猜你喜歡
劇照
更新時間：2023-08-20 15:20
詳細劇情
2005年11月，伊拉克西部城市哈迪塞（Haditha）。兩名伊拉克武裝分子在路中央埋下自制的炸彈，炸毀途經(jīng)此地的美軍陸戰(zhàn)隊的汽車，一等兵米格爾?特拉澤斯在爆炸中身亡。此舉激怒了陸戰(zhàn)隊的士兵，他們迅速對周邊的伊拉克平民進行報復性的襲擊，包括孩童在內(nèi)共計24人遇害，此舉震驚世界。
本片根據(jù)真實事件改編。
長篇影評
1 ) 仇恨的雪球
故事大概是這樣的：背景是小布什時期的伊拉克，一個叫哈迪塞（Haditha）的西部城市。有個被解散的前伊拉克中年士兵，聯(lián)合一個年輕的伊拉克商店小販，找到了恐怖分子，幫助他們用炸彈襲擊美軍，報酬是1000美金，先收500，事成后再500。前伊拉克士兵是為了國家，年輕小販大概是為了刺激。炸彈是用手機撥打，促發(fā)炸彈上的電子信號遙控的。兩人找到 了一個兩邊是小山坡的村莊公路埋下了炸彈，然后拿著AK47占領了一處視野可以很好觀察到埋單道路的民居，并把居民趕出屋外。因為他們是在大白天埋的炸彈，所以幾乎整個村莊都知道路邊有炸彈這件事了，這顆炸彈給他們的生活帶來了不安的隱身同時他們已經(jīng)知道了可能帶來的危險，但是他們沒有去通報美軍，因為如果被恐怖分子知道了他們泄密，會把他們?nèi)繗⒐?。少?shù)人開始選擇去外地暫住，大多數(shù)人留了下來慶祝他們的伊斯蘭節(jié)日。第二天，人們開始歡樂的慶祝他們的節(jié)日，而美軍的裝甲車也開來了，2名恐怖分子撥通了電話，頓時，一輛裝甲車飛起，一名大兵陣亡，兩名重傷。陸戰(zhàn)隊領隊下士組織匯報并開展簡單救治，看著曾經(jīng)朝夕相處的隊友只剩半截身子，下士開始豐富，開始組織火力小組反擊。遠方指揮部收到了士兵陣亡的消息，這已經(jīng)是第51名了，（這里有個背景：伊拉克戰(zhàn)爭期間，因為美軍士兵大量死亡而華盛頓受到媒體和民眾的重重壓力），指揮部下令可以采取特殊行動。因為憤怒和總部的默許，士兵們開始對村子進行清場，老人、婦女、小孩紛紛被槍殺。（經(jīng)常有失去親人的老弱婦孺加入恐怖份子的陣營當中，所以美軍教導士兵要吸取教訓一視同仁）?？植婪肿觿t利用美軍的暴行，激發(fā)民眾對美軍的仇恨，壯大了恐怖分子的力量。事后，軍方在新聞稿中將事情描述成，被殺的是恐怖份子，同時表示他們采取了規(guī)定內(nèi)的執(zhí)行流程。下士被給予了勛章。直到，一個學生記者將此事報出......
理出一條戰(zhàn)爭中的仇恨鏈條：兩國間誰到搞不清的原因，發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭---->正面戰(zhàn)爭一方優(yōu)勢，占領對方領地---->弱方殘余開展游擊---->在遭遇戰(zhàn)中，優(yōu)勢方被偷襲---->優(yōu)勢方開始需找兇手---->兇手藏于人民之中---->秉承寧可錯殺一萬，不可放過一個的原則，平民被無辜殺害---->那些父親母親兄弟姐妹的去死，讓平民拿起武器對抗---->雪球越滾越大。
上面的模式在歷史上的戰(zhàn)爭中不斷涌現(xiàn)，最頂層的「國仇」，到頭來變成了無數(shù)個「家恨」，然后頂層有一天突然沒了「國仇」，跟著發(fā)表一番「散了吧」，無數(shù)的「家恨」邊隨風飄散無蹤。
理出一條戰(zhàn)爭中的仇恨鏈條：兩國間誰到搞不清的原因，發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭---->正面戰(zhàn)爭一方優(yōu)勢，占領對方領地---->弱方殘余開展游擊---->在遭遇戰(zhàn)中，優(yōu)勢方被偷襲---->優(yōu)勢方開始需找兇手---->兇手藏于人民之中---->秉承寧可錯殺一萬，不可放過一個的原則，平民被無辜殺害---->那些父親母親兄弟姐妹的去死，讓平民拿起武器對抗---->雪球越滾越大。
上面的模式在歷史上的戰(zhàn)爭中不斷涌現(xiàn)，最頂層的「國仇」，到頭來變成了無數(shù)個「家恨」，然后頂層有一天突然沒了「國仇」，跟著發(fā)表一番「散了吧」，無數(shù)的「家恨」邊隨風飄散無蹤。
2 ) 反思
美國一向自詡正義，但是對于面對其中明顯不正義的片段，敢于反思才會讓人心悅誠服，敢于反思的國家才會進步，本片據(jù)真實故事改編，基本能客觀反映那一段故事而幾乎未帶或者很少帶傾向性。對比軍國主義時代日本無所不能且掩蓋一切的軍部，今日這全世界最強力國家的最強力部門也無法阻止國內(nèi)民眾的反戰(zhàn)或者反思。
3 ) 哈迪薩事件的英文wiki資料以及IMDB影評
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Haditha
Battle for Haditha (film)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings
Haditha killings
google translate
http://translate.google.com.hk/?hl=zh-TW&tab=wT
-------------------------------
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0870211/reviews
影評
65 out of 83 people found the following review useful:
Powerful & Provocative Film, 12 November 2007
8/10
Author: Black Narcissus from Maida Vale, UK
I saw this film at it's London premiere at the Odeon West End as part of the London Film Festival.
I guess Nick Broomfield was getting sick & tired of seeing Michael Moore ripping off his Documentary style so made this his Second feature film in as many years. Like the earlier film, Ghosts (www.imdb.com/title/tt0872202/), the Battle for Haditha is based on fact.
The film tells story of the events of November 19, 2005, when a troop of US Marines exact revenge for an earlier attack which killed one of their number in the Iraqi town of Haditha.
The Film focuses on three different viewpoints, the first of Iraqi insurgents, which in this case isn't some mad Mullah but an old man, who we learn is an ex-Army officer and his son. The second focuses on a Corporal Ruiz, a young Marine who you feel wants to be anywhere but Iraqi and the finally the film focuses on a young Iraqi couple and their extended family.
The film is shot Cinéma-vérité style and at times is very harrowing. But it's to Broomfields credit that he to my mind he doesn't simply demonize the US soldiers. Instead you get to understand how young men put in a situation that you the viewer couldn't understand let alone cope with, could just lose it after a comrade is killed. Likewise, in the films portrayal of the insurgent fighters Broomfield manages to make you think what would you do, if, as in the film, your a professional soldier made jobless by a an Occupying force. How do you feed your family, and wouldn't you feel some resentment to the occupation forces for making you jobless. But it's in the Iraqi families, caught between the US forces and the Insurgents that the film is at it's best. They can't do the right thing for doing wrong. It is they who bear the brunt of either Insurgency retaliation or US Forces heavy-handedness. They who ultimately will and are the losers in Film.
This is a powerful film which deals with all aspects of the problem fair mindedly, but doesn't shy away from the truth. Don't let those who haven't watched the film put you off seeing the best portrayal of the War on Terror to date.
Black Narcissus
--------------------------------------------------
71 out of 95 people found the following review useful:
Made me cry., 21 March 2008
9/10
Author: bluelionk
Made me cry.
Only issues I noticed are: That the translation of the spoken Arabic is sometimes misleading and has no relation with what they actually said.
Some of the actors' accents are not Iraqi (Palestian, Egyptian, and others...), but most are Iraqis.
It's still a great movie that shows what happens in Iraq, and that war is ugly.
It's one of the rare movies that show the issue from the other side.
The acting is great, so is the scenery (it does look a lot like Iraq).
I say it again, it made me cry, a lot.
--------------------------------------------------
48 out of 75 people found the following review useful:
If You Liked Bloody Sunday & United 93, 19 September 2007
9/10
Author: Movie-Jay from Toronto, Canada
I just saw this movie at the Toronto Film Festival, and it's going to create much controversy as the weeks pass until this film finally opens. I think those who are against a movie before they even see it are saying something about themselves, not the film. Watch it, and then make up your mind. This movie, like United 93 or Bloody Sunday, is told moment to moment, keeps it's head down and just moves forward without judgment or commentary. The movie isn't aware of the past or future, it only knows what it knows through the characters we follow, some of whom are American soldiers, some are innocent Iraqi families, others are terrorists. This movie does a wise thing by simply showing things from all points of view. I can't wait until it's released because it needs to be talked about.
At the premiere for the film, we learn that many of the actors on the American front are actually soldiers who fought in Iraq. The head of the platoon is especially good, and could go on and have a career as an actor.
--------------------------------------------------
30 out of 41 people found the following review useful:
A story that needed to be told, 13 August 2008
8/10
Author: insomnia from Australia
It's almost impossible to be totally objective regarding a subject about which one is truly passionate. The war in Iraq is a subject that divides people like no other in recent times. As with any conflict, the war in Iraq has its supporters and its detractors. There is no middle ground. There are no grey areas: everything is just black or white. Either you believe it's a justifiable war, or you don't. This brings me to Nick Broomfield's new film, "The Battle For Haditha". The subject of the film is controversial as it deals with an incident in the city of Haditha, allegedly involving the US Marines. Broomfield uses actors, some of whom are former US Marines and Iraq veterans, as well as Iraqi refugees, to fashion a film that successfully straddles the gap between a regular documentary and a straightforward feature film. The film encompasses three points of view: those of the Marines, the insurgents, and the families who lived near where the roadside bomb detonated. This film is a fictionalised account of what actually happened at Haditha. It shows quite graphically, the horrors of war and what the Americans as well as innocent Iraqis have to go through almost on a daily basis. There are deaths on both sides, but it's Iraqi civilians who are caught in the crossfire and who have to bear the brunt of dealing with men who have been stretched to breaking point. The film in no way condones the actions of either the insurgents or the Marines. It just shows the audience what might have occurred on that fateful day, and it's for those in the audience to make up their own minds as to who was in the right and who was in the wrong. When reading some of the comments posted on the message board for this film, I find it somewhat puzzling that some contributors write that "Battle For Haditha" is anti-American. Just because the US Marines are shown in a less than sympathetic light in this film, does not mean the film is on the side of the insurgents. What the film does demonstrate is how quickly things can get out of hand, in a situation such as that in Haditha. By all means criticize a film on its merits, or lack of them. Please, though, do not label this film as un-American just because it doesn't fit a blinkered view of the way the world is.
--------------------------------------------------
26 out of 39 people found the following review useful:
better than i expected, 1 April 2008
8/10
Author: SEVEREcritic from Bangladesh
i personally never heard of Mr. Bloomfield, so i had no real intention of watching this film till i saw it mentioned in the message boards for other films. that said, i must say this was the best in the recent slew of Iraq war films (like Redacted, Home of the Brave, etc.) i half expected it to be like Redacted and was pleasantly surprised to find it much better. i think it really brought out the fact that there are multiple sides to a story, and did so without too much bias. being a Muslim myself i must admit that it seemed a little inclined towards Iraqis, with Marines portrayed as undisciplined and emotionless (though one of the protagonists feels guilt and in reality this incident caused an uproar). there are no A-list actors, which in a sense, actually made the movie better because you almost see the actors as the characters themselves (especially since a lot of the dialog is improvised). i think it was well made, and well thought out. better than expected. i wonder what the US reaction would if/when it has a release there? unlike Moore's work (as stated by another user here) neither party is shown as completely innocent or completely evil. i'm not sure if this is exactly how the incident took place, but if it is, then there is certainly some food for thought in this movie.
Battle for Haditha (film)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings
Haditha killings
google translate
http://translate.google.com.hk/?hl=zh-TW&tab=wT
-------------------------------
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0870211/reviews
影評
65 out of 83 people found the following review useful:
Powerful & Provocative Film, 12 November 2007
8/10
Author: Black Narcissus from Maida Vale, UK
I saw this film at it's London premiere at the Odeon West End as part of the London Film Festival.
I guess Nick Broomfield was getting sick & tired of seeing Michael Moore ripping off his Documentary style so made this his Second feature film in as many years. Like the earlier film, Ghosts (www.imdb.com/title/tt0872202/), the Battle for Haditha is based on fact.
The film tells story of the events of November 19, 2005, when a troop of US Marines exact revenge for an earlier attack which killed one of their number in the Iraqi town of Haditha.
The Film focuses on three different viewpoints, the first of Iraqi insurgents, which in this case isn't some mad Mullah but an old man, who we learn is an ex-Army officer and his son. The second focuses on a Corporal Ruiz, a young Marine who you feel wants to be anywhere but Iraqi and the finally the film focuses on a young Iraqi couple and their extended family.
The film is shot Cinéma-vérité style and at times is very harrowing. But it's to Broomfields credit that he to my mind he doesn't simply demonize the US soldiers. Instead you get to understand how young men put in a situation that you the viewer couldn't understand let alone cope with, could just lose it after a comrade is killed. Likewise, in the films portrayal of the insurgent fighters Broomfield manages to make you think what would you do, if, as in the film, your a professional soldier made jobless by a an Occupying force. How do you feed your family, and wouldn't you feel some resentment to the occupation forces for making you jobless. But it's in the Iraqi families, caught between the US forces and the Insurgents that the film is at it's best. They can't do the right thing for doing wrong. It is they who bear the brunt of either Insurgency retaliation or US Forces heavy-handedness. They who ultimately will and are the losers in Film.
This is a powerful film which deals with all aspects of the problem fair mindedly, but doesn't shy away from the truth. Don't let those who haven't watched the film put you off seeing the best portrayal of the War on Terror to date.
Black Narcissus
--------------------------------------------------
71 out of 95 people found the following review useful:
Made me cry., 21 March 2008
9/10
Author: bluelionk
Made me cry.
Only issues I noticed are: That the translation of the spoken Arabic is sometimes misleading and has no relation with what they actually said.
Some of the actors' accents are not Iraqi (Palestian, Egyptian, and others...), but most are Iraqis.
It's still a great movie that shows what happens in Iraq, and that war is ugly.
It's one of the rare movies that show the issue from the other side.
The acting is great, so is the scenery (it does look a lot like Iraq).
I say it again, it made me cry, a lot.
--------------------------------------------------
48 out of 75 people found the following review useful:
If You Liked Bloody Sunday & United 93, 19 September 2007
9/10
Author: Movie-Jay from Toronto, Canada
I just saw this movie at the Toronto Film Festival, and it's going to create much controversy as the weeks pass until this film finally opens. I think those who are against a movie before they even see it are saying something about themselves, not the film. Watch it, and then make up your mind. This movie, like United 93 or Bloody Sunday, is told moment to moment, keeps it's head down and just moves forward without judgment or commentary. The movie isn't aware of the past or future, it only knows what it knows through the characters we follow, some of whom are American soldiers, some are innocent Iraqi families, others are terrorists. This movie does a wise thing by simply showing things from all points of view. I can't wait until it's released because it needs to be talked about.
At the premiere for the film, we learn that many of the actors on the American front are actually soldiers who fought in Iraq. The head of the platoon is especially good, and could go on and have a career as an actor.
--------------------------------------------------
30 out of 41 people found the following review useful:
A story that needed to be told, 13 August 2008
8/10
Author: insomnia from Australia
It's almost impossible to be totally objective regarding a subject about which one is truly passionate. The war in Iraq is a subject that divides people like no other in recent times. As with any conflict, the war in Iraq has its supporters and its detractors. There is no middle ground. There are no grey areas: everything is just black or white. Either you believe it's a justifiable war, or you don't. This brings me to Nick Broomfield's new film, "The Battle For Haditha". The subject of the film is controversial as it deals with an incident in the city of Haditha, allegedly involving the US Marines. Broomfield uses actors, some of whom are former US Marines and Iraq veterans, as well as Iraqi refugees, to fashion a film that successfully straddles the gap between a regular documentary and a straightforward feature film. The film encompasses three points of view: those of the Marines, the insurgents, and the families who lived near where the roadside bomb detonated. This film is a fictionalised account of what actually happened at Haditha. It shows quite graphically, the horrors of war and what the Americans as well as innocent Iraqis have to go through almost on a daily basis. There are deaths on both sides, but it's Iraqi civilians who are caught in the crossfire and who have to bear the brunt of dealing with men who have been stretched to breaking point. The film in no way condones the actions of either the insurgents or the Marines. It just shows the audience what might have occurred on that fateful day, and it's for those in the audience to make up their own minds as to who was in the right and who was in the wrong. When reading some of the comments posted on the message board for this film, I find it somewhat puzzling that some contributors write that "Battle For Haditha" is anti-American. Just because the US Marines are shown in a less than sympathetic light in this film, does not mean the film is on the side of the insurgents. What the film does demonstrate is how quickly things can get out of hand, in a situation such as that in Haditha. By all means criticize a film on its merits, or lack of them. Please, though, do not label this film as un-American just because it doesn't fit a blinkered view of the way the world is.
--------------------------------------------------
26 out of 39 people found the following review useful:
better than i expected, 1 April 2008
8/10
Author: SEVEREcritic from Bangladesh
i personally never heard of Mr. Bloomfield, so i had no real intention of watching this film till i saw it mentioned in the message boards for other films. that said, i must say this was the best in the recent slew of Iraq war films (like Redacted, Home of the Brave, etc.) i half expected it to be like Redacted and was pleasantly surprised to find it much better. i think it really brought out the fact that there are multiple sides to a story, and did so without too much bias. being a Muslim myself i must admit that it seemed a little inclined towards Iraqis, with Marines portrayed as undisciplined and emotionless (though one of the protagonists feels guilt and in reality this incident caused an uproar). there are no A-list actors, which in a sense, actually made the movie better because you almost see the actors as the characters themselves (especially since a lot of the dialog is improvised). i think it was well made, and well thought out. better than expected. i wonder what the US reaction would if/when it has a release there? unlike Moore's work (as stated by another user here) neither party is shown as completely innocent or completely evil. i'm not sure if this is exactly how the incident took place, but if it is, then there is certainly some food for thought in this movie.
4 ) 以血還血，以牙還牙
an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; tit for tat
——《圣經(jīng)》
關(guān)于911已經(jīng)有太多的聲音說了太多的話
在這里我這個淺薄的孩子就不再羅嗦什么
我只是想說大家都在一個地球都一樣是人
為什么總要流血總要有殺戮？
因為曾經(jīng)的血人們互相仇視就要再讓彼此繼續(xù)流血？用新的血來沖刷已經(jīng)干涸的血漬？
難道和平就那么輕？
難道仇恨就這么重？
——轉(zhuǎn)自西祠·藍羽飄落
<battle for haditha>是我最近看到的一部關(guān)于伊戰(zhàn)的電影，看完后心中一片落寞?；蛟S還有些暗自的竊喜，慶幸生活在一個沒有戰(zhàn)爭，且遠離戰(zhàn)爭的國度。
我震撼于片中關(guān)于戰(zhàn)爭原罪的交談
也提醒我們，這場戰(zhàn)爭已經(jīng)持續(xù)了整整5年，并且在可以預見的未來還會持續(xù)下去，還有有更多的此類事件發(fā)生在遙遠的伊拉克。
比較國內(nèi)的報道，美國的獨立制片人簡直可以以“神”來形容了。沒有他們，我們用什么來了解這場戰(zhàn)爭中真實發(fā)生、正在發(fā)生的真相。
the truth，看來不光是我們這些旁觀者在追求的，恐怕當事人也在苦苦追求。
戰(zhàn)爭讓活人變成魔鬼。幾乎是瞬間的，以牙還牙，以血還血，一切都發(fā)生的那么自然，宛如一場春夢。太快了，你簡直來不及去想他是否正確。他就是那么發(fā)生了，瞬間的屠殺，一具具無辜者的尸體，誰來辨別對或錯，正義與公平.......
以牙還牙，以血還血......
片尾的情節(jié)，我一直覺得，充滿了諷刺的意味。
——《圣經(jīng)》
關(guān)于911已經(jīng)有太多的聲音說了太多的話
在這里我這個淺薄的孩子就不再羅嗦什么
我只是想說大家都在一個地球都一樣是人
為什么總要流血總要有殺戮？
因為曾經(jīng)的血人們互相仇視就要再讓彼此繼續(xù)流血？用新的血來沖刷已經(jīng)干涸的血漬？
難道和平就那么輕？
難道仇恨就這么重？
——轉(zhuǎn)自西祠·藍羽飄落
<battle for haditha>是我最近看到的一部關(guān)于伊戰(zhàn)的電影，看完后心中一片落寞?；蛟S還有些暗自的竊喜，慶幸生活在一個沒有戰(zhàn)爭，且遠離戰(zhàn)爭的國度。
我震撼于片中關(guān)于戰(zhàn)爭原罪的交談
也提醒我們，這場戰(zhàn)爭已經(jīng)持續(xù)了整整5年，并且在可以預見的未來還會持續(xù)下去，還有有更多的此類事件發(fā)生在遙遠的伊拉克。
比較國內(nèi)的報道，美國的獨立制片人簡直可以以“神”來形容了。沒有他們，我們用什么來了解這場戰(zhàn)爭中真實發(fā)生、正在發(fā)生的真相。
the truth，看來不光是我們這些旁觀者在追求的，恐怕當事人也在苦苦追求。
戰(zhàn)爭讓活人變成魔鬼。幾乎是瞬間的，以牙還牙，以血還血，一切都發(fā)生的那么自然，宛如一場春夢。太快了，你簡直來不及去想他是否正確。他就是那么發(fā)生了，瞬間的屠殺，一具具無辜者的尸體，誰來辨別對或錯，正義與公平.......
以牙還牙，以血還血......
片尾的情節(jié)，我一直覺得，充滿了諷刺的意味。
5 ) 觀后感
以紀錄片的手法拍攝了真實事件改編的哈迪塞鎮(zhèn)之戰(zhàn)。因為對真實事件了解不多，不清楚電影與事實到底有多大出入。雖然電影情節(jié)與內(nèi)核是老調(diào)重彈，但是還是有幾處使我反思。重金屬音樂一直反復的lies仿佛在告訴Marines這一切都是政府的謊言；最開始出現(xiàn)的主人公批判基地組織是一群瘋子，但諷刺的是他與基地組織合作在路邊埋炸彈，間接害死了無辜的平民；內(nèi)心有負罪感的marine在事件發(fā)生前已經(jīng)向上級表達了自己精神上的問題，但并沒有得到重視與解決，后來在沖動與刺激下屠殺平民，自己深受噩夢的困擾；萬惡的政客們發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭，軍隊高官當時批準行動并表揚marines的出色表現(xiàn)，最后在事情暴露后又尋找替罪羊。就像主角marine說的一樣“they don’t give a fuck about us.”最后看到新聞里的布什覺得他就是一個虛偽的war criminal，他的決定讓多少人失去生命或是生不如死，不知道他自己會不會看伊戰(zhàn)電影，夜深人靜時會反思和自責嗎？
6 ) 哈迪薩--------------不知不覺淪為一般的電影
是否是對戰(zhàn)爭片有點免疫了，怎么不論那個視角我都厭倦了那。
這個狀態(tài)讓我難以保持客觀公正。
又見伊拉克，又是伊拉克，呵呵，這些電影拍的染色體絕對有重合。
鏡頭對準的是，在米軍管理下的伊拉克激化的矛盾，不論是米軍還是還是那些米軍組織，它們都是為了自己的利益，根本無人顧及那些命懸一線的百姓。米軍為了收拾自己的爛攤子，而那些圣戰(zhàn)的穆斯林更是一些獨裁者和軍閥的合體，他們的上臺也絕非伊拉克人民的光明之路。
電影中，對一句話印象深刻，一個50歲的老婦，穿著黑色裙子迎面走來，突然，從裙下拿出AK-47向你瘋狂掃射...在海軍陸戰(zhàn)隊的行動守則上，男人，女人，孩子，老婦，殘疾人所有穆斯林都是敵人。對與穆斯林的圣戰(zhàn)組織也是同理。
伊拉克就是沒人收拾的狗屎...
影片中的故事是講美軍在哈迪塞鎮(zhèn)遭到路邊炸彈，一死兩傷。然后是他們殘殺25人的報復行動。細細想想，對于誰這都很殘忍，死的人跟路邊炸彈一點關(guān)系沒有，而那些美國士兵為這件事可能遭受一生的譴責。
影片中的一句話真真切切，我們在這兒干什么，是的，我知道我們在這兒干什么，但是我們他媽的在這兒干什么!
民族矛盾永遠不可調(diào)和，泥牛入海，他每天都是在下沉的。
真的疲勞了，說到這兒了、
brando
這個狀態(tài)讓我難以保持客觀公正。
又見伊拉克，又是伊拉克，呵呵，這些電影拍的染色體絕對有重合。
鏡頭對準的是，在米軍管理下的伊拉克激化的矛盾，不論是米軍還是還是那些米軍組織，它們都是為了自己的利益，根本無人顧及那些命懸一線的百姓。米軍為了收拾自己的爛攤子，而那些圣戰(zhàn)的穆斯林更是一些獨裁者和軍閥的合體，他們的上臺也絕非伊拉克人民的光明之路。
電影中，對一句話印象深刻，一個50歲的老婦，穿著黑色裙子迎面走來，突然，從裙下拿出AK-47向你瘋狂掃射...在海軍陸戰(zhàn)隊的行動守則上，男人，女人，孩子，老婦，殘疾人所有穆斯林都是敵人。對與穆斯林的圣戰(zhàn)組織也是同理。
伊拉克就是沒人收拾的狗屎...
影片中的故事是講美軍在哈迪塞鎮(zhèn)遭到路邊炸彈，一死兩傷。然后是他們殘殺25人的報復行動。細細想想，對于誰這都很殘忍，死的人跟路邊炸彈一點關(guān)系沒有，而那些美國士兵為這件事可能遭受一生的譴責。
影片中的一句話真真切切，我們在這兒干什么，是的，我知道我們在這兒干什么，但是我們他媽的在這兒干什么!
民族矛盾永遠不可調(diào)和，泥牛入海，他每天都是在下沉的。
真的疲勞了，說到這兒了、
brando
美軍禽獸不如
過于的追求技術(shù)上的真實與視角的全面，反而顯得缺乏真實，而流于表面。
真實事件改編，借用偽紀錄片風格、去類型化地還原了美軍在伊拉克的治安戰(zhàn)困境，更具象的體現(xiàn)了家園置身于戰(zhàn)火的悲劇，極盡冷峻紀實，讓觀眾看到了是非對錯一定程度上處于模糊地帶的真實戰(zhàn)場，美軍和恐怖分子相互地襲擊、報復、仇殺，結(jié)果付出最慘重代價地卻是被無辜裹挾其間的普通人：平民看到恐怖分子埋炸彈卻不敢報信給美軍，因為怕恐怖分子報復，但攻擊一旦成功，他們就像片中那樣被失去理智的美國大兵無差別的殺戮，連老幼婦孺都不放過，他們唯一錯的就是自己的國家成為了戰(zhàn)場，沒有任何逃生的出口，甚至連搞恐怖襲擊的都不過是極端分子花錢雇來執(zhí)行任務的主兒。而美軍士兵殺人沒得洗，但他們也不過是帝國掌權(quán)者謀取政治經(jīng)濟利益的工具，敵意像螺旋一樣上升，真正的劊子手坐收漁利，戰(zhàn)場的真相任強者涂抹，真正的元兇，卻從頭到尾都沒露面。
也算是比較中性的角度，對伊拉克的普通人、極端主義者，對美國陸戰(zhàn)隊的士兵、將軍。盡管不能得到所有的全面的comment，這種多角度考慮的嘗試總是有利于世界和平滴，卡卡
就這片子還能看出反戰(zhàn)意味來？還有說士兵和平民都無辜的，圣母這個詞轉(zhuǎn)為你造的，真是佩服。從戰(zhàn)略上講這tm是洗衣粉戰(zhàn)爭，是侵略戰(zhàn)爭，從戰(zhàn)術(shù)上講這是對手無寸鐵的平民單方面的屠殺，跟主反省兩句，流下兩滴鱷魚的眼淚，象征性的被追究下責任，就洗清罪惡了？拍個電影都要拿反戰(zhàn)當遮羞布，美國佬最近打臉已經(jīng)打出新高度了，你把他以前說的話說一遍都相當于在罵他。
戰(zhàn)爭就是這樣一個人性的黑洞，它逼迫你放棄代價高昂的準則，以換取失去了意義的勝利。
以后下完電影一定要先過一遍看字幕完整不完整，我下的這個版本大概50分鐘左右就沒有字幕了，幸好戰(zhàn)爭題材臺詞成分比較少，還是能看明白個大概，我挺喜歡這種強調(diào)紀實性的電影，沒有過分英雄化任何人，真實的揭示了戰(zhàn)爭給人們帶來的災難，有反思，有警示，你不殺人，人就會殺你，就這么簡單。
對比1999年的《奪金三王》，2007年的《哈迪賽之戰(zhàn)》。前者是部喜劇片，對薩達姆軍隊的貪婪殘暴戲謔調(diào)侃，伊拉克百姓喜迎天兵。后者是部嚴肅紀實的電影，突出了美軍的殘暴猖狂，伊拉克人對美軍充滿敵意，游擊隊對美軍不停的襲擾讓其精神崩潰。拍這部電影的時候還在調(diào)查階段，直到2012年參與屠殺的美軍只有一人被判九十天監(jiān)禁(沒執(zhí)行)，其他人無罪，伊拉克部分死者每人陪了兩千五百美元，有敵意的死者未獲賠償。
這片讓我想起《鬼子來了》。當年抗戰(zhàn)時，民眾真的像宣傳的那樣很支持游擊隊打仗嗎？小老百姓只想活著罷了。順便吐槽一下短評頂最高的一條，平民不一定無辜，高官不一定冷血，而沖在前面的也不一定都是被洗腦的傻逼。
無解的悲劇，每個人都身處其中，都覺得自己的是無辜的。事實卻是別人利益博弈的棋子，既是受害者也是施暴者，沒有人是無辜的。
其實就感情而言十分理解美軍在戰(zhàn)爭中犯下的錯，還算不上罪行。畢竟戰(zhàn)爭本身就是殘酷的，會將人逼瘋。身處在其中也多身不由己，把問題拿出來大家一起解決而不是隱藏才是解決問題方法。
阿拉伯人的命就比美國人賤嗎？路邊炸彈這么多是阿拉伯平民造成的嗎？那些濫殺無辜的美國陸戰(zhàn)隊員有錯嗎？復仇復仇，殺戮殺戮，這樣的惡性循環(huán)，錯在何人、何處？
老百姓從媒體、教科書上看到的是什么？是事件。是媒體甚至政府想告訴你的事件，是不是真相？真不知道。運氣好的話，過一陣或者過幾十年，水干了，露出一些河底的真相，運氣不好，觀眾永遠做傻子。你以為朝鮮人的智商很低，整天為金正恩哭天搶地？他們只是國家教育下的傻子，我們?nèi)粼谀莻€地方，也一樣。
好的戰(zhàn)爭片，最終表達的應該都是反戰(zhàn)的。這部電影更像是一種還原，對真相的重新演繹，對戰(zhàn)爭的重新反饋，對平民的重新傷害。戰(zhàn)爭中受害最深的永遠是陷入深淵的無法找到出路的平民。這個村子的人，在看到所謂的恐怖分子埋炸彈時，不敢告訴美國人，因為如果被叛軍發(fā)現(xiàn)，注定是死。但不告訴美國人，就發(fā)生了影片中的擔憂，他們作為最無辜的人被失去理智瘋狂報復的美國人擊殺。無法博弈，在這場戰(zhàn)爭中沒有任何逃命空間。而恐怖分子是，真正的叛軍雇來的市民，他們對兩邊都是無所謂的狀態(tài)，都討厭，卻會為錢賣命。事實就是這樣，人執(zhí)行命令，人受到傷害，人瘋狂報復，人無辜被殺。政治，社會，意識，就這樣混亂。而這一切，還是亂入的戰(zhàn)爭。
想起了南京大屠殺，全世界人民都應該看清美國的嘴臉
這兩幫人天天都要把人腦打出豬腦才算完，卻還要生活在同一個城市中，伊拉克到底是一個怎樣的國家啊。
偽紀錄片形式。真實感強烈。美軍高層和伊拉克武裝分子們虛偽的打著各自的幌子而讓他們的同胞——前線的美國大兵和伊拉克平民成為無辜受害者。漫漫長夜你們何以安心入睡？
仇恨滋生仇恨，冤冤相報何時了？戰(zhàn)爭是泯滅人性的苦難，不義的戰(zhàn)爭是苦難的巔峰。交戰(zhàn)雙方那些為了個人利益不顧他人死活操縱民眾、士兵的政客和煽動者是最可惡最該死的！拍得很真實很震撼！給戰(zhàn)爭下了一個絕佳的定義
279 ?？吹胶芏嗳俗院赖恼f，沒當過兵的男人不是真男人，或許從動物本能天性來說確實如此。美利堅海軍陸戰(zhàn)隊算是世界上最牛皮哄哄的兵了吧，是男人就下一百層，地獄
伊拉克哈迪塞鎮(zhèn)，I.D.E工廠..IDE使陸戰(zhàn)隊車隊一死二傷，失去兄弟的MC瘋狂了，接下的搜索任務中15名伊拉克平民無辜死去。被幕后黑手煽動的伊拉人紛紛拿起步槍，造成平民死亡的陸戰(zhàn)隊員們也面臨審訊...這場戰(zhàn)爭到底誰錯了？值觀？宗教信仰？誰最無辜？伊拉克人民？士兵？當權(quán)者之間的矛盾導致了這些悲劇