| Overall Grade: |
A+ |
|
| Story: |
N/A |
|
|
| Acting: |
N/A |
|
|
| Direction: |
N/A |
|
|
| Visuals: |
B- |
|
|
Conservatives -should- be grateful.
by Sarah Anne H (movies profile)
Feb 7, 2008
7
of
7 people found this review helpful
I went to this movie on a whim without knowing what it was really about. That a movie is a documentary is usually enough for me to see it, even when I'm positive that I'll disagree with the film maker's viewpoint. Driving there I expected that I was just off to another vehemently anti-Bush, buy national health care not war, we should have never gone to Iraq movie and wondered why I keep going to movies "like this".
This wasn't one of those movies.
Reading the majority of the negative reviews written so far would be entirely unhelpful. They were obviously written by people who have not seen the movie. This movie isn't liberal propaganda, it isn't cherry-picking and it isn't biased. Some people seem to have missed the focus of the film and that's a shame. Because it's important.
The film isn't about exploring how we came to be at war. It doesn't really ask or answer whether we should have gone to war, although it does indicate that we were not fully prepared to do so. It's not about what we should do now. It's about where we messed up. What makes that focus on mistakes important is that unlike its Bush-blasting dove cousins this film does not insinuate that the war was doomed from the start or that the Iraqi people generally hated us from the get-go. Rather it is a collection of interviews with government and military personal (some former) telling their experiences- where they felt helpless, what resources they were lacking, what decisions they were excluded from, and what decisions they believe created problems in Iraq and how. The film certainly seems to indicate that the Iraq war could have been a success if not for mistakes made after that led to distrust and ill-will from the Iraqi people. Only someone intent on deluding them self could argue that things are okay now. This film provides a voice for the people who believe it didn't -have- to be this way just because there was a war.
This film won't dazzle visually, it looks like a first film. It doesn't attempt to play on your emotions although it clearly empathizes with (and rightfully so) the frustration of interviewees trying to do their jobs and Iraqis who just want theirs back. It isn't snarky by any means but does provide a couple laughs. (Most notably when one of the interviewees recounts going to the military to let them know that stashes of former military weapons were being looted and it probably wasn't a good idea to let that happen.) That the people interviewed in the movie were willing to be interviewed speaks volumes about what kind of movie it is and it's clear from the placards indicating at points the people that refused interview that it tried to do even more, to call it biased almost borders on ludicrous when you consider that the film maker seems to have hoped to interview as many people involved in the war as possible. If it takes a stance against the war it's that it has been fiscally irresponsible, projects costing more than needed while resources that were needed were not provided.
Everyone should see this movie. Not because it's impressive as a film, because it's certainly not, Michael Moore makes better films. But because it's -not- your typical film. It's -not- Michael Moore telling a story. It's more an examination than an indictment and it's rare to see that kind of documentary get made about something other than animals. |
My Public Profile 
