not that good


I was expecting a lot more from this film. Clearly, this is another case of a director is shaking around his fancy digital camera without a clear concept and then tries to make up for it by using rollercoaster editing style in order to cover up the apparent lack of substance. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with the topic, it's an important film and people should hear about the stuff that's going on and going wrong in Iraq today, but the haphazard style in which this documentary was shot very much distracts from the real issues and the real people behind it. "Occupation: Dreamland" was a good documentary, although it's told from the opposite perspective. Anyway, I find it hard to believe that this was nominated for an Oscar when the editing was clearly suggesting a cheap BBC info special. Just my two cents in a time of inflation.

reply

There was no fancy camera work (and the camera he used was rather low end), so I don't get what you mean by that. His editing was something anybody with Adobe Premiere could do in a week. You can see lots of quality and colour issues too (which are completely unavoidable)

This film was exactly what it set out to deliver: 3 separate stories from across Iraq. This shows exactly how a large majority if Iraqi civilians feel, and he (the director) does not bias it in anyway.

reply

How do you know the director did not bias it in any way? Did you watch the other 298.5 hours of footage that weren't included in this film? What he didn't show us would tell us a lot about him.

reply