I unknowingly rewatched Green Zone yesterday, 18 April 2025, and remembered why it didn’t leave a lasting impression on my memories. Green Zone is cool as a time-passer, but it is dry when you dig deeper at the message it tried to convey. The story follows the naivest Chief-Warrant-Officer-in-command ever, Chief Roy Miller, who is trying to save lives. Well, his external purpose is actually to find some weapons of mass destruction that justifies the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, but he full in on this to save some lives and be a hero. The story works out ok, but it misses the point completely. For almost 2h of run-ning time, you will see the ever-so shifting deviation the story goes through from a mys-tery, conspiracy driven thriller to just plain action. The conspiracy scheme is so in-the-face that makes the whole premise just funny, it is baffling how Miller is the only one taking so long to realize and, well, the only one that seems to care enough. Maybe Director Paul Greengrass wanted to show how soldiers just execute with-out questioning, but his intentions stay hidden. The standoff between Miller and Briggs is basically a stalemate, the conspiracy within the operation is shallow, and the overall Jack of Claus plotline is dull and weak, so no final messages stand out off of this story other than, yes, US Ops are shady; maybe in 2010 this was a shocker, but nowadays this is common sense. Then there is Matt Damon and his babyface and he is just not fit to be a soldier. I prefer him as a CIA Secret Agent, laying low and playing smart, rather than a tough-balls Operative running a team. Overall, Green Zone entertains the braindead. It has cool visuals, Matt does an al-righty acting job, and the setting on Iraq is what you like to see in war movies. The film just lacks depth and purpose, for all it is worth, I feel Green Zone gets the average rating.

The camera quality was kinda bad at times, but Green Zone was better than expected

Lastly lingers in the Iraq War narrative, topically expressed under suitable direction and weighted morality that questions governmental tactics through instinctually thought-provoking thrills, whilst authentically shrouded around convoluting intelligence. This militaria action flick is sold over the “Bourne” collaboration effectively transferred onto different terrains under broader equivalency and more politically edged amidst constant closure. (B)

Strange that this didn't do better with critics and at the box office. I'd rate it as one of Paul Greengrass's very best movies. Maybe it was too close to the truth about America's intervention in Iraq and, as we all know, we cant handle the truth.

Mr. Damon does his best to capture the magic he created with director Mr. Greengrass but the two can't make the magic they did for the Borne movies. Still a worth watching war movie.

This has a lot of commentary potential that never really comes to full fruition for a couple reasons. Editing and pacing aren't bad and everything else is pretty solid overall. First off Damon is solid but the issue is he never really has any true supporting cast to work off of in this as a sidekick for banter. It's always a rotating door of supporting characters who for the most part are well acted and memorable but don't have much depth and aren' around long. The "Villian" also is just ok and isn't actually on screen much and when he is he isn't that intimidating. Really the main issue is thereis too many different forces at work in this story. There is the WSJ reporter who wants the truth, Damon who is the honest soldier who wants to do the right thing, the Iraqis who are played for fools, Gleeson's organization who wants to uncover the truth, Issac's team who wants to cover up the truth, and the U.S. Government who wants to cover it up. That's 6 sides and most of them don't show up until midway and thats when this film doesn't become boring really or unfocused but rather bloated and any tension the first half developed dissappears because of the constant jumping around to different sides. The ending is solid and very well shot. In fact all the action scenes are really well done with Greengrass's trademarks. The music kind of dissappears in the first half at certain points and gets drowned out by action and I swear is at a low volume than later on also. This really just needed to slim down on fitting so many sides to this story and giving Damon more supporting casts to work with along with a more memorable villian. It's sad because this is ALMOST good. Anyone though who is a fna of any actors in this or the director will be able to enjoy all this. Especially Greengrass fans because his style is all over this and done very well in that regard. I understand this is a very weighted and multi faceted subject but it did need to be slimmed down and more focused telling it in a thriller/action movie like this.

It's a very good motion picture of Matt Damon...after his third of Jason Bourne, The Bourne Ultimatum, 2007...Of course due to an excellent scripts of Green Zone, 2010, by Brian Helgeland and with well done of Paul Greengrass, the director...with strong castings, such as, Brendan Gleeson as well as Greg Kinnear...

Military movies are typically the same. Some good, some decent, some bad, etc. but usually predictable stories. This one however is a fantastic movie that will leave you at the edge of your seat. Matt Damon gave a great performance as a strong leader who only wants to get the job done, the right way. It's high paced, exciting and fun to watch all throughout. Highly recommend this movie, especially for Matt Damon fans.

Strange movie that just dragged. Never really had an exciting part and just wasn’t worth the time

An enjoyable war film that tried to engage with the realism of the falsehood of WMD.

There is no "there" there. The script is too "on-the-nose", predictable, wholly unbelievable in parts, and pretty much an attempt to put lipstick on a pig of a script with action sequences and contrived intrigue. Disappointing. As an actor, one of the most annoying things to me is that Greengrass had Kinnear, Gleeson, Ryan turn in performances that were over-the-top, in no small part because during several scenes, in order to capture the frenetic energy of the Bourne films, I guess, he had the characters moving about in such a way that was transparently business-for-business' sake, pacing without purpose (See the scenes in Ryan's hotel room with Damon, Gleeson and Damon in the CIA operations center). There is simply no purpose revealed for the movement, and the actor's simply cannot manufacture it. Truly poor directing. I wouldn't be surprised if the actors asked that oft-maligned but necessary question, "What is my motivation here?". Add some overly dramatic line deliveries, "serious" looks, etc., and it's simply poor magic. We can see the trick's, as opposed to being tricked. The money must have been too much for Damon to turn down. But go ahead, see for yourself. But a WARNING! It's couple of hours you will...never...get...back.

Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass are a good pair, but the script left a lot to be desired. The most rewarding aspect is the manner in which it interweaves fact and fiction. But if Green Zone were in exercise in action alone it would have succeeded however, the Director insisted on making it look and feel authentic and that made it unbelievable. The film lacks credibility in its portrayal of a rogue hero who never faces a reprimand or suffers parnoia.

It's not a bad war movie but it's really not great either. Most of what they do is super unorganized and reckless and would result in so many deaths. I get it it's meant to be action movie esque, but I'm not sure how well that works. It was entertaining enough especially if you enjoy this type of movie, you probably won't love it but probably won't hate it either.

You'll never get your time or lost brain cells back.

A little too preachy and a little too light on action. Pretty sanctimonious, but ok.

Very cliche dialogue. Very standard late 2000s take on what was the climate of the Iraq War. Regardless of Matt Damen's good acting throughout, too much action and too little story. The Editing and shaky cam was nauseating. A bland ending that I did not care for much.

The main character (demon) is wearing a terrorist scarf; obviously he's on the enemy's side.. Propaganda that did not work!!! The chicoms & their WMD's (COVID-19) deserve to get what iraq got...

A great action/war film with Matt Damon, and having a fast pace for nearly two hours.

Greengrass and Damon wowed critics and brought in the fans and money for Bourne, but this one isn't too revered or remembered by the general population. The critic and audience ratings certainly aren't glowing, and the film made a big loss. So, why? The action and camera style are both maintained from Bourne films. Handheld aesthetic isn't for everyone, but no one minded too much for Bourne. For me, it can become distracting in certain shots, but freneticism is a hallmark of all good action. The critic consensus cites a cliched script. I didn't hate the script. Perhaps it got a bit old and blatant towards the end in what it attempted to achieve in its commentary on the Iraq War. This element felt heavy-handed, but managed not to make any generalizations that seemed to egregious. I would say that the characters lacked dynamism. Damon's Miller in the main role gets a lot of shooting and anger to get through, but we know nothing about him except that he's the "good guy" uncovering the truth. There's no attachment there. Same goes for Brendan Gleeson, a wonderful actor somewhat wasted in a role that required little work. Jason Isaacs of Lucius Malfoy fame has a smallish, flat-track antagonistic role filling many stereotypes of the army meathead, despite a good performance. No one else really bears mentioning, as it's more of the same. Without the additional elements like making room for Iraqi characters in speaking roles and the charged nature of the film, this one would have been really flat. It did become flat after a promising beginning, until an ending that reminded me vaguely of some other films similar to this one. Matt Damon, though, is an exorbitantly likable action star, and even in a limited role he can elevate proceedings considerably.

Well it was certainly action packed. Talk about fact checking, which is one of the sub plots. The movie is totally inaccurate as far as to the fate of the notorious Jack of Clubs. This is where Hollywood wants you to believe in total BS. How they get away with these type of lies and what they want you to believe. End of the day FAKE MOVIE!!!