Quote:
Originally Posted by sillybunz13
First, Green Zone executed almost perfectly because his whole team in the movie were actual Afganistan/Iraq war veterans. Perfect trigger discipline, perfect tactics, and perfect weapons handling. I know he goes rogue by himself like half of the movie and shoots a green beret, but Matt Damon played a soldier damn near perfect.
|
And somehow, that makes up for the other problems? Like...
(1.) The "Green Zone" suggests that the U.S. military is in Iraq for oil (did you forget the very last scene?)
(2.) Almost every soldier in the movie who isn't in Matt Damon's platoon fits in the "bad guy" category (the SF unit led by Jason Issacs' character, the soldiers who abuse prisoners in the internment camp, etc.) Actually, pretty much every American in the movie besides Matt Damon and his men are portrayed as bad guys.
(3.) The other soldiers in the movie are portrayed as far more incompetent than those in "The Hurt Locker" (Iraqi insurgents taking out a platoon of Delta Force operators? Yeah right).
(4.) Matt Damon is a leftist loudmouth fucktard with a superiority complex on anything political. If he had his way, America would probably be some European welfare state where guns were illegal and serving in the military is frowned upon.
(5.) Almost everyone I know who likes "Green Zone" leans to the left. Whereas most people I know who are conservative and pro-military regard the movie as an insult to the troops. I have read plenty of reviews and blog posts of "The Hurt Locker" by Army veterans who have called it unrealistic, but few of them seem to think it's "disgraceful".
So when all is said and done, I consider movies like "Green Zone" - on the basis of their politics - to be far more "disgraceful" to the U.S. military than a movie like "The Hurt Locker" (a movie which does not have some bullshit left-wing message). I'm not sure how you managed to watch the "Green Zone" without feeling at least as much outrage as you did watching "The Hurt Locker".