bourne, but also knows how to handle weapons. In addition to him, Brendan Glisson and Jason Isaacs, who at one time shared a playground in Harry Potter, are seen. The first was a CIA man, the second as a pawn of a Washington official. Both looked great and I have no complaints about their work. Four out of five according to this criterion.
A good political thriller in which they try to tell us that it is possible to control conquered nations only with the help of local elites, because no one else can do this. The plot is strong, there is a good dynamics of the narrative, plus the acting works are good. I advise you to meet connoisseurs of the genre. All health, peace and good cinema.
Surprisingly, Paul Greengrass, who shot three Bournes, managed to create a de facto separate direction in the genre of spy or political action film - and, in the manner of how the same Michael Bay, with his own style, rivets expensive blockbuster attractions, and Greengrass, with his own (well, maybe now not only) handwriting, puts pseudo-realistic "shooters." And it is not so important in fact the plot of his production - still when viewing it will seem that this is a sequel to one-all-known franchise. And oddly enough, having filmed the American bestseller from the documentary fiction of the war correspondent of The Washington Post newspaper Rajiv Chandrasekaran, eventually Paul managed to shoot another sequel to his Bornian, but already in Iraq. And how he managed in purely documentary reading to see the potential for the birth of “Bourne in Iraq” is even difficult to imagine, but, nevertheless, “Do not take alive” (Green Zone, 2009) took place with his favorite star, Damon, in the title role, and he is hardly distinguishable from other common projects of the couple.
Well, the initiation of the next tape of Greengrass and Damon is similar to previous projects - only here Paul's favorite actor is not a deserter of the special services killer with amnesia, and a conscientious lieutenant of the SEAL US Army Roy Miller, who in search of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq suddenly realizes that someone is cheating him. And that someone is a bunch of jerks in government. And if he knows it, the wise old wolf of the CIA (the posh Gleason) knows it. And after the acquaintance of the soldier with the serviceman, Damon suddenly finds himself in the midst of an internecine war between the special services and the Pentagon.
Here the hero of Damon in any case is not a deserter, but a conscientious servant (sand army camouflage to the actor well goes very well, but dress him in a civilian - and can not be distinguished from Bourne, because in fact the hero is the same), who is true "serves the Fatherland and special forces", but does not give rest to the idea that someone he and the entire army together with him for some reason warms up, does not give rest to the fighter, because together with the commander suffer and his subordinates, dying in search of WMD. Frankly, the actor has nowhere to go, although the film is actually based on real and not so long ago events, but it boils down the main role of Damon to the character-function, the template hero of the action movie Greengrass, running from location to location among the sandy dilapidated quarters of Baghdad, suffering from star-striped democracy. Bright explosions, dizzying chases in Baghdad at night, shootings with their own and not quite their own - if you close your eyes to interesting locations, we have already seen this somewhere, and with the same face, but it is so nice to return to the arcade thriller Greengrass once again. And the spectacle that he gives to his viewer, the director will remind the same Bay, but everything is somehow more mundane and mature: with a smaller scale, but realistic, not worse visually, but with meaning and taste.
And the tape really makes sense. First, “Do not take alive”, despite the appearance of a standard military-political action movie, a very bold for 2009 movie, in which the director through the lips of his heroes admits that the Americans invaded Iraq in vain. Secondly, it gives a sense of what the Iraqis experienced when uninvited guests entered their country, occupied it and began to dictate their terms - how to live for the local population, under what regime, etc. Who are they to make such decisions? And on what basis did they enter Iraq? Finding weapons of mass destruction is not there. And who is to blame for this and why all this is necessary - the questions are rhetorical, sounding here between the cadres, and very ambiguous. Damon with a stone face, like a mask, frantically rushes in the frame to answer this question, as he used to look for the answer to the question “Who am I?” in previous films of Greengrass. But there are no answers anywhere. The film outlines certain touches of answers, but does not give an unambiguous solution, leaving it to the share of the viewer. In principle, Damon is here to play and do not need to just be in the frame for something to happen in it, and it happens.
Another thing is high-ranking CIA officer Brendan Gleeson. Wise and tired intelligence veteran, trusting no one, knowing something sacred and one of the few seeking justice - in tandem with an honest SWAT officer Damon - the role and asking for a Scottish artist. Brandan Gleeson creates one of the most realistic images of an American intelligence officer in the Middle East scenery that I have seen in the movies. A chic image, a charismatic hero who eclipsed all other members of the cast. And, most likely, participation in this tape contributed to the fact that Espinoza invited him to repeat the image of a high-ranking CIA officer in his “Cape Town Access Code”, which has much in common with this project.
But the caste is rich not only him - the unusually mustachioed Oscar Isaac here represents the antipode of Damon, another Special Forces valiant Democratic troops who is chasing Damon. Yes, there is no trace of Malfoy from Harry Potter, and the performance of the role is not bad.
But very annoying stupid-looking glasses Greg Kinneyer (a lump from the Pentagon) and Amy Ryan (a sensation-hungry journalist) with one kind - the game is mediocre, the characters are unpleasant, the first as an antagonist is not convincing at all.
Very amusingly, Greengrass demonstrates the naivety of the local Arabs, sympathetic to the occupiers, the cowardice of the underground Baathist generals (caricature fat, bald and mustache).
Together, Greengrass creates a very interesting unique product, which is a mixture of a typical political fighter authored by his beloved, and military action of the Eastern theme a la “The Lord of the Storm”. Not a new word in the genre, not a masterpiece, and not that memorable movie, but a very exciting film for one-time viewing as another confident word in the genre.
6 out of 10
U.S. Army noncommissioned officer Miller (Matt Damon) is among many of his fellow soldiers looking for weapons of mass destruction that led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in the early 21st century. As he finds himself in another empty hangar over and over again, he gradually realizes that the source claiming that the cache is there or there is misinforming all those who are looking for WMD and, quite possibly, it does not even exist. Having voiced his guesses, Miller turns out to be a man asking too many questions, as a result of which he finds himself between two fires: his own can shoot him as “collateral damage”, and others – because he is an American, even if he wants to help.
Like the movie Kingdom, released a little earlier, Do Not Take Alive, this film develops a storyline that touches on several days "from the lives of American soldiers." There are no long-running stories (although the premise in the form of a search for WMD is still there), and the whole story takes several days. As if once again she emphasizes that military people often have too little time to make decisions, which is why everything develops too quickly.
In principle, the film can be considered one of the projects dedicated to the second war in Iraq. But he, like several other projects, has no qualms about questioning the reasons for the presence of American soldiers in the Middle East. He does not hesitate to stir up the “dirty laundry” of the government, pointing out that inside it (not the laundry, but the government) there are people who are interested in destabilizing the situation and trying to make some profit.
At least for this, “Do not take alive” is perceived as a realistic movie, in which there are no super soldiers, crumbling enemies to the right and left, but there is some story that the director tries to convey to the viewer, showing it from the most realistic side.
Despite the fact that the film is based on real events, it is clear that some of the shown is the subject of directorial fiction, but what he does not lie about is that the media today is a powerful weapon. And here the point is not even that this media can be someone “baked”, but that any information coming to the press requires the smallest reconciliation, because otherwise the information that turns out to be disinformation bursts into the world in millions of copies and is given as truth. And this leads to global consequences, which are partly reflected in “Do not take alive”.
One way or another, this film only tells how one soldier came up with the truth, but at the same time “Do not take alive” does not give a clear idea of who was in the hands of the situation, only hinting at “some forces”. The Green Zone seems to break out of the context of the war, not showing its beginning, not showing its end, but only emphasizing one fact. By the way, it is possible that the image of Miller is collective and reflects not one soldier, but several.
It is safe to say that Paul Greengrass decided to use something in the Green Zone, due to which one of his previous projects - "The Bourne Ultimatum" was very active and spectacular. It's certainly a walking chase. In Bourne, the persecution took place through the cramped streets and rooftops of Moroccan houses; in the case of Don’t Take Alive, the narrow streets and houses of Baghdad residents were also used. Every turn in this small world, every door open and the choice of the next path with literally every next second of the chase increases the intensity of emotions, because you already begin to feel that now (no, now!) something will finally happen!
The manner of shooting the film, as in the case of Bourne Supremacy and Bourne Ultimatum, gives the viewer an idea of a dynamic action movie in which much happens on the legs, not on wheels. Aggressive manner of shooting, cool soundtrack, a great cast, including Damon, Amy Ryan, Jason Isaacs and Greg Kinnier gives you the opportunity to enjoy a military thriller shot in good and worthy traditions of the spy genre.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
Although the director of this film, Paul Greengrass, plays Matt Daymond in the lead role, but it is still not "Borniada", far from it, but you can still watch this film, but you will not see anything new. . . 6 out of 10.
Even the film genre has problems. What is it? To the "Bournes" does not reach the action, it almost does not exist. The detective doesn't get up to his head and his lack of evidence. Political satire is beyond the absence of satire. Thriller? There were almost no tense moments here.
Maybe you wanted to get an idea? Well, the idea that the government is good, the fault of one evil uncle in the war, can hardly be called serious and relevant. Although, of course, the question tried to raise topical, it is difficult to draw a conclusion from it. Moreover, since the film is a game, it is very difficult to relate to this idea, there are no prerequisites for a connection with reality. The idea that everyone can influence events and should exert all their efforts, like a translator accidentally involved in a showdown? Hmm. It's a stretch here. Or were they trying to say that even though there were no WMDs, people were sick? I don't know, not obvious.
There is no special sympathy for the heroes here either. First of all, because I don’t believe a soldier has a brain/devotion mix that makes him realize something’s wrong in Year N. Either he understands it all at once or he never understands it. There is no threat to the main character. Journalist? Likewise. They leak information to her, they publish it without verification, ah tragedy. Really, if you think about it, what can she check? Are there WMD warehouses or not? He can't. Then what's the claim? And her audacity in knocking out information without the slightest leverage is simply amazing. There remains the commander of the Iraqi army, but he does not elicit sympathy by definition.
What's the result? There is no idea, there is no mystery, the search for an answer and the development of personality - no. The film is about nothing.
I want to compare it to the Lord of the Storm or the Sniper. Both movies are about war, about Iraq. But these films show human drama. In these films, amazing directing and camera work. People in the crosshairs, demining bombs, sweat drops and taking risks - it's impressive and keeps you on edge. And all this is not in “Do not take alive”, which is originally called “Green zone”. And, by the way, in this case, one of the meanings of the film is that people from the safe zone, without risking anything, spin millions of lives. But the film does not specifically address this issue.
In the mid-zero years of the XXI century, the directorial career of Paul Greengrass was flourishing, both creative - "The Bourne Supremacy" (2004), "The Lost Flight" (2006) - and cash - "The Bourne Ultimatum" (2007).
The next project was chosen an extremely difficult topic - the Iraq War (2003-2011). Rather, the prerequisites and consequences of its initial period, when from the end of March to the end of April 2003 the government of Saddam Hussein was overthrown, and Iraq itself was occupied by the troops of the international coalition led by the United States and Great Britain.
In fact, the film begins with a brilliantly filmed and edited scene of the evacuation of high-ranking Iraqi General Al-Rawi on the night of March 19-20, against the background of the first missile strikes on Baghdad (a stunning tension is created even during the playback of the introductory logos of production companies). Next, the film makes a sharp editing leap for a month ahead, leaving behind the scenes the process of establishing the power of the US military administration in Iraq, and begins to develop in two chronological spaces - late April - early May (the search by officer Roy Miller for chemical weapons of mass destruction, the presence of which was the official cause of the military invasion) and, retrospectively, the restoration of the picture of the last months before the war (attempts of officer Roy Miller from the first space to understand why the weapons are not).
What Greengrass did well in this film was to demonstrate the fragility, even the illusory existence for an outside observer of any reference points, beacons of guidance in the world of political decision-making and implementation. One gets the impression that in this world there are no rationally motivated and logically meaningful reasons at all, and actions are dictated exclusively by momentary impulses, which, as soon as they provoke a chain of tragic events, will disappear forever in the past, leaving not the slightest plume behind. In this regard, the scene of Miller’s quarrel with a major military official is very indicative, when the natural phrase "The topic of WMD is no longer important."
What worked well was to show utter chaos and even hostility in the relationship between the top military command (Miller’s immediate superiors) and the CIA’s special agents, who came to the scene either to resolve the situation, or to help in the search for chemical weapons, or with less plausible purposes, such as concealing the true reasons for the deployment of a giant war machine.
And where the film sags slightly is in the portrayal of the role and moods of the diverse Iraqi people, forced to exist in a fractured reality, where the military dictatorship did not give way to military chaos, but continued to exist in parallel with it. Being unable to fully reveal such a complex topic, the film in this storyline is noticeably straightened, simplified and begins to give out even slightly banal notes, so dissonant with the rest of the impressive narrative.
Greengrass’ most significant success in this film is not the assertion that true answers in politics cannot exist in principle, but a convincingly captured idea that the main thing is always to be capable of self-criticism, for which skill and, above all, the desire to ask questions, both to others and to yourself, are absolutely necessary.
8 out of 10
Iraq. According to the U.S. government, and with them the high-ranking military is a savage and cruel country, inhabited by real barbarians who have nothing sacred and who should be curbed before they eat each other. And so that the world community did not revolt, because the United States is “the most democratic country in the world”, the White House received an orientation that they say that Iraq has both nuclear and chemical weapons, which the subordinates of Saddam Hussein are about to use. Well, in this scenario, it is natural that the international community, although it will murmur a little, may threaten from the podium with its fist, but will say that, yes, it is necessary to resolve the issue and resolve it as soon as possible. And now American troops victoriously enter Baghdad, meeting almost no resistance on their way. However, the cheerful cries from the civilian population brave American soldiers also do not hear something. Maybe people haven't figured it out yet? The young captain hands out a chocolate bar to the frightened girl and demonstrates a dazzling, considered Hollywood, smile in retaliation for the same brave warrior in the face flies a rotten tomato. From all sides, angry shouts and “good advice” are heard by type, and should the valiant American Marines not copulate with their great-grandfather? Naturally, some of the soldiers can not withstand the nerves and he pulls the trigger, it is natural that in the crowd of ordinary Iraqis could be both the most banal instigators and terrorists, but the truth will be that mostly innocent people will die, and on both sides, and the American government, and with them and the media will blow up the elephant and put themselves in a noble light, fighters against the terrorist threat. And it seems to be true from the point of view of history, because the winner never makes excuses, and the loser can no longer, but there are always people who will ask questions. And this man is Lieutenant Miller, who was sent to Iraq, so that he and the soldiers entrusted to him to find the notorious PRP (Weapon of Mass Destruction), but time after time coming to places where this weapon was supposed to be, Lieutenant Miller sees only desolation and ruins, but no trace of scientific laboratories and military complexes, and what is there, the buildings where the hero of Matt Damon looks like there was no one there for many years. And Lieutenant Miller immediately begins to ask questions about the fact that they are repeatedly misinformed and ending with the fact that Iraq has nuclear weapons at all, well, besides the cannons that fire nuclear weapons? And Lieutenant Miller starts asking questions to his superiors in the hope of getting answers. Will he get it? Yeah, of course, that's right on the run and on the cart! No, of course not. But thanks to his irrepressible curiosity, Lieutenant Miller will make powerful enemies who are happy and happy to see the hero Matt Damon in a zinc coffin.
What do you say? It is quite a bold move to make a film in which it is easy and seemingly shows the predatory policy of the United States, which does not take into account anyone’s opinion other than its own and, if necessary, they have stepped over any laws and conventions in order to achieve their intended goal. This is not to say that the powerful of this world will easily order the murder of a man who was recently called his friend and ally. But it is worth giving the director credit, he does not throw all this in the face and does not say – here are the Americans bad and the Iraqis are good, no, not at all. In this film it is perfectly shown that living people with their dreams, experiences, aspirations and hopes are involved in this conflict, and as all people there are their righteous and their sinners. Here, for example, high-ranking Iraqi military, who do not know what to do, on the one hand their faith calls to repulse the enemy that invaded their sacred land, but on the other hand they wonder, what will it do? Perhaps we should try to enter into negotiations? Or the FBI agent Brendan Gleeson, who calculates alternatives and warns that if everything goes on and the U.S. military continues to hunt witches instead of humanitarian aid, then very soon the entire Iraqi population will take up arms and say their harsh fiats to “American liberators.” And as history has shown, Gleason's hero was right. Well, the hero of Matt Damon is Lieutenant Miller, a rather ambiguous character, since on the one hand nothing human is alien to him, but on the other hand he calmly looks at the camp of prisoners of war, which is more like a concentration camp, except that people are not processed in soap there. On the one hand, he wants to understand everything, but on the other hand, he does not try to understand the problems of the indigenous population. He looks at the problem quite one-sidedly and because of special sympathy, as well as antipathy to the hero of Matt Damon there. He is an American warrior, not the best, but not the worst, just different. But the one who is sympathetic is the Iraqi resident Freddie. Yes, I agree that this is a cunning director’s move and so selfless and devoted people are not so much, and therefore the chance to stumble upon such a one to... a very large number, but so what? We have a movie in front of us, and that’s the order of things. So Freddie wholeheartedly cares for his country and hopes that the Americans will be different from the past authorities and that they will be able to bring stability and therefore he helps the hero of Matt Damon with everything he can. And the final twist related to Freddie doesn’t seem silly or far-fetched all due to the character of the hero, which is nice.
What is unpleasant is the work of the cameraman. A shaky camera, a grainy image, constant close-ups of the faces of heroes and villains create the feeling that you find yourself on the open sea while pitching, in a grayish-brown sea.
Outcome? The film was not shot for the sake of actors or for the sake of special effects, that’s honest looking at “Do not take alive” does not feel that the film had an impressive budget. He was filmed for the sake of history and to show America without embellishment. At the end of the review, I will quote Lieutenant Miller: “Do you have any idea what you did?” Do you think the world will believe America next time? * Looks sadly at the world* Will. And he's happy to eat up all the lies that the bigwigs in Washington are gonna tell. Nothing changes in this world. Nothing ever.
The world is full of various mysteries and mysteries that will always keep the public in a state of search for the truth and present very different and ambiguous variations as to what might have been. It is one of the most vital and interesting modern community about what served as the beginning of the US military policy and the invasion of American troops into Iraq. Someone can refer to the tragic events of September 11, which claimed a huge number of lives and even now raises considerable doubt about its origin.
So the director of this film Paul Greengrass is trying in every possible way to build up the events that occurred if not for a long time, then certainly on the eve of the tragic events of September 11, the invasion of American troops in Iraq and the beginning of one of the most senseless wars in history, the analogue of which can only be represented by similar military actions about Vietnam.
Visually, the film perfectly corresponds to the director's style Gringrass. Eternally twitching camera and a realistic approach to re-creating almost documentary filming on the screen, Greengrass presents a very juicy and colorful picture, which is only enriched by scenes of chases, shootouts and destruction. Much smaller in number than originally expected, but saturated enough to make the final 15-20 minutes of the picture the most vivid moments for the entire film.
Since otherwise, the direction of Greengrass turned out to be surprisingly weak, not even and not able to keep the attention and interest of the viewer at the same level. Since even a very promising story in its essence could not even be developed properly on the screen. Thus, that would somehow compare with the provocative Oscar winner “Lord of the Storm”, or a number of other military films on a similar topic.
Matt Damon has long gained fame as one of the most talented actors of the last decade, which is simply stunningly revealed in the films of director Paul Greengrass and this film was no exception. He played hard, bright and interesting. This is despite the fact that within the framework of the plot, his character is essentially very cardboard and caricature. When much more impressive were Jason Isaacs and Greg Kinner, who perfectly got used to the image of the main villains of the picture and created very charismatic and vivid images of villains. Those to whom you involuntarily imbue with more sympathy than to all others.
6 out of 10
Not to take alive is another look of the directors towards the military actions of the American army in the Near and Far East both during the peak of events and presenting interesting reflections on the possible beginning of this senseless war. Perhaps one of the most ambiguous and weak films directed by Paul Greengrass, who for the first time in his career missed, but still achieved quite a positive quality of his work of art.
After the Jason Bourne action trilogy, I was very interested in this film about the modern Iraq War. Then I saw that the film failed, was scolded, and judging by the reviews, not the most interesting. But everything that interests me one day must be seen.
occupied Iraq. Green Zone. A group of American soldiers led by Roy Miller have been searching for weapons of mass destruction for a long time. However, every place, every tip of the mysterious informant, whom everyone knows as Magellan, turns out to be false. The team loses fighters and comes to an empty place every time. Miller begins to ask questions, which attracts the attention of CIA officer Martin Brown, who gives the soldier the task of finding the last living associate of Saddam Hussein, General Al-Rawy, who can lead the revolution. Miller has to make a deal with him. At this time, the U.S. government is taking any measures to prevent this meeting from taking place.
I know surprisingly little about the Iraq War. I thought this movie might help me a little bit. However, it turned out to be an action movie loosely based on real events. Only the situation was real, and everything else was not so real, but too American. All this is the mission, the reasons for the beginning of the war, and the final shootout. I have a suspicious idea that someone is just trying to justify themselves. I think that if it was a regular action movie, not based on the events in Iraq, I would like it much more.
Matt Damon looks great in the role of an action hero, with a gun fighting enemies. The right hero for such a movie. I also wanted to see Greg Kinner - a good antagonist who acts in the interests of his country, but not always this way without victims. Amy Ryan is a journalist, Laurie Dane, who also seeks the truth in this search for mass weapons. Khalid Abdullah is a resident of Iraq, whom the Americans call Freddy. He represents the Iraqi people who yearn for an end to this war.
After the end of the film, I was left with ambiguous impressions - everything is too different than I thought. I don't know, maybe I didn't like it. I noticed a lot of moviegoers rated it pretty well. The film is still interesting, I did not like the fact that it was not as believable as I wanted. Or maybe I was looking for a resemblance to the Lord of the Storm, who at one time greatly impressed me? Fighter lovers will definitely like it. I can only put in
Completes the French selection absolutely Hollywood blockbuster with Matt Damon in the title role from the director Paul Greengrass. These three factors immediately intrigue viewers who watched the trilogy about another agent - Jason Bourne. The comparison clearly won't be in favor of Green Zone, because this movie is much weaker. Whatever it is, but even another name will not pull a second-rate action movie into the major leagues. It's just not that level. Although after the boring drama "Male-female" on this film at least do not sleep, which is already pleasing.
The plot is typically American from the beginning of the film to the final credits, but with one feature. When it comes to any armed conflict, there will be a brave American soldier who will faithfully carry out the orders of the command for the benefit of his country. Such a soldier was Lieutenant Miller, whose unit must find traces of weapons of mass destruction. They are given information from a classified source, but each new tip turns out to be completely empty. When Miller found his source of information from local residents, the thread led him to a tangled tangle, but superiors forbid the sneaky soldier to get to the truth. But the fight for justice, of course, will not stop.
It seems to be an ordinary military tale about the heroism of American soldiers with coalitions and conspiracies. But it is noteworthy that in this action movie, US policy in the Middle East is condemned by the filmmakers. Perhaps this is the only feature of the “Green Zone”, because all the characters are kind of sluggish, although there are chases and shootouts. If in action episodes you could not see anything, then all the bumps should be sent to the address of the cameraman Barry Ackroyd. Matt Damon did a good job, but it was too small for him. Of the minor characters, it was nice to see Brendan Gleason, but his presence here does not make the weather.
There are many weaknesses in the script. For example, I don't believe that no one in the government has been able to uncover the truth that opens up to a protagonist as easily as a supermarket door. But I'll give you an extra point for saying, "It's not up to you to decide for the people who live here!" This message could be conveyed in a more fascinating way.
After watching the film "Do not take alive" or "Green Zone", I was generally satisfied, but not delighted. With the name "Do not take alive", the distributors did not lose, for which they thank, because the name is perfect, which is extremely rare. When I watched The Green Zone, I was immediately nostalgic for Bourne’s trilogy, which I’ve watched more than once because I like it wildly.
The plot throughout the film keeps in suspense, makes you wonder about what is happening, but alas, everything is not so sweet in the film. I felt like there wasn’t much action in the movie, although I expected more. But in general, to some extent, the denouement helped out, quite good, thoughtful, logical.
The acting game is not bad, Matt Damon, as always, played well, professionalism and talent he does not occupy, the actor he is excellent. It was nice to see, albeit in a small role of Brendan Gleeson. I also played well and overall I was satisfied with his performance. I can say that there is no one else to answer. The film is almost entirely based on Damon. All he's doing is pulling this picture out. I actually watched it for him.
"Do not take alive" - generally a good film, with a good plot, good acting, with almost a minimum of special effects. You could say that Paul Greengrass made a good movie about the war in Iraq, for which I would like to thank him. You can see the picture once. I suggest you watch it!
Green Zone Paul Greengrass is quite a good director, who at one time shot a lot of good films, among which was quite an interesting "Lost Flight", but more less films about Bourne, just with the same Matt Damon in the title role. But in this picture he told a story so sluggish, implausibly looking, that even words do not exist. In the “Green Zone” of occupied Iraq, territory under the control of the United States Army, CIA agents search in vain for traces of weapons of mass destruction. The bias of the investigation becomes apparent to Officer Roy Miller, who tried to make the results public. But how far can the generals who have decided at all costs to restore order in an unstable region go? The film tells us the story of the initial invasion of Iraq when a mountain of political intrigues, such as conspiracies, false information, falsifications, is also unfolding along with military operations. The film is largely dominated by a personal story, which is very poorly disclosed. The focus is on Sergeant Miller, played mediocrely by Matt Damon. Weak acting, poorly revealed character of the hero, his behavior shows that he does rash actions. In general, although I like this actor, and in “The Departed” he played perfectly, but in this film he had the worst role of his career. Well, for example, in the same "The Lord of the Storm", which is also set in Iraq, the identity of the sapper James was revealed perfectly, but in this film was made a miss. Also in this film was somewhat revealed the military theme. Of course, the main anti-war message is felt, and all this hatred of the actions of George W. Bush on the part of the director is also felt, and it is shown that politics and all these secret (and not only services) are ready to go to any lengths to make it profitable for their country. It is obvious that they do not think about people at all. And with all this anti-war message, they set the viewer up to the fact that the United States of America attacked Iraq, to put it mildly, basely. But because of the cast immediately feels that somehow all this looks too playful and unreal. The same Greg Kinnear who played Gay very well from “It’s Never Better” didn’t fit in so much and looked so funny. Provided that if there were other actors in the film and it didn’t look so sluggish, I’d put a + for the script. The film is very budgetary. About 100 million dollars, but if you look at the special effects, they are not very spectacular. Everything seemed to have been spent blowing up the tower in the very first minutes of the film. That's it. When shooting, the focus was on the so-called amateur shooting (just like in the same “Lords of the Storm”), but if there because of this, the film looked realistic, then here it looks like... Well, to put it mildly, ridiculous. And with that kind of budget, especially... In general, we can say that in the script the film is quite good, but the director too much hit in the personal story, and because of the bad performance of the actor saw everything very poor. So the fact that the film is unsuccessful, you can write off the cast. If instead of Matt Damon, the actor was more suitable for this role, charismatic, everything could work out. Original
Green Zone Paul Greengrass is quite a good director, who at one time shot a lot of good films, among which was quite an interesting "Lost Flight", but more less films about Bourne, just with the same Matt Damon in the title role. But in this picture he told a story so sluggish, implausibly looking, that even words do not exist. In the “Green Zone” of occupied Iraq, territory under the control of the United States Army, CIA agents search in vain for traces of weapons of mass destruction. The bias of the investigation becomes apparent to Officer Roy Miller, who tried to make the results public. But how far can the generals who have decided at all costs to restore order in an unstable region go? The film tells us the story of the initial invasion of Iraq when a mountain of political intrigues, such as conspiracies, false information, falsifications, is also unfolding along with military operations. The film is largely dominated by a personal story, which is very poorly disclosed. The focus is on Sergeant Miller, played mediocrely by Matt Damon. Weak acting, poorly revealed character of the hero, his behavior shows that he does rash actions. In general, although I like this actor, and in “The Departed” he played perfectly, but in this film he had the worst role of his career. Well, for example, in the same "The Lord of the Storm", which is also set in Iraq, the identity of the sapper James was revealed perfectly, but in this film was made a miss. Also in this film was somewhat revealed the military theme. Of course, the main anti-war message is felt, and all this hatred of the actions of George W. Bush on the part of the director is also felt, and it is shown that politics and all these secret (and not only services) are ready to go to any lengths to make it profitable for their country. It is obvious that they do not think about people at all. And with all this anti-war message, they set the viewer up to the fact that the United States of America attacked Iraq, to put it mildly, basely. But because of the cast immediately feels that somehow all this looks too playful and unreal. The same Greg Kinnear who played Gay very well from “It’s Never Better” didn’t fit in so much and looked so funny. Provided that if there were other actors in the film and it didn’t look so sluggish, I’d put a + for the script. The film is very budgetary. About 100 million dollars, but if you look at the special effects, they are not very spectacular. Everything seemed to have been spent blowing up the tower in the very first minutes of the film. That's it. When shooting, the focus was on the so-called amateur shooting (just like in the same “Lords of the Storm”), but if there because of this, the film looked realistic, then here it looks like... Well, to put it mildly, ridiculous. And with that kind of budget, especially... In general, we can say that in the script the film is quite good, but the director too much hit in the personal story, and because of the bad performance of the actor saw everything very poor. So the fact that the film is unsuccessful, you can write off the cast. If instead of Matt Damon, the actor was more suitable for this role, charismatic, everything could work out. Original