This film is smarter than its fans - this is not just a UK-America bashing film

Rating: 8/10 (8 July 2006)

A lot of the above comments may leave you thinking this film is a one-sided metaphor against American/British "imperialism", or that somehow the atrocities of some British during the time of the Black-and-Tans and the occupation of Ireland are a direct corollary to the current situation in Iraq.
Perhaps to the simple minded they are, but in fact there is much more of worthy reflection in this movie, and indeed the bulk of the film deals with the internal conflict of the Irish coming to their own rule of their own land. That is of course the situation which is most relevant to the situation in Iraq today, and ultimately, it is the thing that actually gives one hope through all the tragedy portrayed in this film.
Ultimately of course, the Americans, the British, and the rest of the Coalition are irrelevant in Iraq (other than in their role of ending the Saddam/Uday/Qusay dictatorship). The struggle in Iraq, other than that shown by the media (which seems to think that the only thing the world cares about is British/American troops and western hostages), is between Iraqis for the future of their country.
(I say this having spent 18 months in Iraq outside the "Green Zone" as both a journalist and humanitarian worker, so I'm not entirely ignorant).
*possible spoilers below?*
There are several scenes, such as the scene of the Irish courtroom, where the turmoils of self-governance at its birth and the conflicts it produces really create pause for reflection. This is done in a short scene in which a (grossly non-sympathetic) businessperson is ordered to pay money to the (sympathetic) person who actually owes him money. The military struggles to control/circumvent the court. The court dictates an apparently irrational punishment as a reflection of their blindly socialist and pro-poor ideals. The movie brings the reality of the ugly and unruly birth of a nation to light. Who will win, the pragmatics, the idealists, the power-hungry, the men with guns?
Ultimately, it appears, the men with guns. Especially those that are willing to do the most ugly and brutal things in a fight for "freedom". In a hint of the distortions of the power- hungry, the script shows that these supposedly idealistic men use propaganda to convince the poor public that through socialism, the overthrow of a government will result in somehow their lot improving (leaflets guaranteeing land distribution, etc).
Yet despite all that, Ireland stands today as a democratic country that has a recent history of non-violence and an orientation towards disproportionately high charitable giving in its population. It is today a country which is ragingly capitalistic, but with a notable level of public health care, socialistic ideals, etc.
Yes, there are hypocrisies in all societies, but what is strong about this movie is that, for the bulk of it, it doesn't simply point the finger at the British and say how horrible they are (and, as a corollary, OK sure, both Saddam and the Black-and-Tans were horrible, I'm not apologizing for them), but it points instead to the real challenge, which is the internal struggle for human leadership and justice. And the difficulty and grey vs. grey nature of that struggle.
Other than a few relatively weak but necessary scenes of ambushes, training, etc., the bulk of the movie is about this struggle for self-governance and leadership and critical thinking. And so this is as relevant to Venezuela and East Timor and Mexico and the United States as it is for Iraq or Ireland or the UK.
Throughout Baghdad you can buy DVDs for 1500 dinars (1 euro), Asian-made knock-offs of American films, sometimes even before the films are in general release. I hope Mr. Loach made his DVD with Arabic subtitles so those who have the most at stake by watching it have a chance to see his film.
Regarding the cinematography, I live outside of Cork (Ireland), so I actually think of course that the land here is much more beautiful and cinematic than what is shown in the picture. Of course it could have used more crane shots, better lighting,and better effects, but all is forgiven in the interest of encouraging movies that don't require Hollywood budgets. To be specific, the impact of scenes like the one of the sharpshooter shooting a pack of cigarettes off a rock would have been more impressive if it didn't look like he was only 15 feet away... why they used a long lens and panned rather than using a wide angle lens to make the sharpshooter look far away and thus competent, I don't know! And, there were a couple of battle scenes where the actors just seemed to "play dead". Maybe there is an artistic reason why they didn't use squibs to show blood, but it was weird. For example the execution scene where you think, OK, that guy just took 8 bullets and he's dead, but he's not even bleeding across his white shirt?
But ultimately this isn't a special effects movie, it's a story of internal conflict, and the uncertainty and egos and internal codes of conduct which drive people to do insane things. And that is where it is useful and relevant for our world today.
The film says a lot about human nature and impossible struggles. I recommend it.