one of my absolute favorites!

I saw this movie before reading any reviews, and I thought it was very funny. I was very surprised to see the overwhelmingly negative reviews this film received from critics.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

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

I was expecting a documentary on the fall of Falluja, made by filmmakers who just happened to be in the ill-fated Iraqi city when it was obliterated by U.S. Marines in the spring of 2004. But that's not at all what this film is about. Instead, Occupation: Dreamland is an intimate account of a particular group of soldiers in a specific time and place in the Iraq war. So don't walk into the theater expecting to have all of your questions about Iraq answered. But you will learn about a handful of American soldiers and how they perceive the war and their particular situation. Most of them understand that this isn't a war for liberation. They were smart enough to realize that this war, like all war, is about money and control. Still, these are hardworking and honest soldiers, and as such, they'll faithfully follow their orders and execute their duties, whether they believe in what they're doing or not. So no, you won't see a first-hand account of the destruction of Falluja, but you will meet eight or so men who will give you a deeper understanding of the American soldiers today.

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?