Greetings again from the darkness. The trailers and the involvement of director Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon gave me the initial impression this was to be little more than a "Bourne" rip-off. I am happy to report that's not the case. This is a fantastic story that is a cross between an Iraqi War movie and political thriller.
Matt Damon plays an officer responsible for following the military intel for WMD locales in the early days of the invasion. He gets more frustrated and untrusting as each target comes up empty. When he questions the intel to his superiors, he is "politely" told to follow his orders. At the same time, he is approached by a grizzled CIA veteran played by Brendan Gleeson. The CIA happens to agree with Damon's character ... the intel is faulty and the belief is an ulterior motive is at play by the administration.
Of course, this is not a documentary. It is merely another step in the exploration of what the driving force was for invading Iraq in the first place. Were WMD's a cover for the pursuit of Saadam? The script is based on a book, and leads us to believe the WMD intel was rigged because that was a great reason to present to our allies and citizens. The disconnect between the administration and the CIA appears evident. A smarmy Greg Kinnear plays an administration official who has much power ... and a special forces team reporting directly to him.
The film highlights the blunders and poor decisions made early on in the invasion. Not really sure if they were blunders or if the mission was simply misguided. Either way, this makes for a great story and an intense one to follow. A real statement is made when one of the locals who has been assisting Damon, surprises him and states something along the lines of "You don't get to decide the fate of my country". That's not the exact quote, but it is the key point the film is making.
The bad news is that Paul Greengrass is at his shaky camera worst. The first 15 minutes of the film and the climax chase scene to, through and outside the safe house were so bad that I felt queasy. I love well placed hand-held camera work, but this was beyond extreme - it was quite simply over the top and distracts from what should have been a near-classic.
Matt Damon plays an officer responsible for following the military intel for WMD locales in the early days of the invasion. He gets more frustrated and untrusting as each target comes up empty. When he questions the intel to his superiors, he is "politely" told to follow his orders. At the same time, he is approached by a grizzled CIA veteran played by Brendan Gleeson. The CIA happens to agree with Damon's character ... the intel is faulty and the belief is an ulterior motive is at play by the administration.
Of course, this is not a documentary. It is merely another step in the exploration of what the driving force was for invading Iraq in the first place. Were WMD's a cover for the pursuit of Saadam? The script is based on a book, and leads us to believe the WMD intel was rigged because that was a great reason to present to our allies and citizens. The disconnect between the administration and the CIA appears evident. A smarmy Greg Kinnear plays an administration official who has much power ... and a special forces team reporting directly to him.
The film highlights the blunders and poor decisions made early on in the invasion. Not really sure if they were blunders or if the mission was simply misguided. Either way, this makes for a great story and an intense one to follow. A real statement is made when one of the locals who has been assisting Damon, surprises him and states something along the lines of "You don't get to decide the fate of my country". That's not the exact quote, but it is the key point the film is making.
The bad news is that Paul Greengrass is at his shaky camera worst. The first 15 minutes of the film and the climax chase scene to, through and outside the safe house were so bad that I felt queasy. I love well placed hand-held camera work, but this was beyond extreme - it was quite simply over the top and distracts from what should have been a near-classic.