A break in the manhunt for Osama bin Laden is the backdrop for the gripping story about the combined efforts of an extraordinary group of Navy SEALS. About the most daring military op of our generation.
The move has been filming this year and nothing is known about it except it's plot and of course ending.
About time they made a movie about it... not that I'm expecting it to be good. The trailer looks like it belongs in Call of Duty: Black Ops, and that's not a good sign :\
What? Trailer looks awesome. Look at that high flying flag at 0:55! But who is that woman they keep showing? She didn't even get to say anything in this new trailer. She had a line in the first trailer I think (at 0:36), and I thought it was Claire Danes the first time I watched it :p
I am not offended by movies like these, so much as I just think they are done in poor taste. Remember Flight 93? I am not sure I can justify precisely why I think this about the story of killing a terrorist, but something feels off about the subject.
On October 18 2012 01:21 ThomasjServo wrote: I am not offended by movies like these, so much as I just think they are done in poor taste. Remember Flight 93? I am not sure I can justify precisely why I think this about the story of killing a terrorist, but something feels off about the subject.
I agree with this sentiment. I feel like Hollywood generally lacks a certain sense of aesthetic responsibility and ethics you would expect from artists of different trades. This Haneke interview talks about roughly the same subject.
Its getting good reviews but in one of them they described the opening of it as such: first they do an audio recording of peoples' calls from 9/11 as they sit to wait and die in the WTC. Immediately after they do a torture scene. And the movie implies that information obtained from torture was the reason they got the intel for bin laden. Not really sure I enjoy movies that (a) endorse torture and (b) are editing in such a way as to highlight the 'revenge' taking aspect of the hunt for bin laden.
On December 10 2012 07:19 Sub40APM wrote: Not really sure I enjoy movies that (a) endorse torture and (b) are editing in such a way as to highlight the 'revenge' taking aspect of the hunt for bin laden.
a) films can have more nuanced handling of subjects besides "hurrr torture good!" and "hurr torture bad!". like, for instance, the viewpoint that moral assignations of right and wrong pale in importance to getting results and, more on-topic, representing the idea of torture as something the administration believed in at the time regardless of whether it ultimately lead to the capture of bin laden.
b) from what I've read of the movie from reviews, I think you're misrepresenting the main character's motivation as revenge when it's supposed to just be a really driving desire to make a career off the hunt. that said, though, having a young professional being driven by some sort of revenge motive would be acceptable symbolism for the way the country and, again, the administration felt about the idea of the war and the hunt for a good many years after 9/11.
if you can tell, I'm really looking forward to this film - the hurt locker was spectacular, and the reviews are golden.
On December 10 2012 07:51 TheExile19 wrote: a) films can have more nuanced handling of subjects besides "hurrr torture good!" and "hurr torture bad!". like, for instance, the viewpoint that moral assignations of right and wrong pale in importance to getting results and, more on-topic, representing the idea of torture as something the administration believed in at the time regardless of whether it ultimately lead to the capture of bin laden.
That is the "hurrr torture good" viewpoint you just derided. Almost nobody who thinks "hurrrr torture good" thinks it so because they get off by waterboarding people, they think it acceptable because of its "results".
Always been fascinated by the SEALs and other special forces operatives. Heck, really any man or woman in uniform is someone I admire and enjoy learning more about. Loved "Act of Valor," and I hope this delivers on the same scale with actual SEALs, though an improvement in acting ability would be welcome. Also hope they aren't disclosing anything that could jeopardize future endeavors; if it's not safe for our armed forces to release info. and stuff like this (i.e. tactics, equipment, intel, etc.) I don't want to see it, no matter how awesome it may be. However, I'm assuming they got the go-ahead anyway on whatever they're doing, so I'm definitely going to look forward to this.
On December 10 2012 07:51 TheExile19 wrote: a) films can have more nuanced handling of subjects besides "hurrr torture good!" and "hurr torture bad!". like, for instance, the viewpoint that moral assignations of right and wrong pale in importance to getting results and, more on-topic, representing the idea of torture as something the administration believed in at the time regardless of whether it ultimately lead to the capture of bin laden.
That is the "hurrr torture good" viewpoint you just derided. Almost nobody who thinks "hurrrr torture good" thinks it so because they get off by waterboarding people, they think it acceptable because of its results.
With respect to you:
"Hurr durr" is the sound of laughter coming from someone with half a brain. Mostly it is used to point out when someone has made an idiotic claim, though, surprisingly, idiot males will attempt to make thier laugh as deep as possible to make them sound more manly, when all it really does is make them sound like idiots.
I think it's rather easy to suggest that people who think torture is ok have half a brain and are idiots, but what Exile suggests is that it's interesting to view the opinion that the end justifies the means while recognizing the fundamental wrongness of such a view.
On December 10 2012 07:51 TheExile19 wrote: a) films can have more nuanced handling of subjects besides "hurrr torture good!" and "hurr torture bad!". like, for instance, the viewpoint that moral assignations of right and wrong pale in importance to getting results and, more on-topic, representing the idea of torture as something the administration believed in at the time regardless of whether it ultimately lead to the capture of bin laden.
That is a "hurrr torture good" viewpoint. Almost nobody who thinks "hurrrr torture good" thinks it so because they get off by waterboarding people, they think it because of its results.
basically you're right, I didn't really finish that thought to include the idea of context, like whether within the narrative of the film waterboarding actually led to the subject telling the truth instead of saying whatever to make the torture stop and interpreting from there. if the film is anything like the hurt locker though, I really think the emphasis would be on realism and reflection on what the US and the military's prevailing thoughts were at the time, which would undoubtedly include reasoning like what I gave. it's morally grey, to be sure, but it's not an outright endorsement as if every historically realistic war film was a right-wing propaganda or something.
On December 10 2012 07:51 TheExile19 wrote: a) films can have more nuanced handling of subjects besides "hurrr torture good!" and "hurr torture bad!". like, for instance, the viewpoint that moral assignations of right and wrong pale in importance to getting results and, more on-topic, representing the idea of torture as something the administration believed in at the time regardless of whether it ultimately lead to the capture of bin laden.
That is a "hurrr torture good" viewpoint. Almost nobody who thinks "hurrrr torture good" thinks it so because they get off by waterboarding people, they think it because of its results.
basically you're right, I didn't really finish that thought to include the idea of context, like whether within the narrative of the film waterboarding actually led to the subject telling the truth instead of saying whatever to make the torture stop and interpreting from there. if the film is anything like the hurt locker though, I really think the emphasis would be on realism and reflection on what the US and the military's prevailing thoughts were at the time, which would undoubtedly include reasoning like what I gave. it's morally grey, to be sure, but it's not an outright endorsement as if every historically realistic war film was a right-wing propaganda or something.
I haven't actually seen the movie, and can't comment on how it portrays torture. Hopefully it stays a factual historical narrative as you suggest it might; that particular view of torture was quite popular for six-tenths of America at the time, and a failure to show that would be bad history.
But I sincerely doubt it will be so, or remain grounded in past history, so to speak.
For a movie like this, I don't think I'll be reading all that many American reviews. Will probably have to find international reviewers who write English.