One thing is for sure, I'm officially sick of handheld camera work. Aside from that, I found this to be a well made, engaging and rather clever thriller. Many jokingly refer to this as the fourth Bourne film, and to be fair it kinda works well as one. Most of what made the Bourne films what they were are here as well, never mind the same star, director and many others amongst the crew. The acting is well done, the production is fantastic, the editing is slick (the movie moves forward at a breathless pace) and the cinematography is quite good if they could only find camera operators who weren't in the late stages of Parkinson's.
I do think this film will end up being argued over more for it's controversial plot and setting than anything else. The story is actually very well assembled and told. It's a piece of fiction that could easily drop into reality. Note, for example, that they don't shy away from using real newspapers to help keep it grounded in reality. Around the fictional central characters and plot are many real situations and possibilities. Could things have played out like they did in this story? In my opinion, very easily. It's a story that very simply fits the framework. What I love about it is the ambiguity of all sides and characters involved. A phrase used more than once in the film is "don't be naive." That phrase should have been the tagline of the film, as far as I'm concerned. It's a point of view that everyone involved in such a story needs to realize. In the end, as in the real life situation, there is no simple answer or solution. No matter which choice or approach you take to the situation, it's not going to end well. The movie does make a point to single out particular situations that were surely poor choices in real life, from completely disbanding the Iraqi military and structure to the silly Mission Accomplished announcement. Nor do I find the lack of cooperation between departments and administrations at all hard to believe.
In the end, I loved the fact that the goal of the central hero in the story is undermined by one of the very people he's trying to help, and he realizes that not only does that person have a valid viewpoint, but in doing what he does proves just how sticky a situation in which everyone has found themselves. To that end, it's no surprise at all that the person with the alternate viewpoint quickly sees how tough a situation the whole thing is.
And for the record, I would have given this movie a 9 out of 10, but I had to knock a star off it for being yet another shaky-cam production (if I ever became a film director, somebody'd have to make one hugely compelling argument for me to ever employ the use of a handheld camera). If only they could just tone it down a bit (perhaps to where Battlestar Galactica eventually found a good balance in its use). At least it wasn't as abysmally used as it was in The Bourne Supremacy. As always, I gotta admire the bravery of director Paul Greengrass to take on such delicate and hot topics with such an intelligent approach. This may not be an all out masterpiece like United 93 was (which in my opinion is the greatest drama film I've seen), but it's darned engaging and compelling (and, unlike United 93, a work of fiction). I foresee anybody who's easily sparked by political partisanship or single mindedness disliking Green Zone in one way or the other. But to those of us like me, who are more open minded and non-partisan/knee-jerk reactionary to situations like Iraq, I found this to be a impressively spun thriller with some good points to be made.
Oh, I will say that while John Powell's score works well enough, he did kinda phone this one in. Its rather generically like the Bourne scores in terms of action, but lacking any real sense of thematic or dramatic identity. Not a bad score, but not his usual level of excellence.