In fact, "Green Zone" is not bad at all. If it is placed last year, I think it will have enough qualifications to pull "The Hurt Locker" from Malaysia. Moreover, the meaning contained in this film has far-reaching significance, not just a war drama that satisfies visual stimulation. However, at this point, the questions mentioned above, self-exploration, the answer may lie in the film market itself. Whether it’s Hollywood, Hong Kong, or South Korea and Japan, once someone shoots a film with distinctive features, which stimulates the market, there will be a lot of follow suits immediately, and then a theme will be destroyed. . This is basically how the Hong Kong film market was shot down. And Hollywood is also unavoidable of such vulgarity. Think of the hot Iraq war films of the past few years, almost all angles have been filmed, and excellent works are also emerging in endlessly. Later, the audience watched a lot, and they gradually got tired of it. Think of "The Hurt Locker", actually PK dropped "Avatar" and won the Oscar for best film and best director, but it was broadcasted in the cinema for a long time, and there was still no audience willing to join in, and it became a winner and a loser. A masterpiece at the box office, it also became the best Oscar movie with the lowest box office in history. Compared with it, or the bottom of "The Hurt Locker", the box office loss of "Green Zone" is understandable. It's not all to blame for the audience's lack of eyesight, the situation is really compelling.
This movie with the theme of the Iraq War is actually just a gimmick. After the superficial war, it discusses the right and wrong of the US approach to the Middle East, not just Iraq, but even Afghanistan. The film uses a middle- and lower-class soldier Roy Miller (played by Matt Damon) as an introduction to reveal and criticize layers of problems. The film tells the story of the United States invading Iraq under the guise of weapons of mass destruction. This is just a trick of the top political leaders. In order to promote its own political ideas, it completely ignores the life and death of the Iraqi people. Using war as a means to violently overthrow the Saddam regime, and then overthrow it all over again, can Iraq move towards the formality of history? Will the Iraqi people accept the method of openly supporting the puppets with a figure who has left Iraq for 30 years to rule the current Iraq? The simplicity and rudeness of politics are like this, which is singularly wandering among the top politicians in the United States. It is arrogant, arrogant, hypocritical, and ridiculous. Such a result is already happening in Afghanistan. Karzai, who has left the country for many years, can become the president of Afghanistan, and he cannot do without the support of the United States. Moreover, his appearance on stage is not timed, and it is deeply reflected in him. Under the shadow of the United States. But many years after Afghanistan overthrew the Taliban, the situation in the country is still in trouble, and there is no hope of recovery in the short term.
The movie "Green Zone" explores what happened before the arrival of "Karzai" in Iraq. Some other Americans, represented by Roy Miller, are trying to end the Iraq war in another way. They plan to cooperate with the Iraqi Sunni Baathists in the middle and low levels, and to some extent use the former Saddam Hussein. The army of Iraq uses their power to maintain the order in Iraq that has been completely chaotic. This plan may not be the best, but as a sub-optimal option, it can minimize Iraq’s casualties and losses. As a responsible attitude, this can be a means to be considered and a real solution. One of the reasonable solutions to the problem. If the problem is stuck in a dead end, the solution to the problem is the result of multiple compromises, and the use of the power of the Baath Party is such a compromise solution. However, the politicians in the United States who have political cleanliness and disregard the life and death of the Iraqi people disdain this compromise. It is they who fabricated the lie about weapons of mass destruction and wanted to overthrow Saddam and drive the Baath Party. The forces messed up Iraq and then reshuffled the cards. But, is this good? Will it succeed? As stated in the film, Saddam was not supported by the United States back then. Later, when he felt that it was useless, he overthrew it and supported another one. But would another Saddam grow up in this way? God knows.
The story uses Roy Miller as a minority to show the dark side of American politics. Through the lens of the director, the entire Iraq War has become Roy Miller's war alone. However, in addition to Roy Miller’s pragmatism and the actions of radical politicians, there are also the Iraqi patriots who translated by Roy Miller. They may hate Saddam and may help as an invasion. American soldiers, but no matter what they do, they love their country. The political choices among Americans have nothing to do with them. They simply choose from a populist standpoint, and the former Baath Party that intends to cooperate with the United States The general also died in his hands. From this perspective, the status quo in Iraq is somewhat of an inevitable choice of the people. The multiple angles of the film make the interpretation more different, and it also makes the meaning more diverse and complex. People who don't like it will feel more dizzy.
As a war movie, it is not about the war itself. This also makes some viewers who are used to watching war movies disappointed after seeing this movie. However, I think this is a very awesome movie. Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon definitely did not disappoint. It must be the investors who were disappointed, but who is to blame for this? It can only be that there is a problem with their own timing, and businessmen have to bear risks when they come to invest. What Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon have done is only their own duty, and those who like them should not let go of such a masterpiece.
View more about Green Zone reviews
