Saturday, March 13, 2010
For more of my thoughts on The Green Zone HERE is a link to my review of Roger Ebert's review of the film
While that's the view that I take out of the film, there are plenty other voices out there, and below are a few of the other voices that I found interesting.
Kansas City.Com: A positive review from Robert Butler
Excerpt: "The film is particularly good at capturing the disconnect of life in Baghdad’s protected Green Zone. In Saddam’s former palace, Washington interns in bikinis lounge poolside with beers, cradling automatic weapons and listening to pop music. A few blocks away American soldiers are fighting and dying.
This movie is so focused on plot and breathless action that the acting is incidental. Unlike the Oscar-winning “Hurt Locker, these characters haven’t time for a significant emotional arc — they’re too busy running and shooting.
Still, Kinnear is a despicable villain, and Damon is his usual charismatic self. Amy Ryan has a few good moments as a reporter whose sloppy pre-war reporting about WMDs paved the way for the conflict, and Khalid Abdalla (who was born in Scotland) is excellent as a Saddam-hating Iraq army veteran who teams up with Miller, serving as his translator and the film’s conscience.
Bottom line: “Green Zone” is high-octane speculative fiction with a political agenda. You can already hear Rush Limbaugh harrumphing.Read more at: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/11/1803503/green-zone-laced-with-action-and.html
Inland Empire Weekly: Amy Nicholson makes a case that the film isn't simplified but in actuality distilled
Excerpt: "Green Zone feels like a self-conscious relic of the previous decade and there's nothing to convince us of otherwise, particularly because it applies tired aesthetics to an impotent tirade about the American invasion of Iraq. At its best, the picture suggests an extraneous coda to the Greengrass-completed Bourne trilogy, without the benefit of its mystery, its forward momentum, or its looming implications."
Read more at: http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/greenzone.htm
Decent Films Guide: A negative review by Steven D. Graydanus
Excerpt: "Reviewing the Rob Marshall film Memoirs of a Geisha, Roger Ebert wrote, “I suspect that the more you know about Japan and movies, the less you will enjoy Memoirs of a Geisha.” This is such a useful critical rule of thumb that there ought to be a shorthand way of referring to movies fitting that description. I don’t suppose we can call them Geisha movies. No, probably not.
Still, let the reader understand when I suggest that Green Zone is a Geisha movie, in the sense that the more you know about Iraq and movies, the less you will enjoy it. I don’t know a lot about Iraq, and even I know too much for this movie."
Read More At: http://decentfilms.com/reviews/greenzone
There is also something else worth reading on his site regarding Green Zone http://decentfilms.com/blog/green-zone-kinnear-lied
"Does Roger Ebert Really Not Care About Truth?": I wrote an earlier review of Roger Ebert's four star review, that can be found here.
My own personal video review of Green Zone can be found here
Where to begin? Is Ebert this willfully ignorant of recent history? Let me run down the issues with just these three points:
- U.N. Weapons Inspectors and Teams dating back to 1991 recorded and noted that WMD's were unnaccounted for and consistently desired to monitor and search for them
- Colin Powell (no NEOCON fanatic) became convinced of the evidence
- Nearly all the major players in Congress who say the same intelligence as Bush and the other allied nations believed Saddam to have WMDs.
- Many Generals within the U.S. Army and Iraqi Army believed many WMD's were destroyed or moved before the invasion
Ebert runs an end around the facts of the case by claiming that it's not relevant whether the history is true or not. Seriously? This film is meant to be a commentary on what happened in Iraq right? It's meant to be based upon a non-fictional account? I would surmise that it doesn't matter to Ebert because it fits his liberal narrative. I would guess (and I am speculating) that if the film had pressed the opposite case, that the evidence was a 'slam dunk' and that we were heroes in Iraq, then fact twisting would mean a lot more to him. This is more evident by third point...
3) "It's certainly one more element in the new narrative that has gradually emerged about Iraq, the dawning realization that we went to war under false premises"
This reminds me of an anecdote that the philosopher Peter Kreeft once told his class recounting that one student claimed it was okay to make any point they wanted because even if the point was inaccurate or unfactual, it at least stirred up a worthy debate. To that, one of Kreeft's other students replied, "Your mother is a whore!". The original student became offended, but the offendee replied, "I don't know if it's true or not, but it sure is a worthy debate!"
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
So, I'm gonna embed both fights below and offer my commentary on each. Afterwards, I'll let you know which I think is better (they are both incredible), but I'm really interested in what you have to say. So, if you have the time, watch the clips below and let me know which fight you find to be better and why.
Wheels on Meals (1984)
Monday, March 8, 2010
The categories I missed out on:
"Baldwin and Martin are tripping on some basic stand up essentials like decent transitions"