Saturday, March 13, 2010
Summary: Weeks after the2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States military forces are searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction but are having no luck. Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller (Matt Damon), who leads the WMD unit, starts to question if such weapons exist within the country. The more he searches for answers the more bureaucratic cover up he finds.
Plot (B-): Only in America can its people make a movie about how our government royally screwed up. By taking actual events and transferring them to the silver screen this film allows for a stronger sense of authenticity. The film is based on the book by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, former Baghdad Bureau Chief of the Washington Post, so if you‘re wondering about the validity of what is shown take it up with Rajiv. With that said, this film was entertaining but I wasn’t spectacular at the same time.
Action (B): Good action that shows the general audience how American troops get the job done! At the same time it’s nothing different than anything I’ve seen before.
Acting & Dialogue (B+): You’re never going to get a bad performance from Matt Damon. He’s just too good. He spoke with a slight Southern accent and incorporated military jargon, which adds to his character. What’s even better about this film is that many of the extra’s used in the film, especially with Damon’s unit, were actual soldiers. Therefore, what you see during the film is what our military forces do. Greg Kinnear (Stuck on You), Brendan Gleeson (Gangs of New York), and Jason Issacs (The Patriot) also star in the film and provide a strong supporting cast. Kinnear plays Clark Poundstone (perhaps brother of Paula Poundstone) the bureaucratic pencil pusher. I wish him and Damon had more screen time together. They’re awesome in Stuck on You and could have really elevated this movie higher.
Sex Appeal: N/A
Director (B): Paul Greengrass, who directed the last two installments of the Bourne series, did a good job with this action flick. Greengrass shot the movie the same way as The Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum where he used a lot of hand held camera. This means several things: the camera is moving a lot so it hard to focus, there are a lot of quick cuts, and my wife would definitely get sick if she saw this. There is a deeper meaning for shooting that kind of way. It’s supposed to represent the chaos and unbalance in the characters life. While it served great for the Bourne movies I don’t feel it was necessary for this movie.