This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

.Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

I don't have to say anything else. This movie supports terrorism and ignites terrorism against the United States.They interview only American Amry personnel that are all, to a man, express views that are:1.) Lazy 2.) Anti-American 3.) Pro-terroristNow it shames me to to see these people operating in our Army. But of course these are the people that these terrorist "film-makers" chose to focus on. These so-call film-makers are terrorists in that they give material support to terrorist activity. Then i realize that it is our Marines who really do the real fighting.

As a recent veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq, this film is a must see. It shows you what our government won't- that there are questions from the soldiers about the war in Iraq. This film also manages to accurately capture the feeling of being deployed in a far away country for long periods of time, without actually being there. Go and see this! That's all I have to say except for the fact that I now need to take up space in order to fulfill this stupid 10 lines of text minimum requirement on this website. So go see this film and bring a friend with you if you can. You won't regret it. It's the closest you can be to Iraq without actually being in it.

Considering all its accolades on the documentary festival circuit, I had big hopes for Occupation: Dreamland, but ultimately it's not that much different from the embedded-era episodes of "Nightline" et al in the spring of 2003. Which is not at all to say it's unenjoyable -- the soldiers are endearing to a man, but so are most people once they're known on an intimate level. It's doubtful that Occupation: Dreamland will change many opinions toward the war itself, as the film is refreshingly even-handed, but the film certainly could help to correct one's misconception of soldiers in war-time. Ernie Pyle would probably approve.

i went to see "occupation: dreamland" not because i'm interested in iraq or US foreign policy but because i'm interested in the psychology of soldiers & people at war - in particular, what allows someone to hurt, damage & kill someone else - and i really enjoyed getting up close & personal with the soldiers of the 82nd airborne. their candid reflections on what they're doing there & what the war is about are equally charming & terrifying ("i have confidence the government wouldn't send us just to protect oil"; "it's all about adding another OPEC country") and some of the footage detailing army practices (the reenlistment scene, for example) are just plain terrifying. the film is also a useful companion piece to the fresh-faced army press officer of "control room". quite frankly, these guys seemed a lot more clued up, despite being (as one review puts it), "21-28 year-old high school dropouts and failed junior college liberal arts majors whose enlistment stems more from a lack of options than patriotism or ideology."speaking of reviews, one of the most interesting things for me, as a non-American, were comments like the following from the reviews: "In this sense, then, the greatest accomplishment of 'Occupation: Dreamland' is showing those of us on the home front that it really is possible, Republican howling to the contrary aside, to support our troops without supporting the war itself." um, sorry? sure, you don't need to spit on them from a great height, but you either support one country invading another or you don't. the soldiers conscientiously carried out their instructions to spread a little good pr, but no one was fooled, least of all the soldiers themselves. shame, really, that they weren't being used on true peace-keeping missions in places that could use a little first-world intervention. darfur or the ivory coast, anyone?