Reviews

Green Zone

The Green Zone is the third collaboration of actor Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass. The Bourne Supremacy and the Bourne Ultimatum proved to be a winning combination for the two and are two of my favorite movies. If you have seen any advertisement for this movie you will know they are promoting it almost as another Bourne movie. It was a good idea because it got me to go see it, but don't kid yourself this is nowhere near as good as those movies. I was very disappointed in how unexciting the movie was and the obvious liberal political message.

The movie takes place in the early aftermath of the Iraq invasion. Matt Damon stars as officer Miller whose job is to lead a team of soldiers into targeted buildings that is believed to have WMD's. He is disappointed time and time again that they can't find any and is starting to question the Intel that is given to them. Greg Kinnear plays Clark Poundstone, who works for the Pentagon and seems to be in charge of operations in Iraq. Brendan Gleeson plays CIA agent Martin Brown who is the expert on Iraq relations. Mr. Poundstone and agent Brown butt heads over and over in the movie on choosing the leader of the new regime in Iraq. Poundstone believes in putting their own choice in as President to act as a puppet of the United States. Brown believes that the people should vote in their own president. This decision can have drastic effects on the future of Iraq and our relations with that country.

Miller soon is on the hunt of a major former General of Sadam Hussein. He believes by catching this General he can find out the truth about whether or not there really is WMD's in Iraq. With the help of agent Brown and a reporter played by Amy Ryan he uncovers where to find the General. To catch the General he will have to disobey orders from Poundstone and go rogue. So he is on a race to find the General before Poundstone does or he will never find the out the truth.

Like I said before this movie was nowhere near as thrilling as watching Damon and Greengrass's other films. The first half isn't too bad as we are being introduced to all the characters and are setting up the premise. I found the second half to be very boring as it's mostly spent on Miller running around all over Baghdad talking to different characters. Most of the action is at the beginning and ending of the movie but none of it was that exciting to watch. Mostly due to the jerky camera work, quick editing, and dark cinematography that makes it hard for the viewer to understand what's going on. Whatever worked in the Bourne movies did not work here. The movie has a great cast but it seems like they are all phoning it in and don't have a lot to work with. It's just the same performances that we have seen in other movies, especially for Damon, which just came out blah on the screen.

Lastly I have to mention the blatant liberal politics on the movie. It's obvious that the writer of the movie didn't believe that there were any WMD's in Iraq and that the Pentagon/U.S/Bush lied about it in order to invade. This is a fictional movie that seeks to give an explanation on the writer's bias belief on the war in Iraq. When finding a solution most people seek to find evidence first to prove their point. This movie instead decides on what the solution is and makes up evidence to prove what they want to be true. Skip this movie and rent the Bourne Trilogy or any season of 24.

Grade: D

Rated R: Some uses of strong language like the F-word, and non-graphic violence.

The Hurt Locker

Every year we get a couple of Iraq war movies and they always turn out to be flops. The Hurt Locker doesn't star big names but is getting the best reviews of the year. This movie doesn't display the usual anti-American sentiment. It doesn't treat our soldiers as evil (unlike Avatar), or as stupid, and drunk hoodlums. It shows the psychological effects on soldiers who know any day could be their last. This provides for some good drama as most war movies do. Although I thought it was well directed and well acted, there wasn't enough there for me to call it a good movie.

The movie stars Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, and Brian Geraghty as officers William, JT, and Owen. They are a bomb squad in Iraq who are called on to disable road bombs. If you have watched any news on the Iraq war you will probably know, there are a lot of road bombs out there. William is the bomb specialist in the group that has to get up and close to these bombs and disable them. JT and Owen watch his back and assist him in these missions. William is also the new guy in the group and immediately sets himself as a risk taker. JT on the other hand is cautious and plays everything by the book. This will bring William and JT at odds with each other throughout the movie. Owen agrees with JT and seems so nervous on missions that he is about to have a mental breakdown at any moment.

The movie is filled with several bomb disabling missions and then JT and William arguing back and forth about the missions. JT thinks Williams's inability to listen to him and follow his commands is putting all their lives in danger. He likes to follow his own instincts and doesn't seem to work with the team. I think most people would have to agree with JT it does seem like he is putting himself in danger over and over again instead of doing what is safe. Why does William act this way? William has such a determination to disable the bombs that it seems that he will die before giving up. Does he have nothing to live for? That doesn't seem to be the case; he has a family waiting for him back home. It seems that he enjoys risking his life day in and day out more than going back to the safety of his home. I don't understand why this is, and it's one of the problems that bothered me throughout this movie.

Critics seem to love this movie for its thrills and intensity. I on the other hand didn't feel tensed or thrilled. Disabling a bomb over and over again isn't really that interesting. It takes about 10 minutes to put on the big suit and walk over to the bomb, and then another 10 minutes to disable it. It's actually quite boring to watch and there are about 5 scenes just like that, that take over most of the movie. I was never scared for the characters because I figured hey they can't die they are the main actors and I still have an hour left of this movie. When not disabling bombs JT is constantly getting after William which gets annoying and in one awkward scene they are fighting for no reason. Other scenes just drag on and seem to have no point to them. What is the goal for these soldiers in this movie? It seems to me that it is just to survive their round in combat until they get to go back home. It just doesn't seem like a good enough reason for me to care about this movie.

Grade- D

Rated R- Lots of cussing and violent images.

Up In the Air Movie Review

I finally got around to seeing the soon to be Oscar nominated movie, Up In the Air today. A lot of critics are putting it on their lists for top movie of the year and I will have to agree with them. This is a very good movie. It's funny and witty and has some good dramatic moments at the end that really hit you in the stomach. It's one of those rare movies that is fun to watch and makes you think at the end.

The movie stars George Clooney as Ryan, his job is to travel around the country and fire people personally and hopefully tries to help them move on with their lives. It's an art form that Ryan has perfected over the years and he is really good at it. I will have to warn you not to watch this movie if you have just been fired, because the movie is littered with scenes of people getting fired. Most of the people react in an angry fashion and it's almost comical in way they show these montages. Then there are people that react with a sadness and desperation that really makes you feel their pain. Ryan explains that he spends some 300 plus days traveling and a miserable 43 days at home. Through his travels he gives speeches at different hotels about putting your life in a backpack and feeling that weight. Your different attachments in life weigh you down. So he believes in having no attachments.

Anna Kendrick and Vera Farmiga play Natalie and Alex in the movie and their characters provide a challenge to Ryan's way of life. Natalie is a young college graduate with big ideas that will change the way Ryan will do his job. Ryan is not happy about this and thus there is conflict between the two. Ryan's boss, played by Jason Bateman, pairs Natalie with Ryan so that Ryan can show her the ropes. Their totally different personalities and philosophies on life clash and these provides for most of the funny and witty dialogue of the movie. Ryan is an older man who is calm and full of confidence in his job and in his life. Natalie on the other hand is young, naïve, and looks unsure of what to do most of the time. Alex is another business room that Ryan meets on the road and has a fling with. During the course of the movie they keep in contact and hook up as much as possible. Natalie seems to be just like Ryan in life only in female form. Ryan enjoys being with her so much is seems that he is reconsidering his whole theory on not being attached to other people. Is it possible that Natalie and Alex can change his whole outlook on life? That's obviously where this movie is headed.

So what is this movie all about? It's about life. Pretty simple but yet very complicated. There are two philosophies on life presented in this movie. There is Ryan who believes that relationships are the heaviest objects you can put in your backpack. Relationships weigh you down in life. There's too much negotiations and compromise that you have to do. You can't be truly happy with all these attachments with other people. As he likes to say, if you are not moving you are dieing. In a way we can see he is right. Relationships can be hard; you have to work hard at it. It's a drag sometimes. The people you are the closest too end up hurting you the most. We've all felt this at sometime in our life. We see in Ryan's life that he has no close relationships. He has no girlfriends, he has no plans to ever marry or have children, he has no close friends, he hardly has a relationship with his two sisters, he fires dozens of people daily and feels nothing for them, and he seems just fine with that. Natalie on the other hand can't help but being attached to other people. She has fond dreams of being married someday and having children. In fact she believes her life is not complete without this. You also see this when she has to fire people. She can't help but feel very bad for these people and can't detach herself from the situation of seeing these peoples lives destroyed right in front of her.

So at the end of the movie you have to ask yourself, are attachments and relationships worth the effort. The answer I came to be is yes, they are. At the end of the day what keeps you going in life. Is it your possessions or is it the love of your family? For me nothing can compare to the love I get from my family and friends. It's unmeasureable.. As they say you can replace your possessions but you can't replace your loved ones. This philosophy is even more evident in this movie when you think about the people who are fired in this movie. They are devastated by this turn of events but they also realize that they couldn't get through it if it wasn't for their family. You can lose everything but as long as you have a family to go home to you can be happy, you can have hope for the future. Without these relationships you are alone and have no one to help you through the bad times. So I would think about your own life and be grateful for all the people in it.

Grade- B

Rated R- Lots of use of the F-word and other cuss words through out the movie, 2 seconds of nudity of Vera Farmiga, lots of sexual innuendo and vulgar talk between George Clooney and Vera Farmiga.