Director Paul Greengrass popularized the "shaky cam": the use of a handheld camcorder (or the jumping effect of one) to record action sequences. Detractors of the effect claimed that it made scenes hard to follow, viewers dizzy, and covered up for poorly choreographed action. While plenty of bad examples of the "shaky cam" can be found, Paul Greengrass's "Bourne" films showed it could be used effectively. The balance and restraint Greengrass showed in "Bournes" 2 and 3 is notoriously missing in his latest action war film "Green Zone." Greengrass's overuse of this effect wastes a great story and spot-on performances and may eventually cause a serious case of motion sickness in viewers by the end.
Matt Damon stars as a soldier who is part of a unit assigned to finding Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. The year is 2003 and the invasion is complete but American soldiers have yet to find any of the primary reasons for starting the war, the WMDs. After searching several empty sites from a "reliable source" Damon's Chief Miller begins to question the Intel. Asking questions does not make Damon popular amongst die-hard Special Forces types or near-sighted bureaucrats. With the help of Freddie, a concerned Iraqi citizen, and an old Iraq specialist from the CIA, Miller finds answers while unearthing more questions. The chief among them is: who is the mysterious informant, Magellan?
The movie is based on a book by the Washington Post bureau chief during the initial U.S. occupation of Iraq. The movie itself is more than an action thriller; it operates on one level as a political commentary on the early missteps of the Bush administration in the war. As such, Greengrass does not try to approach the film apolitically like the Oscar winning "The Hurt Locker" but chooses sides in the political debate. This may alienate some die-hard fans of war pictures, however the driving pace and underlying mystery will win most back. The film operates best as a personal account of a few good men trying to do right in a bad situation. The setting looks like the actors were dropped in a real war zone and Greengrass's direction makes the viewer feel like a part of the action.
My most damning criticism of an otherwise good movie is Greengrass's overreliance on the "shaky cam." The final battle is mostly a bouncing, jumbled mess of soldiers running and gunning after Iraqis. The preliminary battle is a less atrocious use of the same camera style. By the end of "Green Zone" viewers may feel legitimately motion sick. The director doesn't appear to be covering up poorly considered combat scenes, so why miss half of the action by filming with an out-of-control camera? I want to see the $100 million budget on the screen not a blur. The most lasting memory audiences take from "Green Zone" could be witnessing the beginning of the end of the "shaky cam" in major Hollywood productions.
Rated R for violence and language.
