Wednesday, 24 March 2010

Bourne again?

Is Green Zone really the unofficial fourth Bourne movie as the adverts and promotional campaign are trying to suggest? Most definitely not. That said, there is much to admire in this third collaboration between Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass, but I wasn't bowled over by it like some, nor did I tire of the shakycam action sequences as others seem to have. However, I did wonder, What was the point of it all? Other than Greengrass seemingly wanted to do two things: 1) hammer home the fact that we were all lied to regarding the WMDs in Iraq (or rather the absence of WMDs in Iraq) which we all knew anyway; and 2) have an Iraqi character say to an American — and I'm paraphrasing here — "We don't need you to tell us what to do with our country".

3 comments:

J.D. said...

I haven't seen the film myself but I also heard that Greengrass takes great liberties with the facts, basically having Damon's character find out what's going on and blow the whole thing wide open all by himself.

Adam Newell said...

Yup, the film ends (SPOILER) with Bourne, I mean Damon's character, emailing the world's media with his incontrovertible findings. Which immediately puts this film into the realm of an alternative universe where the skeletons all came out of the cupboard, lessening its gritty 'ripped from the headlines' provenance.

Mark Salisbury said...

The fudging of the facts and that ending do indeed nudge the film into "alternative universe"/wish fulfillment territory. It's like Greengrass was torn between Bloody Sunday/United 93 and Bourne modes.

But it does make me want to read the book the film's based on...