MovieChat Forums > Route Irish (2011) Discussion > Good points and bad, but mostly bad.

Good points and bad, but mostly bad.


I liked Route Irish up until the montage of footage from Iraq and the scene in the pub that followed. At that point, what seemed like a fairly decent film turned into a Ken Loach lecture. It seemed like at that point Loach and Laverty needed to get in their anti-American jabs. Fergus's line about "if they didn't support al qaeda before then they did afterwards" is probably the most unoriginal line of film dialogue I'll hear all year. An almost identical line was in The Hurt Locker.

I liked the Iraqi musician asking Fergus whether he cared about the Iraqi victims - a nice touch, as so many films that deal with the war only seem to be concerned with the US/UK victims. I was less impressed with the scene of the musician playing his guitar and explaining that Iraq was the cradle of civilisation. Did we really need to be told this? Again, it sounded like something Laverty or Loach had heard John Rees or the 2nd Viscount Stansgate say at a Stop the War Coalition meeting and scribbled down as if they were receiving some great insight into history, rather than a fact that quite a few people know.

Fergus's line about there being a "million dead" is also quite worrying. I presume Loach and Laverty got this figure from people who have extrapolated the 2006 Lancet body count of 650,000 extra deaths since the invasion and made it up to a round figure of a million now. There are two issues with this. First that nobody was claiming a million people had been killed as a result of the invasion in 2007, when the film is set, and second, the Lancet figure has been widely discredited and only gets used now by opponents to the war who seem to glory in the number of deaths it has caused.

The waterboarding scene - though very well done - seemed unnecessary, again it felt like Loach and Laverty, brainstorming an idea about a war in the Middle East, said "we've got to have a waterboarding scene". Confusing the abuse of Iraqi prisoners with the torture suffered by "enemy combatants" in the war on terror is of no use to anyone.

The film went on too long - an ending after the waterboarding scene would've been good.

John Bishop was surprisingly good in a limited role, but as someone else has mentioned, the BBC series Occupation did this earlier, and better. So far the Iraq War has been better served by TV than by film. There's a PhD thesis in there for someone.

reply


nut nut,
All good points for the IRISH! The Bilderberg Group ordered all of it,including bombing World Trade Centers...big business rebuilding Iraq
American people out of work,inaders in from Mexico...read a book!

reply

Bear022013-588-696101-359-Betelgeuse,

You're either a very good friend of mine who has worked out my IMDb username and is taking the p*ss by pushing my buttons, or you actually believe what you wrote.

If it's the latter, then I'd stop looking at who was behind the attacks of September 11th 2001 and focus your research on another attack that took place a long time ago and many people believe had an "inside job" element to it. You can find out more here: http://www.debunking911.com/questions.htm

reply

""if they didn't support al qaeda before then they did afterwards""

Yeah, and said all over the world, many times so your point is moot. Plus, it's most true.

reply

I saw no anti-American jibe.
Blaming the Americans was him not accepting any responsibility himself before Rachel. He was there with them doing the same stuff.

reply

~~~~~the Lancet figure has been widely discredited and only gets used now by opponents to the war who seem to glory in the number of deaths it has caused.~~~~~

No it hasn't.

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

reply

Squeeth2 - I was going to respond to you, but then I looked at your old posts and noticed you describe Israelis as fascists and post links to clips from Press TV, so there really is no point engaging with you.

reply

That was the biggest pile of sh*t i've read in a while.

reply

i liked the film personally. lot of private military contractors have died out on jobs in iraq this had quite a compelling story behind it. thats my opinion most of british tv stuff is *beep* though to america but this was good.

reply

i liked the movie...i could identify with the main character, who lived in his apartment like he was still in some tent in iraq with spartan living conditions...hes a lot like me...

except with things as hot as they were, you think he would have known to take better precautions to protect the evidence he had...

as far as the waterboarding goes...i think that *beep* deserved what he got...actually worse...

i dont think it was anti american at all, since the characters were all effected in one way or another by the war in iraq, they each had their own feelings and perspective...and the dialog reflects that...

the iraqi musician singing about his homeland, and expressing his feelings about the place was more of a lament than bragging about the place...what it had become and what it once was were in his thoughts...im sure of it...

fergus killing himself because he has survivors guilt, is not far fetched either...many of us vets dont know how to deal with what we experience...some of us are lucky and have people to talk to about it, and some dont...each person deals with it in their own way, and some take the hard way, or the easy way depending on how you look at it...

the rest of us struggle to put it out of our minds, to stay busy, to try and make something good out of the lives we have left...or if we cant then we spiral downward...

i think this film was a necessary but ugly look at the toll of war, especially these days where the job is not as clear as it once was...not really in defense or in condemnation of it, but forces us to look at it...whether we like what we see or not...

reply

What an excellent post and spot on.

The line "if they didn't support al qaeda before then they did afterwards" , is 100% true.

WHY wouldn't the people join the insurgents after foreigners just kicked in their door, manhandled their women, beat up, detained, or killed the males and did so being unsure if anyone was ACTUALLY a terrorist?

The worst part about it is that these are FOREIGNER invaders going door-to-door threatening people because they suspect THEY MIGHT be associated with "terrorists", who are technically freedom fighters in their own country.

The movie was really well done, and basically the OP's post is more about his own guilt rather than anything the movie put forward since they never once made any anti-American comments, but rather put into context what they had done and why and what they had witnessed. If it came across as "anti-American" (or technically anti-Western, since the PMCs weren't even American) it's because what was being done to the innocent people in Iraq was an atrocious, inhumane series of unprosecuted war crimes.

The invasion and destabilization of Iraq were acts that made America the bad guy, and it didn't (and still doesn't) require any moralizing from a movie to see that.

reply