哈迪塞镇之战

这是一个多线性叙事方式拍摄的电影，讲述伊拉克战争的哈迪赛镇之战。

事实上，这根本不是一场战斗，而是屠杀。

影片分别从美军视角和伊拉克平民视角两条线推进剧情。

残酷又冷静。

美军士兵癫狂情绪被重金属音乐嘈杂的蹂躏在一起，伊拉克普通民众的愁苦卑微以及不可控因子还在按部就班的日常生活中默默延续。

影片对哈迪赛镇之战持否定态度，但毕竟是老美拍的，有局限性，一定程度上美化了自己，比如现实中美军占领下的伊拉克民众生活应该更加凄苦不堪，美国士兵也根本没那么彬彬有礼。

表面上看哈迪赛镇之战是被炸弹袭击激怒，更深层的原因难道不是一直以来的蔑视与仇恨吗，不然怎会对平民和儿童下手。

战争让士兵痛失兄弟，令百姓失去亲人，每一方的痛苦都如此真切，造成这一切的始作俑者又是何人。

电影有点闷，不喜欢这个题材的可能会看不下去。

浅层：拿着武器或手握权力的人，对于手无寸铁或弱势的人永远都占据强势地位，强势者可因一时冲动或个人恩怨，轻易的结束无数鲜活的生命。

只感叹生死仅在一念之间。

深层： 任何所谓正义的战争，实是各权力之间的利益博弈，政治就是少数人围绕着少数人的利益。

美国的士兵和伊拉克反美武装分子不过是各自权力高层为谋求私利而利用的工具是棋子而已，权贵们为达目的可以不惜任何代价，即使伤及无辜，即使丢车弃卒也在所不惜。

受伤的永远是无辜的平民，从某种角度讲，美国士兵、伊拉克反美武装分子也同样是政治利益的牺牲品，同样是受害者。

是否是对战争片有点免疫了，怎么不论那个视角我都厌倦了那。

这个状态让我难以保持客观公正。

又见伊拉克，又是伊拉克，呵呵，这些电影拍的染色体绝对有重合。

镜头对准的是，在米军管理下的伊拉克激化的矛盾，不论是米军还是还是那些米军组织，它们都是为了自己的利益，根本无人顾及那些命悬一线的百姓。

米军为了收拾自己的烂摊子，而那些圣战的穆斯林更是一些独裁者和军阀的合体，他们的上台也绝非伊拉克人民的光明之路。

电影中，对一句话印象深刻，一个50岁的老妇，穿着黑色裙子迎面走来，突然，从裙下拿出AK-47向你疯狂扫射...在海军陆战队的行动守则上，男人，女人，孩子，老妇，残疾人所有穆斯林都是敌人。

对与穆斯林的圣战组织也是同理。

伊拉克就是没人收拾的狗屎...影片中的故事是讲美军在哈迪塞镇遭到路边炸弹，一死两伤。

然后是他们残杀25人的报复行动。

细细想想，对于谁这都很残忍，死的人跟路边炸弹一点关系没有，而那些美国士兵为这件事可能遭受一生的谴责。

影片中的一句话真真切切，我们在这儿干什么，是的，我知道我们在这儿干什么，但是我们他妈的在这儿干什么!民族矛盾永远不可调和，泥牛入海，他每天都是在下沉的。

真的疲劳了，说到这儿了、brando

纪录片都有倾向性，这部严格算是故事片的电影模仿的也是纪录片的镜头语言。

它试图传播它所想传播的事实灌输一些它想灌输的态度，但事实上对伊拉克问题的态度人人心中都已是根深蒂固。

所以一个德克萨斯老牛仔不会相信他家二小子在巴士拉草菅人命，一个加沙难民不会相信米帝的人造天堂，一个豆瓣上的精英民煮斗士还是会闭上眼睛就是天黑跟着洋爹说洋话，而像我这样的亲阿人士还是会一如既往地反对美以联合新殖民主义——这一切都不会因几个小电影而改变。

我个人相信米帝在两河流域决干不出什么好事——其一是因为我相信侵略者不会干好事，其二是因为我相信亚希尔老师。

“好铁不打钉好男不当兵”是句老话，即便我朝廷的征兵广告空喊着光荣咱们都知道是怎么回事，部分人就不要为西方的兵员质量嘴硬了，两块豆腐熬汤是一个味；至于编剧一厢情愿地安排鬼子们在炸弹袭击后才COS纳粹，那还是偏袒了人家国内的感情：超人不用变身他们裤衩一直穿外面，色厉内荏的暴行，是邪恶势力对最终审判的恐惧。

至于我敬爱的亚希尔老师，他来自多灾多难的伊拉克。

他有着阿拉伯民族的开朗和故土沦亡者特有的沮丧。

他很少提到逃亡前的故事，并决口不谈政治。

偶尔讲到家庭时会不由自主地看看身旁的妻子——我们敬爱的苏阿黛老师——眼中闪着欣慰的泪光。

讲到食物的时候他说底格里斯河的鱼是不能吃的，因为不干净。

我们只知道豕类是忌口却不知道鱼的典故，问了才明白——因为抵抗者击杀一个侵略军总是要把他的尸体扔到河里的。

可能善良的人儿会说这场天杀的战争人人都是受害者我说不是，施暴者可以选择不参加那邪恶的十字军，受害者却只得到一方光洁的墓碑并在新闻简报里被命名为恐怖分子。

我厌恶基地组织趁乱在伊拉克搞输出革命的行径，但是对那些在异国领土胡作非为的人，再残忍的报复都不算残忍。

我非常希望焦国标先生能看到这个电影，因为当初美国入侵伊拉克时，他写过赞歌。

说正义的美国士兵为伊拉克人民带去自由，民主，幸福。

我很想知道焦国标先生看完这个电影后会写一首什么样的赞歌，去歌颂他心目中的英雄――美国大兵。

但是我从这个电影中看到了南京大屠杀，看到了美国人和日本人一样，烂杀无辜。

日本人是以圣战，建立所谓的“大东亚共荣圈”的名义来屠杀中国人，亚洲人；美国人是以反恐，建立所谓的“民主，自由”的伊拉克的名义来屠杀伊拉克人。

如果焦国标先生在1937年的话，会为这些日本士兵写一首什么样的赞歌呢？

不得不承认美国的电影业发达。

当初越战进行的时候，美国没多少反映越战的电影，都是在战后出现的。

而现在，随着高科技的发展，当伊拉克战争还在进行的时候，美国的电影就推出一部又一部相关的战争电影，感觉就像赶上了直播一样。

看到美国人在伊拉克的国土上设岗设哨，对伊拉克人搜房搜身，我仿佛看到了二战时日本人在中国的所作所为。

我觉得这是一个国家及其人民最大的耻辱：生活在自己的国家的人却要被侵略者勒令下跪，进行搜身。

当Ramirez看到自己的战友被杀时，进行报复；却没有想过，如果他们不去占领屠杀别国的人民，人家活得好端端的，根本不会去杀他的战友；而正是因为他们占领屠杀了伊拉克人，所以伊拉克人才会反抗。

Ramirez更应该想想，真正杀害他战友的凶手是谁，而不是出于泄愤而烂杀无辜。

看完这个电影，心中只想：这样的事千万别发生在我身上。

附：致美国兵　 作者：焦国标 　　　　伊拉克战争的第二天，　　战场卷来沙尘暴。

　　前线出现胶着状态，　　你知道我有多么心焦！

　　伊拉克的沙漠风搅天撼地，　　你背负着小山一样的军包，　　趔趔趄趄，顶着沙幕前行，　　你知道我有多么心疼！

　　伊拉克沙漠盘亘无际，　　沙梁上，你从镜头远处跋涉而来。

　　恶人和恶人的朋友诬你是入侵者，　　对的，你的确是“入侵者”，　　迷彩装的你，　　是万古死寂荒漠里第一株先锋植物，　　是万里无垠沙海里第一抹绿色希冀。

　　阿拉伯沙漠里，　　骆驼就是轻舟。

　　阿拉伯文化里，　　骆驼是最受爱戴的生灵。

　　如果这个古老民族还有救，　　那就从心底把骆驼置换成，　　伊拉克沙漠里行军跋涉的美国兵。

　　于今几乎所有国家的青年，　　都不再蒙受跨国征伐之苦。

　　美国号称是孩子的天堂，　　天堂里的孩子却在代全球的同龄人，　　从军远行，自陷地狱，与战邪恶。

　　俄罗斯外长伊万诺夫先生说：　　“战斧”巡航导弹带不来民主。

　　我说这要看什么时代：　　给法国带来民主的是攻克巴士底狱的炮火，　　给英国带来民主的是英王查理的断头台，　　给美国带来民主的是来克星屯的枪声，　　时代在前进，伊拉克的民主，　　只有靠“战斧”巡航导弹呼啸携来。

　　你的笨重的军靴，　　跋涉在伊拉克沙漠的地平线，　　那是人类文明的走向。

　　如果你倒下了，　　人类将失去正义的脊梁。

　　如果你的国家跨掉了，　　人类将回到中世纪的蛮荒。

　　丑陋的嘴脸在电视屏幕里评点战争，　　实乃一帮号称专家的巫婆神汉胡批乱侃。

　　彻底的陈词滥调，全心全意的愚民，　　是我逃不脱的声音聒噪。

　　我的心遥向伊拉克战场千百次呼喊：　　“向我开炮！

向我开炮！

”　　美国兵，　　请允许我喊你一声“brother！

”　　如果招募志愿者，　　请你第一时间通知我！

　　假如有来生，　　当兵只当美国兵。

　　假如今生注定死于战火，　　就作美国精确制导炸弹下的亡灵。

　　写于伊拉克战争第十五天，2003年4月5日 补：如果焦先生有时间，应该看看《标准流程》，这简直是为焦先生度身定做的。

难以置信的影片，以及难以置信的事件。

哈迪塞之战，莫大的悲哀。

不知道英国为什么要为盟国美利坚拍摄这样一部电影，相信任何一个国家的民众看完这部电影后也不会有中国人内心的复杂。

时隔68年，刺身裸体的枪火和杀戮从南京来来到哈迪塞，真理和真相如丧命枪口之下的冤魂慷慨低调的随硝烟隐匿，犹如士兵必须身着迷彩，战争毫无羞耻的退去外衣等待着粉饰和装扮。

同是采用了纪录片的的拍摄手法，晃动的镜头，间或虚化的影像，不求章法的构图，让人想到陆川的《南京！

南京！

》，但这次而是发生在千里之外的哈迪塞。

影片让我见识了什么是高精尖的现代化作战武器—监视屏幕锁定潜在埋放炸弹的危险目标（扛着锄头的伊拉克平民），高度的警惕和防范作战思想（立即决定清除目标），迅速的定位与制导技术（仅需从5开始倒计时即锁定并实施精确打击），武装到牙齿的美国人已经把真实的战争过程通过游戏化的方式进行演绎—典型的FPS。

也许这个原因，对于可以如此轻松捏死蚂蚁一样清除一个伊拉克恐怖分子的美国来说失去任何一个美国士兵的是无法接受的，因此要以眼还眼、血债血偿，射杀24名平民作为感情的释放点，以此告慰战友的亡灵。

影片拍摄的过于真实，仿佛是一场电视直播。

色调也和入围奥斯卡的《拆弹部队》完全一样，而后者给我最深的印象是塑造了男一号威尔一个默默奉献、机智勇敢、是为己任，扎身美驻伊维和部队的一名共产党员形象，而《哈迪塞之战》试图以客观的方式展现真实的战争，没有故意丑化美国，也没有故意丑化伊拉克。

再次试问为什么要拍摄这样一部影片，促进和平？

没有，肯定没有，如果伊拉克人以及阿拉伯人，甚至阿富汗人只要能够从BT上下载到这部影片，这绝对是一支吹响的为同胞报仇的战斗号角、一张所谓恐怖分子招兵买马的宣传册、一份警告美军处境越将危险的通知单。

作为有着同样民族同胞被屠杀史的中国人，不可避免的通过这部影片产生对伊拉克人民的同情，如果我现在作为一名伊拉克的良民，对于这样的现实，以及美国意图赋予的和平情愿不要。

还是想不通为什么要拍摄这样一部影片，并且还要穿插下士Ramirez对抱着被枪杀丈夫尸体的伊拉克妇女伸手表示同情，还有影片结束前的一段真情告白。

无聊的编剧和导演，难道是担心别人说本片只有暴力屠杀没文化，或者美国观众不买账，在只给美国大兵穿上丁字裤后，为了补救又给它镶了一圈蕾丝边，结果只能让他更加丑陋。

我都不知道该给本片打几颗星，因为根本无法确定本片的意义，给我的理解只有一个—这样的和平情愿不要。

我承认我偏激了。

新闻联播告诉我们发生了爆炸。

这部电影告诉我们爆炸是怎么发生的，以及发生之后又发生了什么。

从舆论导向看，这部电影政治上不太正确，或者说很不正确。

明摆着是给美国军方摸黑。

秘而不宣才是正道。

或者至少要痛斥恐怖分子的邪恶阴线狡诈与没有人性，以及爆炸发生后各级领导如何亲临一线，及时指导抢险救援，营救受伤人员，处理善后事宜等等等。

缺乏强有力的中玄部的领导，美国媒体是干不了什么好事的。

其实，恐怖分子也就是可怜的下岗无业游民。

利益收到了触犯，就要报复一下。

大兵也不是没有人性。

长时间的精神压力，在同伴被炸死后如火山般爆发了。

上级领导糊里糊涂，把一起爆炸后的报复事件当成了一次勇敢果断的军事行动。

还好有不屈不挠所谓的狗仔队这样一群人。

感谢他们，让我有知道真相的机会。

现代科技水平已经进化外太空的时代，人类的智慧和道德水平远远不能跟上。

尤其在极端条件下，人性中的邪恶力量就会宣泄般地爆发出来。

就这个评价，比《黑鹰坠落》差远了，看里面美国海军陆战队的战术素养比93年在摩加迪沙的时候逊色一截。

如果是当反思类的电影又显得很单薄，缺乏让人思考的深度。

靠拍摄手法这样的噱头成不了大器。

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_HadithaBattle for Haditha (film)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killingsHaditha killingsgoogle translate http://translate.google.com.hk/?hl=zh-TW&tab=wT---http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0870211/reviews影评65 out of 83 people found the following review useful:Powerful & Provocative Film, 12 November 20078/10Author: Black Narcissus from Maida Vale, UKI 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 20089/10Author: bluelionkMade 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 20079/10Author: Movie-Jay from Toronto, CanadaI 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 20088/10Author: insomnia from AustraliaIt'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 20088/10Author: SEVEREcritic from Bangladeshi 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.

美国一向自诩正义，但是对于面对其中明显不正义的片段，敢于反思才会让人心悦诚服，敢于反思的国家才会进步，本片据真实故事改编，基本能客观反映那一段故事而几乎未带或者很少带倾向性。

对比军国主义时代日本无所不能且掩盖一切的军部，今日这全世界最强力国家的最强力部门也无法阻止国内民众的反战或者反思。