Battle for Haditha (2007) User Reviews

Good if taken for what it is worth

[semperfubarsk-232-791868 · 7/10 · 7 December 2011]

After reading through some of the reviews I felt I had to chime in, though I am sure almost no one will read this. Before I give my observations on the movie itself I would just like to point out that many who stated this movie was an accurate portrayal clearly has no experience or expertise that would qualify them to make the statement. Something I hope people keep in mind when reading other reviews. As a Marine who actually served in Haditha as well as many other locations, reading many of the reviews sickened me because it shows how little people actually understand, just as I usually wear a long sleeved shirt because my USMC tattoo brings on questions, praise, or derision from the clueless masses who for some reason believe they have some insight to any reality outside their own convenient world.

That said, I feel this movie is much better then most. The film clearly had an agenda and bias, and completely off the mark in terms of representing military tactics, equipment, etc... that is pretty much standard for any movie. I appreciated how the movie wasn't overly dramatic when showing issues faced by and actions of the various parties. One thing I wish the movie did take in to account is bullets pass through those walls like paper. I would wager that a large number of civilians were killed simply during an exchange of fire between the Marines, fighters, and then civilians who may have just seen a loved one fall. I have seen this happen often and I hope one day that reality is brought to light rather then showing young Marines on a blind rampage. However, no one knows exactly what happened except those who were there, and even that "reality or truth" depends on the perspective and state of mind of the observer.

Another positive is how the movie doesn't really show any right or wrong, good or bad, that things just are and "sh!t happens". If anything, I do think that is the true agenda of the movie even if there was a bias in its portrayal. Also, I appreciated the use of Iraqi dialect of Arabic instead of modern standard, Egyptian, Syrian, etc. Another accuracy plus was how close the town/city looked compared to cities of the region. Though clearly not Haditha, I have not seen any movie closer to the truth in that regard.

On a personal note, I think many of the comments made by Cpl Ramirez were spot on if a bit staged. I am not going to comment on any particular comment because you either understand or you don't. Also, and I know this is a bit of a stretch, but I refuse to give credibility to any one who may seek to either attack or defend (verbally) our war fighters because context is everything and the most people don't have or understand the context.

I recommend this movie to anyone who is able to take if for what it is worth by dropping the expectation of realism while not adding meaning where there is not. Also, I hope people realize that no matter how many actual Marine veterans or Iraqi's (most westernized), the film is a product of the film maker and subject to their interpretation. I only wish I could have had my say about the movie sooner, if only to plant the seed that people should take this movie, and the other reviews including mine, with a grain of salt.

Powerful & Provocative Film

[BlackNarcissus · 8/10 · 12 November 2007]

I saw this film at it's London premiere at the Odeon West End as part of the London Film Festival.

I guess Nick Broomfield was getting sick & tired of seeing Michael Moore ripping off his Documentary style so made this his Second feature film in as many years. Like the earlier film, Ghosts (www.imdb.com/title/tt0872202/), the Battle for Haditha is based on fact.

The film tells story of the events of November 19, 2005, when a troop of US Marines exact revenge for an earlier attack which killed one of their number in the Iraqi town of Haditha.

The Film focuses on three different viewpoints, the first of Iraqi insurgents, which in this case isn't some mad Mullah but an old man, who we learn is an ex-Army officer and his son. The second focuses on a Corporal Ruiz, a young Marine who you feel wants to be anywhere but Iraqi and the finally the film focuses on a young Iraqi couple and their extended family.

The film is shot Cinéma-vérité style and at times is very harrowing. But it's to Broomfields credit that he to my mind he doesn't simply demonize the US soldiers. Instead you get to understand how young men put in a situation that you the viewer couldn't understand let alone cope with, could just lose it after a comrade is killed. Likewise, in the films portrayal of the insurgent fighters Broomfield manages to make you think what would you do, if, as in the film, your a professional soldier made jobless by a an Occupying force. How do you feed your family, and wouldn't you feel some resentment to the occupation forces for making you jobless. But it's in the Iraqi families, caught between the US forces and the Insurgents that the film is at it's best. They can't do the right thing for doing wrong. It is they who bear the brunt of either Insurgency retaliation or US Forces heavy-handedness. They who ultimately will and are the losers in Film.

This is a powerful film which deals with all aspects of the problem fair mindedly, but doesn't shy away from the truth. Don't let those who haven't watched the film put you off seeing the best portrayal of the War on Terror to date.

Black Narcissus

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=14198203

A story that needed to be told

[insomnia · 8/10 · 13 August 2008]

It's almost impossible to be totally objective regarding a subject about which one is truly passionate. The war in Iraq is a subject that divides people like no other in recent times. As with any conflict, the war in Iraq has its supporters and its detractors. There is no middle ground. There are no grey areas: everything is just black or white. Either you believe it's a justifiable war, or you don't. This brings me to Nick Broomfield's new film, "The Battle For Haditha". The subject of the film is controversial as it deals with an incident in the city of Haditha, allegedly involving the US Marines. Broomfield uses actors, some of whom are former US Marines and Iraq veterans, as well as Iraqi refugees, to fashion a film that successfully straddles the gap between a regular documentary and a straightforward feature film. The film encompasses three points of view: those of the Marines, the insurgents, and the families who lived near where the roadside bomb detonated. This film is a fictionalised account of what actually happened at Haditha. It shows quite graphically, the horrors of war and what the Americans as well as innocent Iraqis have to go through almost on a daily basis. There are deaths on both sides, but it's Iraqi civilians who are caught in the crossfire and who have to bear the brunt of dealing with men who have been stretched to breaking point. The film in no way condones the actions of either the insurgents or the Marines. It just shows the audience what might have occurred on that fateful day, and it's for those in the audience to make up their own minds as to who was in the right and who was in the wrong. When reading some of the comments posted on the message board for this film, I find it somewhat puzzling that some contributors write that "Battle For Haditha" is anti-American. Just because the US Marines are shown in a less than sympathetic light in this film, does not mean the film is on the side of the insurgents. What the film does demonstrate is how quickly things can get out of hand, in a situation such as that in Haditha. By all means criticize a film on its merits, or lack of them. Please, though, do not label this film as un-American just because it doesn't fit a blinkered view of the way the world is.

Quite balanced and natural affair that is impacting apart from some weaknesses here and there (SPOILERS)

[bob the moo · 22 March 2008]

On the 19th November 2005, Kilo Company of the US Marines were attacked by an IED detonated remotely. One marine was killed and two injured. In the hours immediately after this incident, the search for those responsible took in the houses in the immediate area. After the search was complete twenty-four Iraqi men, women and children were dead.

Fellow reviewer Theo Robertson was fortunate enough to attend a screening of this film with the director recently but I also appreciate the ability to watch it without being surrounded by, let's face it, "the choir" in regards the point the film is making. My view of the situation was brought home to me by a minor character in HBO's The Wire who is on the brink of war with another gang and notes that it is too late now for the who's and why's because the war is on and lie or not, they have to fight. This is almost how I see Iraq now – we all know about the lack of WMD's, the political spin to "freedom" and "regime change", the lack of plan for peace and so on. We also know that really those in charge will never be held responsible so lets make the best we can out of the situation.

So for me Broomfield's film is almost spot on because it focuses on this "fight" and it forces the viewer to face the fact that the very difficult questions of how that can be done. In ways that are a bit "blocky" in nature, we do get three distinct groups of characters – the marines, the men planting the bomb (for money) and local families living in the area. This approach does several things really well and the overall impact is utterly depressing and left me wondering how we ever will get out of Iraqi in anyway that would be even slightly positive. The marines are handled pretty well I thought. The viewer is allowed into their world where they are being asked to respond to unseen attackers in a world where everyone is a suspect. Of course the response is unacceptable but Broomfield makes it possible to understand why this happened and the desire to lash out and response is tangible.

Of course the attachment to the civilians makes it sickening. Although it is a little obvious, I did like the way that Broomfield used an attractive and sexual couple at the core of this group, making it easier for western audiences to see people and not a religion in them. I also appreciated how the response is not milked for emotion by using music, slow-motion or any other trick designed to tell you that what you are watching is terrible. Instead it is cold and clean and all the more shocking for it. The third group is also well used – two men with no specific religious beliefs but a hatred for the soldiers and a desire for money for murder. They are not presented as "good men in bad situations" but rather their aim is clear – however the film lets us see that they never intended to make things worse. In this emotion we see a distinction between them (whose aim is murder of US soldiers) and those who seek to inspire chaos and murder to further fuel the fire and get recruits. This aspect is the most depressing.

The film is not perfect though and the way that Broomfield has to use this story to make points means that at times he does have to make narrative sweeps. Thus the story leads to further recruitment, recriminations against specific soldiers and of course a clean bill of health for those in charge. These are all fair points but they clash slightly with the tight, gritty focus of the rest of the film on the specifics and I did think that the same points could have been made in a less obvious manner since the meat of that argument is entirely in the Haditha incident. The delivery of the film is convincing and the Jordan location is well used. Broomfield's documentary background comes through really well and the action feels real – which does help prevent it being "exciting" or thrilling. He also gets reasonably good performances from the cast. I say reasonably good because when they are called upon to emote, it does feel like they are "acting", but otherwise they are mostly very natural and convincing. I refer specifically to Ruiz; really good when in the thick of it and reacting but is not as good when asked to breakdown.

Overall then, this is an engaging and impacting film that surprised me by being quite balanced (or at least as balanced as a film showing US marines murdering unarmed civilians can be). The characters are not forgiven or shown positively but their behaviour is all shown in the context of Iraqi – backing up the claim that those at the top need to be shouldering a lot of the blame. He does tend to let the film dip when he has to move into more general territory towards the end but otherwise it is a strong and impacting affair that deserves to be seen.

Unsanitized Depiction of War

[jfrogner34 · 7/10 · 27 March 2013]

It's unfortunate that so many reviews reflect not the quality, artistry, or technical merits of a film, but rather a visceral reaction based upon preconceptions. The director did a good job re-creating the atmosphere in Iraq using a hand held documentary style of film making. While the dialogue and acting left a lot to be desired, I understand this was a low budget picture so he did admirably with the resources he had. It is an independent film, so you shouldn't expect "Black Hawk Down."

Many of the negative reviews simply reflect an aversion to anything perceived as Anti-American. I am a veteran of the Iraq war with two tours of combat duty. I have lost brothers in arms. I have witnessed the suffering of civilians (vast majority at the hands of insurgents). I was close to Al-Anbar Province when this happened. To claim it was all lies is simply lying to yourself. If you cannot distinguish between engaging the enemy and murdering unarmed men, women, and especially children, either your moral compass is way off or you are completely brainwashed, or both. One poster above referred to insurgents as "less than human." It's that kind of thinking that leads to these kind of atrocities. No army on earth is immune to barbarism if there is a breakdown in leadership, especially in an emotional situation like this.

It is all too common that civilians will be the victims of collateral damage. That's what makes war so terrible. The reality is that 99% of American servicemen and women conduct themselves honorably. It is to protect that honor, and give some justice to the victims, that these marines should have been dishonorably discharged and sentenced to Ft. Leavenworth.

Serious Docudrama

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 27 May 2012]

Two Iraqi ideologues blow up a Humveee with an IED and rush away to safety. The Marines retaliate by bashing their way through the nearby houses and "shooting everything that moves." A dozen or more innocents are killed on the spot. The result of the Americans' actions is dutifully filmed by al Qaeda agents and used as recruiting material. The Marine corporal in charge of the engagement is at first applauded for his leadership and recommended for promotion and a decoration and then, when the incident hits the American press, brought up on multiple charges of murder.

It's a tough movie to watch. It's not preachy, although all points of view are presented, but the harsh irony is a bit much to bear. In many ways the most emblematic scene has an innocent young man running down a hill in the simmering and smoky aftermath of the shoot out. He's searching for his wife. But the Marines gun him down from a hundred yards away because, after all, what is an Iraqi man doing running at a time like this? It's at the least suspicious.

But then his wife arrives, screaming, and throws herself on the dead body. Ramirez, who is leading the fire team, approaches her with his rifle ready and shouts at her to move away from the body. She doesn't understand English and he speaks no Arabic. The wife finally flings herself at Ramirez and begins beating his shoulders and for a moment it seems that she will be killed as well.

That seems, to me anyway, to be the message of the film. Murky but powerful forces can bring together people who simply don't understand each other and the result is a blood bath.

The Marines we meet are brash but sympathetic figures. True, they are kind of dumb, but then many of us are pretty dumb when it comes to situations like this. One leader calls the insurgents "cowards" because they hide among the women and children. The men may or may not know why they are in Iraq but it's not their job to know. Their job is to define the enemy and kill him.

Complications arise when the "enemy" blends insensibly into the "innocent civilians." A woman or an adolescent child can carry a rifle or an explosive as easily as a fully grown man.

Disregarding values and ideology, that problem is common to all armies of occupation. The Germans had similar problems in occupied countries like France, Yugoslavia, and Greece. And, like the Marines in Iraq, the insurgents were a disparate group drawn from different ideologies, some more extreme than others. The core of the Greek resistance, for example, wasn't al Qaeda -- it was the communists. And, as in Iraq, resistance from extremists was met with retaliation against ordinary citizens by the Germans.

This isn't an expensive epic of a movie. It's not "Blackhawk Down" or anything. The production values are lower than that. And I understand it doesn't stick to historical fact. Some of the acting is weak and the dialog contrived. I don't believe any U. S. Marine has ever said, "I'll be haunted by this guilt for the rest of my life." The story isn't easily described as "sad" despite the numerous murders. "Tragic" is a better descriptive. The "bad guys" here aren't so much the Marines, or the active insurgents for that matter. It's the configuration of values and political decisions that have brought these two forces together in a state of conflict.

well filmed, but biased and inaccurate.

[habitatskater316-1 · 6/10 · 13 July 2008]

I'm going to make this short, the point in this comment is not to really review but to simply point out a few things.

First of all I would like to say the movie is filmed pretty well, the actors are pretty good, and the accuracy as far as props and whatnot are pretty good.

The biggest problem I have with this movie is the title is wrong. I find it extremely disrespectful that they used "they battle for haditha" as the name. Anyone who knows anything on the subject is aware that the battle for haditha was an operation in which the marines took control of the city. Not one shot was fired but (correct me if i am wrong) 8 marines were killed. Now, using the name of an operation in which marines risked there lives, and lost them, to take over the city and only detained people for what is otherwise known as the "haditha massacre" is ridiculous and disrespectful.

The second problem I have with the movie is as far as the event it is fairly inaccurate and is biased. Failing to even try to cover both sides of the story until perhaps the end the movie got on my nerves after a while. It was not 1 Humvee that got blown up and 1 killed, 2 wounded. It was 1 AAV that got blown up. Killing 5 and the sixth found slaughtered a few miles down the road. Whether or not the marines purposely killed the civilians, whether it was routine and they treated the houses as extremely hostile or not or whether insurgents killed them we will never know. But as the movie points out the man Told the little girl (9 years old not 12) what to say. which is entirely possible. Also note that the Man who made and promoted the tape was of the Hamurabi human rights group, furthering the idea that it could be a setup.

I just want anyone to know, as they should. When and after watching this movie please don't treat it as the truth. I am not saying it happened or the opposite happened. But the movie only covers one side of the story and is inaccurate as it is only showing that 1 marine died in the face of the iraqi civilian deaths.Too many people these days, watch movies like this and treat it as fact and then go around arguing with people and telling them bs when they have no idea what they are talking about nor are they even aware they don't have the events name right...

Made me cry.

[bluelionk · 9/10 · 21 March 2008]

Made me cry.

Only issues I noticed are: That the translation of the spoken Arabic is sometimes misleading and has no relation with what they actually said.

Some of the actors' accents are not Iraqi (Palestian, Egyptian, and others...), but most are Iraqis.

It's still a great movie that shows what happens in Iraq, and that war is ugly.

It's one of the rare movies that show the issue from the other side.

The acting is great, so is the scenery (it does look a lot like Iraq).

I say it again, it made me cry, a lot.

War - What is it good for?

[tubby1 · 6/10 · 18 March 2008]

The film depicting the controversial circumstances surrounding the death of twenty-four Iraqis and one US Marine at Haditha is expertly managed by Broomfield.

The film gives a fair reflection of both the US Marines and the Iraqis without ever being too one sided. The documentary feel gives the picture a real sense of realism and it does not hit one false note as it leads up to the harrowing events.

In essence the film is a microcosm of Iraq today. It is a strong piece of movie-making, it conveys the deep insecurities of the Iraqis and the lack of support of the US authorities to its troops on the ground. For me the lack of closure come the end epitomises the fear that there will never be a resolution.

Very skillful exploration of the Iraq war

[avakian1 · 10/10 · 11 August 2009]

I just saw this movie and found it very moving. I have spent some time with Iraq veterans and I feel this movie did a very accurate job portraying what they went through.

I think it's important to point out that 12 of the actors, including Ruiz, who plays Corporal Ramirez, are themselves Iraq veterans. Here are some quotes from Ramirez: "I was 17 when I was sent to Iraq, during the initial invasion. We pushed all the way up to Tikrit and I ended up being wounded, I almost lost my life. It's crazy, people don't know the type of things that we go through. That's what I like about the film, it shows that." The concept of taking Iraq refugees and ex-marines to make a movie with no script is brilliant. I felt the improvisation from these actors was likely better and more realistic than anything professional actors could have pulled off. I was also impressed with the production values, especially since no US funds were available for a fair and honest portrayal of such events.

Three sides to every story

[GyatsoLa · 7/10 · 23 February 2008]

I've just seen this movie in the Dublin Theatre Festival - I was somewhat surprised to see that there were lots of seats available (most of the huge range of movies have been booked out) - I guess even in a 'neutral' country people have just had enough of the war and have no stomach for fictionalizations.

Nick Broomfield has tried to do a lot with this movie - he has tried to show all three sides of a conflict (the two combatants and the civilians caught in between them) and given them equal time and equal empathy. He has tried to mix documentary and fiction - always a very dubious project. While in many respects its a tough and worthy movie, I do feel it has fallen short of its ambitions.

He carefully builds up his characters - the ordinary Iraqis going about their business, trying to live normal lives. The young Marines are shown most vividly - young men hyped up on testosterone and heavy metal (there is a great soundtrack from Ministry). And the Insurgents - a mix of clueless young men, Islamic nuts and despairing ex soldiers. The latter is the weakest part of it - the depiction of the insurgents is poorly done, with actors speaking lines out of an 'idiots guide to Jahid'. Only one of the insurgents is an interesting individual - the older man, an ex soldier apparently driven by despair rather than hatred - I would have liked to see more of this character.

The build up to the (apparently) true incident, when marines massacred two families in retaliation for a successful IED attack is tense, and the actual incident is realistic - it is particularly good at depicting how men who don't see themselves as evil can carry out a massacre. Broomfield clearly blames a combination of the training and a refusal to see the locals as humans as well as mendacious senior officers. But I have to confess to some misgivings about the depiction - it aims for reality, but some parts just lack credibility - *spoiler alert* For example, would experienced ambushers chose a random section of roadway without bothering to work out where their hiding place would be first? Would they really carry guns with them - surely they would just try to blend in with the locals by dressing normally? Its little things like this that make me feel that its not as honest in its attempt at a documentary like seriousness as it likes to think it is.

While its a worthy movie, and its hard to dispute that the attempt to show even handedness to all sides deserves acknowledgment, I found the narrative quite clumsy and the ending was poorly judged. I think this movie would have been better as a straightforward documentary, or a piece of 'pure' fiction. The deepest truths about war are often told by more abstract fictional stories (such as Apocalypse Now or my personal favorite, the Japanese movie Red Angel), than attempts to reproduce actual events. It doesn't help that the story is hamstrung by a very didactic approach (yes, we know war is evil and Bush is a hypocrite, we don't need to be told over and over again) and only an average script. But the quality of the middle section does make it worthwhile viewing.

Getting the Iraqis right this time: yes, it really does matter

[Chris Knipp · 8/10 · 25 May 2008]

In this new film that few in America will see in theaters, the English documentary filmmaker Nick Broomfield has taken his skill set into a narrative feature of an actual event of the Iraq war and dramatized and embellished it with often harrowing realism. Broomfield has humanized an American atrocity, the so-called "Battle for Haditha" of November 19, 2005, in which several dozen Iraqi civilians in the eponymous town were slaughtered by a small squad of Marines in retaliation for a hidden road bomb that killed one of their men and gravely injured two others. Broomfield humanizes everybody. The "insurgents" who plant the bomb, paid to do it by Al Qaida in Iraq people whom they don't trust or like, are a man who was in the Iraqi army destroyed by Paul Bremer, and his grown son, who sells DVD's to American soldiers. The civilians who happen to live near the road where the bomb goes off are seen up close, a child fascinated by chickens, a big family, a circumcision party, a couple with a child on the way who are deeply in love. All these are made real and known to the audience by the film. But so are the Marines, especially the main one, Corporal Ramirez (Elliot Ruiz), who though barely twenty, is so battle-weary he is haunted by dreams and guilt and cannot sleep. It's Ramirez who, cracking under the strain and the sleeplessness and given the go-ahead by corps superiors off somewhere with electronic maps (distant kills are like a video game), leads the rampage of murders, then collapses and weeps when rising for another day.

All this is very interesting, and the killings are similar to those in De Palma's flashy but so very slipshod 'Redacted,' but so very, very different in this new context with the simpler shoot--just a digital camera that you can forget about after a while, whereas De Palma rubs your nose in the multiple media feeds, the other American soldiers less specific here but cruder and perhaps more authentic; some of them like Ruiz were in the war themselves, and served, and know the way to act without being told.

But what is extraordinary in Broomfield's film isn't any of this so much as one thing that typically, American reviewers have hardly seemed to notice. This is: that not only are the Iraqis seen up close, they are real Iraqis, speaking Iraqi Arabic, and many of them, like the young actor who plays Ramirez, also on the other side as victims and non-combatants, veterans of the war, now living where the film was made and where they fled to, in Jordan. When Ramirez shows a big scar on his leg and says he almost lost it, it's Ruiz's real battle scar. Ruiz's performance has a new kind of conviction.

Why would Americans' notice that about the Iraqi Arabic, the authentic Iraqi non-actors playing the roles of insurgents and local inhabitants, and why would they care? In fact even the Choir to whom this anti-war movie is preaching are as ignorant and indifferent to the specifics of Middle Eastern cultural reality as the naive and headstrong men who got us into the war and the poor and uneducated boys who have pursued it and died in it and come back maimed and mentally damaged from it. But in the future, this may come to matter, and even be understood by American Iraq war veterans. Language is important, and culture is important. One shouldn't have to say that. But if it were understood, the imperial indifference of "bringing democracy to the Middle East" would crumble, and it wouldn't seem so easy to think that killing a hundred thousand civilians would make us friends.

Using real Iraqis and a lead Marine who's an Iraq war vet were master strokes, but this doesn't excuse the film from being in many ways self-damagingly roughshod and, despite the multiple viewpoints, still skewed at times. The Iraqi civilians who become victims are given a fairy tale simplicity, their complicity or involvement in weapons and explosives, though alluded to, not specified for any of the victims. There needed to be something more specific about a Marine other than Ramirez.

The chief bad guys, which seems right, are those at one remove, the Marine supervisors away from the front, and the local imam whose encouraging the locals to ignore the danger and hold a celebration is a cynical gesture to worsen the casualties and make them seem more cruel to the media.

Broomfield has used blunt instruments to shape his story, and his ending is a little muddled (partly from necessity, since the accused Marines hadn't yet been tried). Nonetheless the authenticity, particularly of the Iraqis, but of the whole scene, wins The Battle of Haditha a special place in the less-than-stellar roster of Iraq war films thus far delivered.

Decent War movie. As Far as representing this as the truth, The Director has obviously chosen his side

[Tcarts76 · 6/10 · 27 September 2012]

As a film about war, this was a good one. It was low budget and shot in a stylized way. The acting is really well done and it comes off almost as a documentary film (I will get to that in a moment). The filming locations are great (Jordan) the equipotent used in the movie is also pretty true to form. It was a low budget movie with no real known stars, and I give the whole crew, cast, director and everyone involved props for putting together a great movie.

Now for the bad news. It is just an anti-American, anti-war propaganda film. That is it. It is a convincing one and they worked really hard to try and make it look as close to a documentary as they could, but it is just propaganda. These events did occur, and I have no real doubt that some Marines may have been guilty of some form of Geneva Convention crimes, but this film sets out with a clear agenda in which a lot of time and effort is put into justifying the actions of insurgents, and trying to give the civilian populations a pass on not reporting insurgent activity. They seem to ignore a lot of what the Marines involved said and pretty much took the Iraqi civilians' words as the honest truth.

Towards the end, in order to not make to many fighting men and women angry they even try the new anti-war tactic of trying to pose one of the Marines as a victim. The Anti-war movements choice of spitting on American Soldiers in Veitnam doesn't work anymore so they try to paint our soldiers as victims now.

Unless you were there, witnessed what happened, and have no feeling toward one side or the other, don't represent something as fact when to this day we only have conjecture.

Utterly dishonest film... from start to finish

[SDsZ28 · 1/10 · 20 July 2009]

While the Iraq War certainly deserves its fair share of scrutiny, and history will surely paint a less than stellar picture of the politics behind the war and those leaders, Republican and Democrat, who led the United States into that war, those who served in it deserve at least the smallest measure of dignity in their portrayal. And filmmakers attempting to portray them owe them a small amount of integrity in their work.

Nick Broomfield's film has no such integrity. It misrepresents, lies, and sensationalizes at every turn, creating wholly unrealistic situations, and even making bald faced lies about Marine Corps policies, as well as tactics techniques and procedures (TTPs). The film claims to have used veterans of the United States military, however any of the "actors" used in this film who are prior service should be ashamed for participating.

It is the Iraq War critic's dream film: where every preconceived notion of what is wrong with the American occupation is true, every injustice levied against our troops by their own government is true, and every hyper-violent, baby killer, traumatized stereotype of the American fighting man is also true. The film describes an endless series of falsehoods before it even reaches the half way point in its run time. A Marine is told he cannot visit a doctor until after he goes home, and then only on his leave. This has never, ever been true. And while there is often peer pressure or doctrinal conditioning, and even sometimes situational factors that prevents Marines from seeking immediate mental help, none would ever be outright denied that help, let alone told that he could not receive it in theater. The film also shows a man clown up by a UAV for simply walking down the street with a shovel. This is also patently against US Rules of Engagement, and would never happen. Broomfield even chooses to sensationalize it more by showing moments before that the man had the shovel to plant a tree at a celebratory party, making the scene all the more despicable to include in the film. Marines are shown threatening prisoners by claiming to hold their families hostage.

If there is even the possibility that the events of November 19th 2005 were an atrocity, it can be said with certainty that this film is one. In his rush to capitalize on, and sensationalize, Nick Broomfield abandoned any pretext of credibility, and any sense of integrity. This film is disgusting. Whether you believe the war in Iraq was merely misguided, or you believe it was an outright lie and detestable, this film serves no purpose as a piece of war criticism. One does not have to lie to shown wrong in war. And Nick Broomfield is a liar. He's lucky that he cannot be sued for libel and slander by the Marine Corps. To refer to his film as a docudrama is a sick joke. There is no "docu" present here at all.

A note to filmmakers: Please, by all means explore criticism of the war in Iraq. It is important for future generations that Americans no longer blindly support military action and not get caught up in surges of war hysteria and revenge driven blood lust. But when you do it, do it honestly, or it makes you even bigger liars than those you seek to condemn.

A nice try but . . .

[robnphil · 5 July 2008]

I'm afraid I can't agree with all the gushing praise being heaped onto this film. It really didn't cut it for me. The way the story was presented made it unbelievable and for a war film there were way too many technical errors to believe the director even consulted the military before or during filming. On top of this, the suddenness of the atrocity which I assume was the core of the film, beggars belief.

I won't list all of the technical errors I spotted because after a career in the military which spans more than 40 years and three major conflicts I spotted quite a lot. But the following were the most obvious and, for all serving and former military personnel, quite laughable: The casual way the soldiers patrolled both in vehicles and on foot, the .50 Cal machine guns that are never loaded, the extras who appear at the IED site with weapons but no webbing, the Humvees parked in nice little rows along the side of the road with no protection, armour or weapons. And as for anyone standing directly in front of a metal gate and firing a burst into the lock in order to gain entrance, well if he hadn't shot himself or his team with ricochets the first time he did it he certainly would have on subsequent occasions.

I assume these were errors because if they reflect the current tactics and drills of the US Marines then the quality has really deteriorated seriously since I served alongside them in Vietnam.

I can't fault the acting and I think this is the only thing which saves this film. However, the continuity and story left a lot to be desired. For example, in the film Ramirez didn't order the executions - he ordered his teams to clear the houses which is a normal action when in contact with insurgents. The marines took it upon themselves to throw grenades and fire indiscriminately into the rooms. That is what the film showed. But if he did order the massacre then the things he'd been through must have been progressively leading him to this time and place, but we don't see any of that in the film beyond a short dialogue about him having frightening dreams. So the big question that we are left with is why did he allegedly give the orders which, as I said, it isn't really all that clear in the film that he did so? Why were all of the NCOs charged with murder? Where was the investigation?

I thought it was a good idea to include their perspective but the dialogue amongst the civilians was almost too much to bear. I know the film was unscripted but they must have been instructed to say whatever they want but make sure it makes American audiences feel that their presence in Iraq is welcomed, albeit an unnecessary evil that the civilians must put up with. But did they have to be so effusive about it?

And as for the men who planted the IED and fired the first shots on the troops - why should they have an excuse for doing so that would gel with western audiences? Why couldn't they do it, for example, just because they wanted to hurt the occupying forces? But they, like the Americans, were 'just following orders' weren't they? They, like the solders, were pawns in a game being played out by loonies with power but no intention of doing the dirty work themselves. But we need these kind of explanations don't we so that we don't leave the cinema wondering why things happen. But not everything has a tangible and logical reason. We had a wonderful saying in Vietnam - s**t happens so just get over it and move on. Why couldn't the insurgents have, as their reason for planting the IED and firing on the troops, that they are who they are and we are who we are and that is there is to it? It seems to work so well for other mujahadeen.

I know that this film is based on actual events but I'm afraid that the whole thing was trivialised by poor script (well, there was none and this shows), poor casting (am I the only one who noticed a likeness between the marine captain and the imam?), poor technical direction, and poor directing.

Sorry - a big thumbs down from me.

War is not casual...but has its casualties.

[michaelRokeefe · 7/10 · 17 September 2009]

Cultures collide in this dramatization by Nick Broomfield. The focus is on the events leading up to the massacre of 24 Iraqi men, women and children by American Marines. After two Iraqi men plant a roadside bomb, a Marine convoy speeds across the desert and reaching Haditha a Humvee is destroyed by the buried IED, ending in the death of a popular officer. November 19th 2005 is no longer an ordinary day of routines. A violent house to house search in vengeance ends with brutal and deadly retaliation. So are the ways of a war that rages and the unheard cries of innocence are degraded to collateral.

Some will find the inaccuracies blatant. But two nations of people are horribly locked into a war that plods along. Not taking any human respect away from the Marines of Kilo Company or the Iraqi that clashed...a tale of war has two points of view. This film is just how Mr. Broomfield sees it and deserves your attention.

Cast members include: Elliot Ruiz, Nathan De La Cruz, Vernon Gaines, Antonio Tostado, Duriad A. Ghaieb, Yasmine Hanani, Oliver Brytus and Andrew McClaren.

C'mon it was not that bad.

[smarczii · 7/10 · 25 October 2020]

The war is not about slo-mo cutscenes and epic gunfights. Maybe this movie has worse editing and acting than the fancy ones, but this one has some meaning unlike the other bull****. We will never know what's really happened and it's hard to accept that this could really happen in real life.

If You Liked Bloody Sunday & United 93

[Movie-Jay · 9/10 · 19 September 2007]

I just saw this movie at the Toronto Film Festival, and it's going to create much controversy as the weeks pass until this film finally opens. I think those who are against a movie before they even see it are saying something about themselves, not the film. Watch it, and then make up your mind. This movie, like United 93 or Bloody Sunday, is told moment to moment, keeps it's head down and just moves forward without judgment or commentary. The movie isn't aware of the past or future, it only knows what it knows through the characters we follow, some of whom are American soldiers, some are innocent Iraqi families, others are terrorists. This movie does a wise thing by simply showing things from all points of view. I can't wait until it's released because it needs to be talked about.

At the premiere for the film, we learn that many of the actors on the American front are actually soldiers who fought in Iraq. The head of the platoon is especially good, and could go on and have a career as an actor.

better than i expected

[SEVEREcritic · 8/10 · 1 April 2008]

i personally never heard of Mr. Bloomfield, so i had no real intention of watching this film till i saw it mentioned in the message boards for other films. that said, i must say this was the best in the recent slew of Iraq war films (like Redacted, Home of the Brave, etc.) i half expected it to be like Redacted and was pleasantly surprised to find it much better. i think it really brought out the fact that there are multiple sides to a story, and did so without too much bias. being a Muslim myself i must admit that it seemed a little inclined towards Iraqis, with Marines portrayed as undisciplined and emotionless (though one of the protagonists feels guilt and in reality this incident caused an uproar). there are no A-list actors, which in a sense, actually made the movie better because you almost see the actors as the characters themselves (especially since a lot of the dialog is improvised). i think it was well made, and well thought out. better than expected. i wonder what the US reaction would if/when it has a release there? unlike Moore's work (as stated by another user here) neither party is shown as completely innocent or completely evil. i'm not sure if this is exactly how the incident took place, but if it is, then there is certainly some food for thought in this movie.

amazing, powerful movie

[solaris1968 · 10/10 · 16 January 2009]

People who live in denial and believe in the fairy tale of US troops bringing "freedom" to backward Iraqis will hate this movie. But what makes this movie particularly valuable, moving, and powerful is that it humanizes all the participants in the war: US troops, insurgents, and civilians caught up in the crossfire. The director made a genuine effort to show the horrors of war without presenting a simplistic black vs. white, "us" vs "them", opposition. All the protagonists are ordinary people, people who may do horrible things, but people in the end. The insurgents who planted the IED feel remorse at what hey did, and the Marines who killed civilians are also haunted by what they did. And both are ultimately manipulated by their superiors, who really don't care about the suffering on the ground. And the message of the movie is also clear: the root of all this horror is an invasion that should not have happened in the first place.

Angry and horrified

[logain78 · 1/10 · 19 August 2009]

I put watching this movie off for so long because I basically knew I was going to have mixed feelings about it. This movie means a little more to me (and my family) than most people seeing I am a sibling of someone depicted in the movie. Granted this was just a movie and everyone is entitled to their opinion...it just upset me to see how my sibling was depicted in the film. From knowing my sibling, the director wasn't even close. Pretty sure he would feel the same way if someone depicted one of his family members incorrectly just to make a buck.

I find exploiting horrible events to make money disturbing and disgusting. Movie says (synopsis of movie on back of the DVD case) that it was told from different perspectives...I want to know where my sibling and his comrades perspectives were in this movie?! Sigh..some will do anything and everything to make a name for themselves.

Nick Broomfield Is The Perfect Antidote To Michael Moore

[Theo Robertson · 8/10 · 7 March 2008]

It wasn't until very recently that I'd heard of Nick Broomfield and realised he made a couple of documentaries in the early 1980s that I still vividly remember namely SOLDIER GIRLS and THE CHICKEN RANCH . Knowing this I then made a point of catching his recent docudrama GHOSTS about the drowning of 23 illegal Chinese immigrants at Morcombe Bay . I was expecting it to be one of those " blame whitey " polemics , but this is not how it turned out at all with the Chinese gang master being one the most despicable and immoral villains I've seen on the screen in a long time . With this I mind I made a point of buying a ticket for Broomfield's next dramatic venture THE BATTLE OF HADITHA which was being shown at the Edinburgh filmhouse with a Q & A session being held after the showing . Despite the filmhouse brochure proclaiming that this was an even handed film with the marine characters exclusively played by former marines , there was a slight doubt at the back of my mind that we'd be watching guardinista / Michael Moore inspired anti military , anti American rubbish where the Americans are goose stepping Nazis while the Iraqis are entirely peace loving pacifists

I needn't have worried because Broomfield has made a film that will be remembered as being the moral and artistic yardstick as to how other films dealing with the conflict will be judged . Whatever your opinion of the invasion of Iraq ( I like the vast majority of Brits was against it ) there is no way you can heap criticism on TBOH for being pro or anti propaganda for either side . Sure it's anti war but does point out the dangers and frustration faced by both serving soldiers and innocent civilians in a war zone . If there is any type of villain it's probably Al Qaeda itself . Certainly Broomfield deserves congratulations for making a very subtle point that there's a difference between indigenous secular Sunni insurgents who are fighting for their country and those outsiders who want to turn Iraq in to an Islamic theocracy . This probably works best in the scene where the Iraqi insurgent breaks down in tears saying he wished he'd never planted the bomb that leads to the massacre while the sheik rejoices with barely concealed glee that this is a wonderful propaganda coup for Iraq , the more civilians killed by the occupation forces means more recruits for Al Qaeda

If I do have any artistic problems with the mis-en-scene it's that some of the acting is different from what an avid cinema goer is used to . This is in no way a criticism because much of the acting is powerful especially Elliot Ruiz as Cpl Rameirez , even more amazing when you consider there's very few professional actors cast . It's just that when you're very used to life long lighter than life or larger than life performances by ( Insert well regarded big name actor here ) you are slighter aware how different the acting is from what you usually see . Let me repeat though that it's not a real criticism

Respect too to Mr Broomfield for giving a very informative Q & A session after the showing where he was once again very even handed . He did talk a lot of sense where he said that in his humble opinion it should be Bush and Blair who should be on trial instead of the marines which led me to start a round of applause and that peace is coming to Iraq down to the fact that foreign Jihidists are murdering many Iraqis just for the sake of it . He did trip himself up later during the session when he claimed that " Britain and America spent several years arming both sides during the Iran - Iraq war " which led to me shouting " RUBBISH " but there were no hard feelings on either side and I genuinely look forward to Nick's next contribution to narrative cinema . Come to think of it if a Brit can make something so even handed why do we have to endure offensive Anglophobic garbage coming out of Hollywood studios like THE PATRIOT and THE DEVIL'S OWN ?

Eyes open

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 8/10 · 7 November 2011]

In the Fall of 2005, in the village of Haditha, a roadside bomb was used to attack a Humvee and started a chain reaction leading to over two dozen deaths, most of them of Iraqi citizens(and few of them had anything to do with the explosive). That description only provides a superficial idea of what happened, which is why the 85 minute running time(sans credits) of this is devoted to showing all sides of, and properly explore, what went on. This doesn't judge anyone, it shows what happened(and the undisputed facts are followed quite closely, research it if you are unaware). We follow the Marine unit involved, a family celebrating a male circumcision, a young couple in love and the insurgents who buried the IED. The camera-work is not only hand-held, but truly evocative of documentaries(which makes sense, given the director and the intent; this is less a "dramatization" and more a "re-enactment"), and puts you right there in the thick of it all(with a few shots that are simply brilliant; one sequence has someone hiding under a bed when the room is "cleared", and it is shown through POV). This is incredibly absorbing, and unless you go into it with your mind made up and sockets clammed shut(yes, my Summary has a double meaning), you are affected by it. Not because it's manipulative, and it certainly is not propaganda. It isn't pushing any agenda, it's shining a light on a complex issue. This is not pro- or anti-US or terrorism. It's showing that there are human beings, with emotions and history, everywhere in this conflict. It doesn't downplay Al-Quaeda and doesn't glorify the soldiers. The acting is incredible(no exceptions). Ruiz is especially stunning. The focus on improvised dialog(always in the language it should be, with the non-English subtitled), and personal experiences used(several of the main cast have had military careers, some even in the country where this took place) help add to the great level of authenticity. It comes off as natural, unrehearsed(in the good way), real. You really feel the tragedy, without it feeling like emotional porn. The tension is effective. This has a fitting pace, gradually building up to the climax of the situation that we already know the outcome of(from the Times article, for one), and establishing truths, comfortable as well as not, along the way. There is a moderate amount of deeply disturbing, violent and bloody content in this. I recommend this to everyone mature enough to handle it. 8/10

bloody Sunday in the middle east

[daniel-kurmann · 8/10 · 9 March 2010]

I had quite a hard time finding this movie, when i heard, that it was finished. when i finally found it, i knew why. Now, under a new U.S. government, it is easy to say "mistakes have been made, we are doing a much better job now, and we can talk about what went wrong". But under the bush era, in America, this must haven been much more difficult. So a big political "thumbs up" for the director for picking up the controversial issue at that time. And I think, politically he did not do a bad job.

The movie follows a group of marines, terrorists and families through an incident some months after the battle OF haditha. It does so sometimes at the cost of the tempo, but does in my opinion a really good and fair job. not unlike bloody Sunday (the historical one and the 2002 movie) the situation is a ticking bomb, with the terrorists or freedom fighters (depends on the perspective) setting something up, the military "triggering" it, the civil population suffering the consequences and the terrorists ultimately winning the battle by having won more forces than they lost. This surely is an old story, but still is a reality. But where the art of "realistic" film-making, if it fails, might make you a part of this downward spiral, this movie succeeds in telling you the whole story. This movie doesn't point fingers at those who were directly involved in the incident. It simply tells how people on either side of both, the trigger and the violent struggle, got into the situation where they did what they did. So yes, this is a very political motivated movie. But not in the sense, that it prefers one political view over the other, but in the sense, that it shows quite realistic what happens to people that have to suffer the consequences (not only the civilians). And in the end, the movie does point fingers at people. But not at those who were involved in what "really" happened, but at those who orchestrated the conditions in which things like this can happen.

This movie tells a story that is difficult to be told. And in my opinion it does a really good job in that. For a really great MOVIE, of course, there are a lot of things missing. But i think, it wasn't the purpose of this movie to be a great movie, it was the purpose to tell a story. And in my opinion, the story is very well told. Good Movie.

Imitation Documentary/Imitation War Movie

[the_cyberpunk · 4/10 · 30 July 2008]

In this review I will attempt to keep my personal political views out of it as much as possible. It's obvious to anyone who knows about the film that it is heavily political and expresses a strong anti-war and anti-US sentiment. Although this sort of thing is nothing new as films like Platoon and Casualties of War have expressed strong political sentiments about another unpopular war – especially anti-American sentiments, the subject matter of this film sets it apart from those and other war films as the events depicted are supposed to be based on real events that took place in Haditha one tragic day in November of 2005 where 15 non combatants were allegedly killed by Marines in retaliation for a marine being killed in a roadside bomb. In the media the event is called "the Haditha Killings" or the "the Haditha Massacre". Although made to look like a documentary the film is equal parts fact, rumor, speculation and outright fiction. The writer/director Nick Broomfield is famous for his documentaries such as "Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer" documenting the life, trial and execution of female serial killer Aileen Wuornos. I've always enjoyed Broomfield's documentaries and the way he breaths humanity into his larger-than-life subjects, especially "Aileen . . ." for its unflinching look at an obviously insane woman and the equally insane justice system that is about to execute her. But because of its documentary style, there is a certain amount of dishonesty in "The Battle for Haditha" that I find difficult to accept.

The film starts off with Marines driving around listening to heavy metal, and then goes into a sequence of 'interviews' in the style of Full Metal Jacket on what the soldiers think of the conflict. It is unanimous that the soldiers don't want to be there, and don't understand why they are fighting. Their training is portrayed as extremely brutal, and meant to encourage violence. "Kill kill kill!" is chanted many times. One soldier shows another soldier a war wound that he says could have gotten him discharged with 10% pay, but decided to remain in the service so that he could collect his full pay, even though he apparently hates the war and feels his country is neglecting him. I don't understand this logic; why would one risk their life for low pay in a conflict they didn't believe in for a country they resented, rather than simply take an out when it is offered and go get a job in the civilian world? Even a low paying job you don't like would be better than a low paying one that you don't like that is incredibly dangerous.

The most interesting part of the film is the portrayal of the Iraqis. While the Marines are demonized, and so to are the "foreign Al-Qaeda fighters", the Iraqis on the other hand are played as innocent victims. We're introduced to a young Iraqi insurgent who by day runs a video store that sells DVDs to US soldiers while leading a double life where together with his uncle (a disgruntled former Iraqi soldier) he smuggles weapons and plants roadside bombs. The uncle is "pissed off" by checkpoints, war and the damaged infrastructure of Haditha left by the 2003 invasion. Most of all though he seems angry that when the US disbanded the Iraqi army all he was given was fifty US dollars for his years of service. And so instead he decides to work for another group of foreigners who'll pay him one thousand dollars every time he successfully blows up an American vehicle with a primitive IED. The other characters we're introduced to are a young couple and their child who are on neither side, and are simply trying to live their lives as best they can in the midst of war and chaos. They see the insurgents planting a bomb, but instead of warning the Americans, they tell their Sheik, who tells them to pray. They are afraid that if they tell the Americans what the insurgents are planning that they will be targeted and executed by the insurgents.

Ultimately the morality of this film portrays the Americans not only as 'shoot first, ask questions later' types but also as plain bloodthirsty. They march and chant "kill kill kill" they sit in their bunks plotting vengeance, they're rude to the Iraqis whose country they have invaded, they don't understand or care about the cause they are fighting for and they blare heavy metal music everywhere they go. In reality American patrols spend far more time handing out food, water, medical supplies and gifts to the Iraqis than they do shooting at anyone. I'm not saying there aren't tragedies happening, and that there aren't soldiers getting out of line, but these are the exceptions. This film tries to portray the exceptions as the rule while ignoring the fact that insurgents routinely and as a matter of policy target civilians in market places and funeral processions. The worst part of this film though is that the tragedy that took place in Haditha is still under investigation, it is only a few years since blood was spilled there. This film presents an explanation and a verdict before the smoke has even cleared, and it stirs up sentiment that will not help end the conflict in Iraq. Even if there is a full US withdrawal from Iraq, the insurgents will still be there. If the US leaves Iraq in the state it is in right now, would the Iraqi people be better off living under a group that routinely slaughters innocent men, women and children as a matter of policy? Not dealing with these kinds of questions is an injustice to everyone involved in the Iraqi conflict. It is compounded by the fact that it is shot in a documentary style in an attempt to present itself as the truth when it is simply, like any other dramatic film: just one point of view.