Just caught this film this morning.  The one dubbed 'Bourne in Baghdad'.

It's not bad but not great either.  I felt the ending was anticlimactic.  I could of sat there for another 30 minutes or so but felt the ending came a little too soon.

If this film came before the Bourne films it would nicely set those films up, but since it has come afterwards it has disappointed due to the standards previously set by Paul Greengrass.

I can see comparisons with Syriana and would suggest to see that film instead of this one.

I would give this a 7/10 as it's worth a watch but I wouldn't buy the DVD.

Javier

For me, this was a great film. Many would argue it's heavy-handed, and to a degree it is, but it took a stance, and right or wrongly, it lays out its argument. There is enough, however - for those who look - to see that the movie has covered both spectrums of this particular debate. Gleeson, Kinnear and "Freddy" embody different, sometimes agreeing, sometimes conflicting, viewpoints and nod towards the complexities of the whole issue. I would expand on this, but without someone taking up a discussion, it's unnecessary.

With regards the "anticlimactic" ending, Jay, I do think this was material traditionally suited to a docu-drama, but its importance was worthy of a feature film. That's why it was full of action, I think, which, while impressive enough, didn't really move the story along, but was required to get the script greenlit, no doubt. In terms of the actual narrative, it had exhausted itself, so the ending was left in about the right place.

This wasn't as meaty as 'Syriana', but was an excellent film in its own right, IMO.

Definitely recommend to anyone with an interest in the topic, and anyone who enjoys the Greengrass style of action/filming.

Andrew

Ah. Mr. Allen. I see you're in Sydney. Hopefully the place rather than some fella. Ahem. Enjoy. I sorely miss it.
Saw GZ and you make some good points. I'd say it ain't as good as Bourne or United 93. That said it's still bloody good. Way better than most. The search for WMDs seems silly now. But, they did sell that as the reason for war.
Anyways, I recommend. But watch Hurt locker 1st. Now then, you any relation to the legendary Dave? Goodnight. And may your God in with you  Allen?
R.V.

This is primarily a DVD extra features review than for the movie itself, which was pretty decent, except for the $100M budget.

I don't think it was $100M good.

- Alrighty, here's the seminal event of my "cost per screen minute and shooting day" idea.
$100M budget / 115 running time = $869,565 per screen minute. Ouch.
If you wanna consider fifteen minutes of deleted scenes then that drops to only $769,230 per shot minutes.
Obviously there were hours and hours of raw footage that went nowhere, but the point is that this was an expensive movie to be throwing away minutes and seconds due to what? Bad or poor planning?

- Despite having a studio approved screenplay, the director had ideas for scenes, the producers had ideas for scenes, the director of photography had ideas and so did MDamon and the other actors.

- Intense, well crafted scenes end up deleted from the final cut "due to pacing and flow". Consider how this applies to our screenplays. A lot of work on our behalf for naught. Get over it.

- Shot in Spain.

- According to the Chief Warrant Officer Damon's character Miller is based on, Damon is absolutely dedicated to getting it right. If Damon's not happy with it it's not right, he'll do it over again. Totally focused on "is this as right as it can be?" That if he's playing a soldier he'll be the best possible soldier he can be to bring to the screen.
That's the depth to which actors will be playing your characters and likely why they'll be changing your lines.
It's also an indication of the industry-wide (absence of) faith actors and directors place in screenwriters. HA!

- On set and in costume, not rehearsals, they're all discussing how the scene goes, what their characters are thinking and what the scene means. I thought they would have addressed all of this in rehearsals, meaning that things change on the set and as time goes by. Details of the script change while the bones remain.

- The screenplay is based on but not an adaptation of the book "Imperial Life in the Emerald City". The screenplay is by Brian Helgeland, whom I consider a pretty good SR, (although some are admitted duds, but I'll blame the director or producers!).
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001338/
Point is his work was changed despite his street cred.  >

- Director states that he likes a nice tight script so that it is the solid foundation that allows him to let the actors have the freedom to do whatever they want.
(Goodness. Gracious. Ain't that an eye opener. These directors are some kind of mavericks, eh? Guess that's why they hate us "shooting from the script").

- At one point Damon stated to the director, Paul Greengrass "this may be actually the first time I've ever looked at the script on one of your films". (They did BOURNE SUPREMACY and ULTIMATUM together). Helgeland must like hearing that.
And there was zero mention of the writer, as per usual for almost all of these where the director is NOT also the screenwriter.

- Director states when any film is made, people watching this DVD kind of assume the process is a lot more linear than it actually is; that you write the screenplay, shoot the screenplay, you cut the film, it comes out. But the truth is it's a series of growing the project by degrees with people who share the vision of it.
(I have very little idea WTH that actually means).

I agree with you Ray that Damon and Greengrass wanted to give a bigger spin on the script, which resulted in an good film, but lost its power by doing two mistakes. The ending was both telegraphed and insulting as a thriller. Had they left it five minutes before the end or having the cover up unexposed  little longer, it would have been more effective. The other one was all buy saying US SF are nothing but murderous robotic thugs.I actually found that offensive.I expected a little more depth to these stock characters at least.

But as for commentary and the DVD extras...you know Ray most of the stuff is stuffing. When the director and lead actor hardly mentioning the screenwriter -and that quip about Damon not reading much of the scripts Greengrass directs just kills. However I think I have an answer for you as to why.

Brian Helgeland only contributed to the screenplay, after Greengrass had written the first handful of drafts. Brian Helgeland wound up with the WGA credit. Still, Greengrass should have mentioned the collaboration.


As to what Greengrass meant by "the process" he lost me too. Not as fast as he does with the shaking hand held camera, but hey, ever director's process is different. So maybe we do understand his process, but not the way he tells it.

Another movie I was meanign to see awhile back..finally got around to watching this weekend.

Overall, I have to say I liked it and think it was pretty well done.  Far from great though, and nothing anyone will ever remember.

For me, it was both too simple and yet too complex.  I could easily whip off a 2 minute account of teh story/plot/characters, but wouldn't be able to go kinto any great detail, and actually had some isues even staying up with this and that, while watching.

I don't know...I liked the action scenes adn was hoping for more in the end.  For me, the finale didn't quite work.  No  big surprise that Freddy killed the general, but for me, I really wish things had played out differently.

Definitely not a bad flick, but doubtful for repeat viewings and high priase.