I'm going to see
Paul Greengrass'
Green Zone sometime this weekend, despite its assorted and collective buzz as something trivial and outlandish. (It currently holds a
50% Rottentomatoes score).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/69276/692761227e9c911ff286898a7736b1da01f70ab1" alt=""
Most reviewers have kicked up a storm because
Brian Helgeland's script strays far from the source novel by
Rajiv Chandrasekaran and plays up the one-man thriller elements, resulting in something far less substantial and more ludicrous. So much so, that
Roger Ebert, in his
4-star review posted today, felt compelled to issue a defense of the film:
"Yes, the film is fiction, employs far-fetched coincidences, and improbably places one man at the center of all the action. It is a thriller, not a documentary."I'm also interested (as I would imagine many people are) to see what a big-budget action-thriller placed in the Iraq War looks and feels like after the well-earned success of
Kathryn Bigelow's
The Hurt Locker.
No comments:
Post a Comment