User Score
6.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 202 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 30 out of 202

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Aug 7, 2013
    4
    What happened to the smart intelligent adaptation of Imperial Life in the Emerald City, which we were promised? Not here I can tell you that. Instead of a critical examination of the role of civilian leadership in the reconstruction of Baghdad, we get a rah-rah-rah, there is no WMD in Iraq and we've all been duped! No look at Matt Damon act passionate and champion a cause after it isWhat happened to the smart intelligent adaptation of Imperial Life in the Emerald City, which we were promised? Not here I can tell you that. Instead of a critical examination of the role of civilian leadership in the reconstruction of Baghdad, we get a rah-rah-rah, there is no WMD in Iraq and we've all been duped! No look at Matt Damon act passionate and champion a cause after it is already mainstream. This isn't analysis of the political leanings of the film or cast, rather this is an outline of the plot structure. Formulaic and so overtly black and white that it is cringe worthy. Their is no moral grey, the bad guys are simply bad guys and the good guys have no moral flaw, beyond "they're too just!". The characters are so cookie cutter that you can't root for the good guys and the bad guys are so generic that you don't care if they get away with it or are killed. The resolution of the film is empty, because it so blatantly puts an oversimplified message ahead of a good story and characterization. That is the biggest problem in the film, by taking a political non-fiction book and turning it into a fictional military 'thriller' that is heavy handed in its message it loses all meaning and turns you away from caring. Where a subtle hand was needed, we got a megaphone wielding wacko screaming from the roofs. Expand
  2. Aug 27, 2010
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Green Zone is an obvious anti-Republican movie aimed at slandering the Bush party's decisions to invade Iraq. It portrays senior Republican leaders as oil-focused fact-creating greedy war-mongers that will do anything to keep the American public believing that WMDs exist in Iraq. From the start, the movie's agenda is painfully obvious as Matt Damon's character, Roy Miller, is in charge of a special task force whose sole purpose is to seek out Iraq's WMDs. As they go from site to site, donning chemical masks and special equipment designed to retrieve them, they constantly come up short. As Miller looks through his intelligence reports, once phrase continues to pop out at him (mostly because it's written in bold red text): "A source has confirmed that chemical and biological weapons are stored..." etc.
    "What's the source?" Miller asks during an intelligence briefing. "These intelligence packets have all been vetted. They're good.", says a high ranking puppet of the Bush party. "You're job's to execute them, not worry about how they're put together." As the movie progresses, we are led to believe that High ranking military officials, senior leaders of Special Intel Units at the Pentagon, and members of the Special Forces are all working together to cover up the truth about the existence of WMD's in Iraq. Do the creators of this movie believe we are all so gullible? Do they honestly think that we are to believe that our senior leaders used made-up intelligence and sacrificed countless American and Iraqi lives as a front to invade Iraq for the sole purpose of tapping into their oil reserves? Though the creators of this movie did not mention oil at all during the course of the film, they made their statement obvious during the ending credits as Damon drives off into the distance with a nice oil refinery backdrop. Again we come across Hollywood's pathetic attempts to use their seemingly countless movie-funds as a weapon against those who are unsure of their political stance, or those just too ignorant to know better. Well I for one am not won over, nor am I fooled.
    Expand
  3. Jan 24, 2011
    1
    In short: Trash. I went into this movie cold; not knowing the plot or movieâ
  4. Apr 13, 2011
    2
    I was ill-disposed towards this film almost from the start due to a physical aversion to the jerky camera work which now seems to plague every film of a certain type: spending millions of dollars to make it look as though the action scenes are filmed by a passer-by who's less than familiar with how to use their video camera (jumping up and down, unable to hold the thing still even in aI was ill-disposed towards this film almost from the start due to a physical aversion to the jerky camera work which now seems to plague every film of a certain type: spending millions of dollars to make it look as though the action scenes are filmed by a passer-by who's less than familiar with how to use their video camera (jumping up and down, unable to hold the thing still even in a static setting, zooming in and out of focus, on the wrong settings at night, and so on). All totally unnecessary, and guaranteed to induce queasiness almost immediately. Had the film been better, perhaps it wouldn't have mattered; but unfortunately this was an over-simplified, unconvincing and frequently irritating movie which raised many more questions than it answered. Expand
  5. Jul 19, 2011
    0
    I've long believed that the more incompetent the Director, the more likely he/she will cut a film into untold billions of cuts. Loved the first Bourne movie. Nos. 2 & 3? No. And no-er. Do you really need 6 or 7 different 1 second shots showing a suitcase being put into a locker, or of someone entering a cab? Green Zone? Worthless. Irrespective of Ideology, a film should beI've long believed that the more incompetent the Director, the more likely he/she will cut a film into untold billions of cuts. Loved the first Bourne movie. Nos. 2 & 3? No. And no-er. Do you really need 6 or 7 different 1 second shots showing a suitcase being put into a locker, or of someone entering a cab? Green Zone? Worthless. Irrespective of Ideology, a film should be viewable, watchable. Paul Greengrass, by this metric, is a complete hack. And this is the last movie of his I will ever see. Methinks Porn is his calling. Expand
Metascore
63

Generally favorable reviews - based on 38 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 25 out of 38
  2. Negative: 0 out of 38
  1. Reviewed by: Richard Corliss
    Dec 14, 2010
    100
    An expensive flop and the latest Iraq movie to be shunned by the mass audience, Green Zone was still the year's most visceral, thrilling entertainment.
  2. 63
    Miller's wake-up call is meant to be ours. Too little and too late? Maybe. But even in this Bourne Zone, Damon and Greengrass haven't shirked their duty to enlighten and entertain.
  3. For a while Green Zone generates genuine excitement, as well as plenty of provocation--a fatuous surrogate for Ahmed Chalabi, a pervasive scorn for American planning--but then goes off its own reservation into a won't-fly zone of awkward preachments and hapless absurdities.