All Reviews

Really interesting screenplay - and even more interesting the reaction of the two reviewers preceding. Even though one of the reviews is positive while the other negative, both took offence to varying degrees at the way the American armed forces were referred to. Although in my opinion the storyline is, if anything, obviously pro-American, it seems some can still find a way to take any anti-military reference as a criticism of Americans themselves.

At one stage the father, William, criticizes the American military for not having enough ‘bottle’ (backbone) and it is the heroine, Charmaine, who disagrees with him. Later Patrick, the lawyer son, compliments the Americans on their decency in intervening against the atrocities committed by the Yugoslavs while Europe to its shame stood by. When Charmaine’s moment of truth as a human shield arrives she is directly confronted by the overwhelming might of the US military, but is spared by the US fighter pilot and then treated respectfully by the tank crew – compassion that would be highly unlikely in an actual war, and thereby painting the US military in a very positive light. The fact that the US military is depicted as cooperating closely with the human shields is in and of itself a declaration of decency, and I would think a promotion of the manner in which the US forces conducted the war.

Regardless whether pro or anti US military, this is not what this story is about and such commentary needs refocusing. In the last scene Charmaine makes the point that war, any war, is madness - this is an anti-war film directed at all wars, not just the Iraqi war. It is an exploration of simple truths - that many more innocent people die through neglect resulting from embargos or as collateral damage on the periphery of conflicts than are directly killed in combat. This script brings new eyes to war stories and is highly human and humane in the telling. It demonstrates that courage comes in many forms - that it can take more courage and selflessness for an aging foreigner, safe and sound in her own land, a person who has never known such barbarism, to voluntarily travel into the theater of war, than for an able bodied native of that country to pick up a gun and seek out the enemy.

I think it is encouraging that this story can be misinterpreted by those with a nationalistic bent – and that is good reason to produce it. Controversy is publicity, and there is no such thing as bad publicity. I think the finished article would clearly demonstrate the intent of the film and clarify that, if anything, it is pro-American but anti-war. I loved the humor, saw the family as very real, and was interested to learn that the human shields did exist and that none of the targets they defended resulted in any civilian casualties i.e. that their humanity was effective,

Although it sounds a stretch, in a lot of ways this concept reminded me of “The Hurt Locker” – a new and interesting way to examine war while revealing important truths about it.

Craige, this isn’t just comedy, of course. There’s drama and emotion and not a little political slant to it. The message is clear - Basically anti-America and American allies where the war in Iraq is concerned.

I liked Charmaine as a character. The dialogue, to me, was the best thing about it. Especially her wit and charm in the early part of the screenplay.

There was never a moment in reading that the story was unclear or difficult to keep up with. Very visual, as well.

Some readers might give you a hard time over all the passive language but the truth is, it’s easier to read sometimes and it doesn’t hinder the ability to visualize the film.

I can’t say the premise is over the top or earth-shaking, but it’s interesting. This story might not go over well in the states, but should have appeal elsewhere. I enjoyed reading it. The indignities Charmaine suffers before she goes into full revolt makes her a compelling and sympathetic protagonist.. A movie with a message – conveyed with humor.

Best to you,
Lucy