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.
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.
Curious, why do you say that? I'd imagine non-American reviewers will still be as biased as American ones, albeit on the other side of the issue. It's good to hear both stances, but I wouldn't trust either of them fully on this....
On December 10 2012 11:44 cLAN.Anax wrote: Curious, why do you say that? I'd imagine non-American reviewers will still be as biased as American ones, albeit on the other side of the issue. It's good to hear both stances, but I wouldn't trust either of them fully on this....
Non-American reviewers are not Al-Qaeda sympathizers who hate America for its freedom. So far as I know.
All joking aside, I find it good procedure to keep a fair distance from national media concerning things that have the potential to be...overly nationalistic. Other countries have secondary interests in such matters, which makes conflict of interest less important than in countries with primary interests in the matter at hand*; in this case, America. And Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, I suppose, but they don't have many reviewers that cater to audiences literate in English.
Same principle applies to breaking international and corporate news. Or, on a micro level, doctors and lawyers. No one and no entity is 100% trustworthy, but it helps to find entities that might be more objective. Or, at least, more neutral.
*There are exceptions where secondary interests can be greater than primary interests, but they're few and far between.
The movie could be interesting [I'll "wait" to watch it at home ], but more so than the questions that we may derive from the content of the movie, I think this begs the question "is this okay to make at all?" Somewhat similar to cLAN.Anax's views on the possible divulging of military secrets, etc. I'm just not sure I'm okay with the subject matter at all; I don't think I'm really excited that we know as much as we know about the way military issues are handled, as far as strategy, etc, and all the embedded reporting.
On December 10 2012 11:44 cLAN.Anax wrote: Curious, why do you say that? I'd imagine non-American reviewers will still be as biased as American ones, albeit on the other side of the issue. It's good to hear both stances, but I wouldn't trust either of them fully on this....
Non-American reviewers are not Al-Qaeda sympathizers who hate America for its freedom. So far as I know.
All joking aside, I find it good procedure to keep a fair distance from national media concerning things that have the potential to be...overly nationalistic. Other countries have secondary interests in such matters, which makes conflict of interest less important than in countries with primary interests in the matter at hand*; in this case, America. And Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, I suppose, but they don't have many reviewers that cater to audiences literate in English.
Same principle applies to breaking international and corporate news. Or, on a micro level, doctors and lawyers. No one and no entity is 100% trustworthy, but it helps to find entities that might be more objective. Or, at least, more neutral.
*There are exceptions where secondary interests can be greater than primary interests, but they're few and far between.
I think this is key in any matter: trying to find objectivity. I was reading something on here the other day where people were concerned about how objective historians are, and someone brought up the point that historians have to check, and check, and cross check their sources to ensure reliability. While this is less important to do in a movie review, understanding the source of the review, and reading reviews from multiple sources will help paint a clearer picture of what to expect in the movie.
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.
There is no one in the movie who is torturing people for 'revenge'. What I am suggesting is that when you have an opening that sets up an incredibly emotional presentation of 9/11 -- with actual victims voices ringing out just before they die -- and then you immediately cut to a torture scenes there is a credible case for interpreting this as revenge torture.
And in general, the claim that 'torture' saves lives seems pretty unsubstantiated -- certainly if the Bush administration had an actual credible result that torture brought about they would have shared it simply to get the heat of them for torturing a shit ton of people. .
There is no one in the movie who is torturing people for 'revenge'. What I am suggesting is that when you have an opening that sets up an incredibly emotional presentation of 9/11 -- with actual victims voices ringing out just before they die -- and then you immediately cut to a torture scenes there is a credible case for interpreting this as revenge torture.
I've read this a few times now and it isn't getting through to me because it seems like your first statement invalidates your second. the first thing I would think of when transitioning between those two situations is the contrast between the emotion of real 9/11 calls and the cold, amoral logic of waterboarding somebody for information; more importantly, though, I don't see how you're saying there's clearly nobody torturing for revenge and then turning and saying there's a credible case for it. are you concerned about it on a purely cinematic level, like the juxtaposition as is might lead an audience to that conclusion? while I don't think that would necessarily follow, I do think it's a valid possible narrative to create when you consider how the US gov clearly believed that countermeasures, and focus on results over public opinion, were paramount in the post-9/11 months and years that followed. on a purely causal level, you could interpret it as revenge, but even then that's an emotional framing of what is, basically, a bureaucratic foreign policy decision.
I mean, in any case it's definitely an intended emotional contrast, I can't speak for the director but conceptually it seems like a powerful choice.
Yup agreed, this is the movie I liked most this year also. Expecting it to win best movie and best lead actor.
The torture scenes aren't problematic as far as I'm concerned. They were showing interrogations as they undoubtedly have happened under the guidelines put forward by the Bush administration and the CIA detention program, and they were a reaction to 9/11. The movie didn't 'celebrate' torture itself, or framed is as 'revenge', but more as a logical reaction to being at war. It would have been weirder not to show torture at all during the 2002-2008 years.
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.
Curious, why do you say that? I'd imagine non-American reviewers will still be as biased as American ones, albeit on the other side of the issue. It's good to hear both stances, but I wouldn't trust either of them fully on this....
Non USA people would be biased about what ?
I don't hate or love USA, i will watch the movie, but i am pretty sure it will be a complete circlejerk.
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.
Curious, why do you say that? I'd imagine non-American reviewers will still be as biased as American ones, albeit on the other side of the issue. It's good to hear both stances, but I wouldn't trust either of them fully on this....
Non USA people would be biased about what ?
I don't hate or love USA, i will watch the movie, but i am pretty sure it will be a complete circlejerk.
It's not really a complete circle jerk for the US. Most of the movie focuses on just how the hunt for Bin Laden affects one CIA staffer's life and career. The movie isn't some huge patrioic "'Murica Fuck Yeah" kind of movie.
Kinda curious where everyone has been seeing it. I thought that it was only going to have a limited release in 2012 in the US and then have the wide release in 2013.
I've really liked this movie, it is kinda slow in some points, and I was familiar with the story as I did some research after watching a semi decumentary/movie called SEAL Team Six: The raid on Osama bin Laden , but still after knowing the whole story I've really liked the movie. I've always enjoyed the movies that are set in somewhat real environment, the things that happen in the movie like bombing in Pakistan really did happen and they are connected to the story. One thing I would like to change is more stuff abut the raid itself, from military stand point as I like all stories that evolve around special operations. They just mentioned the fact that Pakistan scrambled their fighters but they didn't mention that US fighters after a threat that they will be shot down waved them off back to Pakistan. That there was more then double the amount of SEALs operators just behind the border waiting as a backup, that a backup heli had to fly in as one of the secret helis crashed, what was the role of that belgian shepherd (the dog cleared the compound) etc etc. But that is just me being weird spec ops nut The whole story itself is very interesting and it's pretty hard to fuck up the movie about it.
On January 07 2013 02:30 Brainsurgeon wrote: Pretty good actually. I liked how they didn't try to make the soldiers up to be superheroes or some such nonsense.
By not superheroes do you mean the fact that main characters actually can die in battle or that they are a bunch of out of shape soldiers? I haven't seen the movie and I think it would be kind of ridiculous if they portrayed the soldiers as everyday people because Navy Seals aren't your average joe.
For me, the ending got me bit bored (basically after when Osama was 'located'), but rest of it was pretty decent actually. Didn't beat Hurt Locker though.
On January 07 2013 03:08 Grettin wrote: For me, the ending got me bit bored (basically after when Osama was 'located'), but rest of it was pretty decent actually. Didn't beat Hurt Locker though.
Uh oh, if you thought it was more boring than The Hurt Locker, that's definitely bad news, because THL was ridiculously tedious to watch. And I wouldn't mind so much if there was any historical accuracy to it, but there isn't. It's like they listened to the movie crew listened to their military advisers about uniforms and scenery and then ignored everything else they said.
I have 3 gripes w/ this movie: 1. This movie was really boring to watch. There was this giant gap between the beginning and the end that was just a struggle to stay awake in where absolutely nothing happened. A lot of it could've been cut out. 2. The way they showed torture. I don't wanna get into politics over this, but it is an absolute misrepresentation to show top level CIA executives bitching about not able to use torture to get information. That said, they did show that torture was ineffective and that traditional bribery/coaxing was more effective means of obtaining information. 3. SPOILER: the car bomb scene. I had a really difficult time in the theater to just not burst out laughing b/c that thing was telegraphed a mile away. That was just a terribly executed scene and frankly the editors should be fired for their incompetence.
On January 07 2013 10:33 czylu wrote: I have 3 gripes w/ this movie: 1. This movie was really boring to watch. There was this giant gap between the beginning and the end that was just a struggle to stay awake in where absolutely nothing happened. A lot of it could've been cut out. 2. The way they showed torture. I don't wanna get into politics over this, but it is an absolute misrepresentation to show top level CIA executives bitching about not able to use torture to get information. That said, they did show that torture was ineffective and that traditional bribery/coaxing was more effective means of obtaining information. 3. SPOILER: the car bomb scene. I had a really difficult time in the theater to just not burst out laughing b/c that thing was telegraphed a mile away. That was just a terribly executed scene and frankly the editors should be fired for their incompetence.
For your point about what was boring with the movie what did you find that made it so boring. Was it that you came into the movie expecting it to be more about the seals and a war movie closer to the hurt locker? The point of the movie was suppose to me more on the hunt for Bin Laden and how it affected the lives of the people involved in it.
Your second point I sorta agree with but i don't think that they showed that torture was completely ineffective I thought once or twice they showed that it did have potential. I thought it was necessary to show the executives complaining that they could not use torture since it showed that they were still stuck in their old ways.
To deal with you third point my thoughts on it were
I believe that the scene was suppose to be seen coming from a mile away. I believe the point of it was to show that the CIA officer was too obsessed with wanting to believe that the guy was a good person. They wanted the audience to be able to see clearly what was going to happen so that they would see what was happening to her. It wanted to show that we could not always trust our allies in the war. Its purpose was also to show the toll it had on Maya and how her work was affecting her. These are just my thoughts on what it was suppose to represent so take it as you will.
On January 07 2013 10:33 czylu wrote: I have 3 gripes w/ this movie: 1. This movie was really boring to watch. There was this giant gap between the beginning and the end that was just a struggle to stay awake in where absolutely nothing happened. A lot of it could've been cut out. 2. The way they showed torture. I don't wanna get into politics over this, but it is an absolute misrepresentation to show top level CIA executives bitching about not able to use torture to get information. That said, they did show that torture was ineffective and that traditional bribery/coaxing was more effective means of obtaining information. 3. SPOILER: the car bomb scene. I had a really difficult time in the theater to just not burst out laughing b/c that thing was telegraphed a mile away. That was just a terribly executed scene and frankly the editors should be fired for their incompetence.
1 is personal, but I liked it at this speed. 2 and 3 I disagree with.
As for torture: You see the main character actively reviewing footage of people being tortured by various (foreign) intelligence agencies establishing the link to the courier. The movie implied that if you torture long and hard enough and ask intelligent questions, someone always 'breaks'.
And every attack was telegraphed in advance; you'd hear a vague reference to a city in the movie and 20 minutes later someone is watching TV footage of the attack. In my opinion is ment to demonstrate how impossible it is to prevent terrorist attacks and the futility of doing the jobs the characters are doing in trying to eliminate something that they'll never be able to.
On January 07 2013 10:33 czylu wrote: I have 3 gripes w/ this movie: 1. This movie was really boring to watch. There was this giant gap between the beginning and the end that was just a struggle to stay awake in where absolutely nothing happened. A lot of it could've been cut out. 2. The way they showed torture. I don't wanna get into politics over this, but it is an absolute misrepresentation to show top level CIA executives bitching about not able to use torture to get information. That said, they did show that torture was ineffective and that traditional bribery/coaxing was more effective means of obtaining information. 3. SPOILER: the car bomb scene. I had a really difficult time in the theater to just not burst out laughing b/c that thing was telegraphed a mile away. That was just a terribly executed scene and frankly the editors should be fired for their incompetence.
For your point about what was boring with the movie what did you find that made it so boring. Was it that you came into the movie expecting it to be more about the seals and a war movie closer to the hurt locker? The point of the movie was suppose to me more on the hunt for Bin Laden and how it affected the lives of the people involved in it.
Your second point I sorta agree with but i don't think that they showed that torture was completely ineffective I thought once or twice they showed that it did have potential. I thought it was necessary to show the executives complaining that they could not use torture since it showed that they were still stuck in their old ways.
To deal with you third point my thoughts on it were
I believe that the scene was suppose to be seen coming from a mile away. I believe the point of it was to show that the CIA officer was too obsessed with wanting to believe that the guy was a good person. They wanted the audience to be able to see clearly what was going to happen so that they would see what was happening to her. It wanted to show that we could not always trust our allies in the war. Its purpose was also to show the toll it had on Maya and how her work was affecting her. These are just my thoughts on what it was suppose to represent so take it as you will.
Spoilers below:
I went into the movie knowing what it was about and having watched TV docs on the raid. The entire middle of the movie was boring(about the 1.5hrs between the beginning torture scenes and raid), where nothing happens. I honestly can't even remember much of it outside of the car bomb and the hotel bomb, which in both cases were only memorable b/c they were very poorly done. The car bomb was just plain bad movie making, the fact the lady that died had to literally tell the security guard to scrap his search was just cringe worthy. The hotel bomb was bad just because it happened and nothing was really followed up. That was a problem throughout most of the movie. I remember the girl who handed her a photo of the courier. She goes into some monologue about how she admires Maya, but we never hear from her again. A lot of the middle was just filler, tiny plots that go nowhere, and characters that were basically just plot devices created to give the main character what she needed. I get that this is trying to give a documentary feel for a movie, but this isn't a documentary and the plot needs to make sense in terms of presentation.
On January 07 2013 10:33 czylu wrote: I have 3 gripes w/ this movie: 1. This movie was really boring to watch. There was this giant gap between the beginning and the end that was just a struggle to stay awake in where absolutely nothing happened. A lot of it could've been cut out. 2. The way they showed torture. I don't wanna get into politics over this, but it is an absolute misrepresentation to show top level CIA executives bitching about not able to use torture to get information. That said, they did show that torture was ineffective and that traditional bribery/coaxing was more effective means of obtaining information. 3. SPOILER: the car bomb scene. I had a really difficult time in the theater to just not burst out laughing b/c that thing was telegraphed a mile away. That was just a terribly executed scene and frankly the editors should be fired for their incompetence.
1 is personal, but I liked it at this speed. 2 and 3 I disagree with.
As for torture: You see the main character actively reviewing footage of people being tortured by various (foreign) intelligence agencies establishing the link to the courier. The movie implied that if you torture long and hard enough and ask intelligent questions, someone always 'breaks'.
And every attack was telegraphed in advance; you'd hear a vague reference to a city in the movie and 20 minutes later someone is watching TV footage of the attack. In my opinion is ment to demonstrate how impossible it is to prevent terrorist attacks and the futility of doing the jobs the characters are doing in trying to eliminate something that they'll never be able to.
Spoilers below:
In the movie, when the guy started "breaking," there was an imminent terrorist attack coming and they wanted to know the details of it. He started saying Monday, tuesday, Wednesday, etc. He wasn't giving accurate information, and was only speaking in delirium. when some1 "breaks", it means they are willing to say anything to stop the torture, not actually giving up accurate information. That is the problem w/ extracting information under torture, because a person will literally say anything to stop being tortured. Also, Maya reviewed footage from interrogations. An interrogation is when you sit a guy down and try to coax/intimidate/negotiate for information. Torture is when you strap a guy down onto a board and simulate drowning on him. They're two very different things.
[B]3. SPOILER: the car bomb scene. I had a really difficult time in the theater to just not burst out laughing b/c that thing was telegraphed a mile away. That was just a terribly executed scene and frankly the editors should be fired for their incompetence.
I don't get it. What do you don't like about that scene? Is it the way it was filmed, technical point of view or how the story went, because the store is true http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Chapman_attack (to some degree of course, it is a movie after all).
I loved The Hurt Locker and I am seeing this tomorrow night. I would not be surprised if some casual movie goers goes into the movie thinking it will be an action movie about the SEALs since the commercials make it out to be that way.
I was expecting a lot from this movies seeing as Hurt Locker was my favourite film of not only 2008 but possibly even the latter half of that decade
Zero Dark Thirty was a shadow of Hurt Locker's glory I am disappointed to say The narrative assumes you are American and followed all the politics surrounding the events so you can follow the passage of time in the film It fails to really portray the sense of futility that the film was going for in the second act and there are no interesting characters Everything seems to just be a reason for the final act to exist which was the best part of the film but still falling short of what Hurt Locker achieved
It does seem to not play loose with the facts but as a film its not that great. This is material that would have been better handled in a book
considering the entire story is fiction i thought it was pretty terrible.
Osama died in dec 2001 of his illnesses which were related to renal failure. he did go for emergency kidney dialysis in june of 2001 with CIA officers present, that is well known. According to Dr. Steve Pieczenik Short bio:+ Show Spoiler +
Pieczenik was deputy assistant secretary of state under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance and James Baker.[3] His expertise includes foreign policy, international crisis management and psychological warfare.[7] He served the presidential administrations of Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in the capacity of deputy assistant secretary
Osama Bin Laden died in dec 2001, it was in the CIA records and OBL medical chart mentioned that he had marfan syndrome. many other news sites report this as well, in fact its still on fox's website if you search for it.
OBL denied being involved with 9/11 three times leading up to his death. after his death the infamous "confession tape" surfaced with a fatter, darker, much wider nose osama who was of the opposite hand for writing.
Good movie, 8.5/10. Most tense part of the movie night was the guy having a seizure, biting his tongue, and gurgling/choking in his own blood as the paramedics came, and a nurse in the audience stabilized him while waiting for that to happen (in the row right behind me, a couple of seats to my right).
Yea, it was an interesting movie showing for sure.
im watching this tonight. better not have any worthless side story of some soldier who isnt good at acting bitching that has nothing to do with the plot progression or the renners charachter when the rest of the movie is fantastic. im a little shaky about the shaky camera too stuff so ill give my review when i come back as long as i dont get banned for something idk.
I watched the movie last night And I loved it. I still like The Hurt Locker more, but this movie was well made. Jessica Chastain owned the role and she was superb. Her performance and emotions was really convincing to me when she was pissed off, annoyed, happy, etc. I agree with the previous posts how there are references to events that they talk about, but do not go into full details. The reference that came up the most was Tora Bora. My friends that watched it with me did not follow the current events a lot, but they understood the references fine since you can piece it together quite easily. I did not find this movie to be a MURICA FUCK YEAH at all. It is just about Maya and her CIA colleagues trying to find the location of Bin Laden. There is not a whole lot of patriotism until the end when they finished the raid.
Really liked this movie. So many people are docking it for not having character development or other elements of a typical plot, even though the nature of the story being told doesn't allow for it. It's based on real events and meant to be true to them, so you can't just change the story to make it more in line with typical movies. The intelligence-gathering and manhunt may not be action-packed, but I found the realism of its portrayal very interesting. By the time the final scene came around my heart was pounding until OBL was dead. Strict realism was again adhered to in the assault scene, considering there was no music played whatsoever. The realism of the storytelling stays consistent throughout, which may not make for a typical movie experience with character development etc, but it still tells an awesome and interesting story. Don't pigeon-hole this movie into what you think movies should be and you'll enjoy it .
I just watched the movie. Started well, but the movie misses and ignores a lot of the stuff that the CIA did on Pakistan and their effects on long term (for example, what happened a month ago with medic without frontiers having to cancel their vacunation program against the polio because of several actions CIA had been doing there for years). What could had been a good documental, turned into just another movie, with a reckless agent looking for vengeance instead of justice that doesn't add or tell you anything new that we didn't know.
Seriously, UBL was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, when some of his closest men are caught, do you think the best way to handle to situation is to follow some sort of "policy" and refrain from torture techniques? be humane to them? and risk them not talking??? its ok, let's let UBL get away with bombing another few thousand people, at least we'll have the satisfaction that we didn't mistreat any terrorists from his camp. .. right? give your fucken head a shake people,
best way to learn the story is to read "no easy day" before, or even after the movie... its the same story from 2 different views, the movie is from the intel point of view, and the book is from the SEALS point of view.. when it comes down to actually killing UBL the stories are almost identical... if you've finished the book first the movie is so much better.
On January 17 2013 15:39 samsonsrad wrote: Seriously, UBL was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, when some of his closest men are caught, do you think the best way to handle to situation is to follow some sort of "policy" and refrain from torture techniques? be humane to them? and risk them not talking??? its ok, let's let UBL get away with bombing another few thousand people, at least we'll have the satisfaction that we didn't mistreat any terrorists from his camp. .. right? give your fucken head a shake people,
We shouldn't argue this here, but you are so fucking clueless it hurts.
On January 17 2013 15:39 samsonsrad wrote: Seriously, UBL was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, when some of his closest men are caught, do you think the best way to handle to situation is to follow some sort of "policy" and refrain from torture techniques? be humane to them? and risk them not talking??? its ok, let's let UBL get away with bombing another few thousand people, at least we'll have the satisfaction that we didn't mistreat any terrorists from his camp. .. right? give your fucken head a shake people,
We shouldn't argue this here, but you are so fucking clueless it hurts.
On January 17 2013 15:39 samsonsrad wrote: Seriously, UBL was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, when some of his closest men are caught, do you think the best way to handle to situation is to follow some sort of "policy" and refrain from torture techniques? be humane to them? and risk them not talking??? its ok, let's let UBL get away with bombing another few thousand people, at least we'll have the satisfaction that we didn't mistreat any terrorists from his camp. .. right? give your fucken head a shake people,
We shouldn't argue this here, but you are so fucking clueless it hurts.
pls elaborate
The torture does not reflect reality...this is a major point of contention about the movie. In reality, torture of any kind resulted in little, if any, relevant information in finding Osama Bin Laden. Or anything else, for that matter.
In a more general manner, torture is an excellent way of getting people to agree to anything you want them to, but absolutely horrible for finding out information that is reliable.
Man, this movie was all shock and cheesy dialogue. It just grabs the audience's attention with a torture scene. The female lead character was the most annoying. It's a clear attempt to depict a strong female character, but the whole "vindictive bitch" act is hackneyed by her. She starts screaming at other colleagues to show how "emotional" she is after + Show Spoiler +
her dumbass friend idiotically lets a suicide bomber get into their base and explode their car, killing her and other agents
. It's painful to hear her trying to act like some tough guy + Show Spoiler +
that line where she's in a room full of a buncha high-ranking officials and says, "I'm the mother fucker" is the most painful part of the film. The whole "I'M GOING TO KILL BIN LADEN" and writing the number of days on the glass... I mean c'mon wtf
.
The movie is overrated just because of that hurt locker writer/director. Hurt Locker wasn't even good. It's the same shock factor that entices audience... just like Deer Hunter and russian roulette.
I liked how the movie depicted what happened in our history for the hunt on Usama, but my main problem with the film is the fact that so many scenes are just drawn out and really take away from the "plot". Probably not the best movie ever created, but somewhat important to see what actually went down for a decade+. Now granted this is a movie so of course not everything is accurate, but it gives you a pretty nice idea.
Just saw the movie. I have to say it's really fascinating, it shows how torture works and the tricks they use to get information, and the slow pace of the movie really builds towards the raid itself.
On January 18 2013 12:18 kamicom wrote: Man, this movie was all shock and cheesy dialogue. It just grabs the audience's attention with a torture scene. The female lead character was the most annoying. It's a clear attempt to depict a strong female character, but the whole "vindictive bitch" act is hackneyed by her. She starts screaming at other colleagues to show how "emotional" she is after + Show Spoiler +
her dumbass friend idiotically lets a suicide bomber get into their base and explode their car, killing her and other agents
. It's painful to hear her trying to act like some tough guy + Show Spoiler +
that line where she's in a room full of a buncha high-ranking officials and says, "I'm the mother fucker" is the most painful part of the film. The whole "I'M GOING TO KILL BIN LADEN" and writing the number of days on the glass... I mean c'mon wtf
.
The movie is overrated just because of that hurt locker writer/director. Hurt Locker wasn't even good. It's the same shock factor that entices audience... just like Deer Hunter and russian roulette.
Supposedly they based the character on a "real" female CIA "agent" that they never met or spoke to. They just heard there was a female CIA "agent" and decided to create the plot around her. When I heard that it turned me off instantly. Annoying the way Hollywood fabricates these over-the-top female lead characters.
Really good, I'm sad I missed Bigelow before because she's an excellent director. As for the movie itself it's dry, doesn't lie on the psychological side at all and focus on the action, and it's really well done. The action sequence at the end is really well done, especially considering there is virtually no opposition. The genre is not my cup of tea but I must admit this is well done. 7/10
On January 18 2013 12:18 kamicom wrote: Man, this movie was all shock and cheesy dialogue. It just grabs the audience's attention with a torture scene. The female lead character was the most annoying. It's a clear attempt to depict a strong female character, but the whole "vindictive bitch" act is hackneyed by her. She starts screaming at other colleagues to show how "emotional" she is after + Show Spoiler +
her dumbass friend idiotically lets a suicide bomber get into their base and explode their car, killing her and other agents
. It's painful to hear her trying to act like some tough guy + Show Spoiler +
that line where she's in a room full of a buncha high-ranking officials and says, "I'm the mother fucker" is the most painful part of the film. The whole "I'M GOING TO KILL BIN LADEN" and writing the number of days on the glass... I mean c'mon wtf
.
The movie is overrated just because of that hurt locker writer/director. Hurt Locker wasn't even good. It's the same shock factor that entices audience... just like Deer Hunter and russian roulette.
Supposedly they based the character on a "real" female CIA "agent" that they never met or spoke to. They just heard there was a female CIA "agent" and decided to create the plot around her. When I heard that it turned me off instantly. Annoying the way Hollywood fabricates these over-the-top female lead characters.
We do not know that really. There are many sources saying that Maya or Jen (another name used in other works) is a real person while other sources say it is an embodiment of different CIA agents. There is controversy revolving around Mark Boal (writer) who presumably had access to confidential government files regarding the buildup to the raid and the raid itself. These are some sources regarding Maya.
On January 28 2013 03:30 MountainDewJunkie wrote: So how much of this was a sort of disguised patriotic movie, if I may ask? I've read a testimony or two that say they didn't feel that way.
The movie does not have MURICA written over it. The movie feels quite neutral unlike the other movie called SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama Bin Laden. Zero Dark Thirty just focuses around Maya and how she and the CIA handled the manhunt. There is a small sense of patriotism right at the end, but it's nothing big.
For people who criticized some of Chastain's dialogue, apparently some of it are spoken words from the real Maya herself. They do not say which lines, but of course, some of it are dramatized. You can find out more in the video.
Agreed with the criticism in this thread. I think Kathryn Bigelow is simply an action director. The last half hour was very well done. Everything before that was not. By all standards of even American political/spy thrillers, the story parts of the movie were unexceptional. I just find it ironic that someone like Haneke will probably receive an Oscar for one of his most non-political films while no one gave two shits about Cache, whereas critics are head over heels about this film which appears political but is in fact unsophisticated and even dull in some parts. I will never agree with the Hollywood aesthetic towards war, the best political films will always be fiction for me.
Given all that I've heard about the infamous torture scene I've been hesitant to watch the film. But I'm sure I'll watch it sooner or later. I may want to show it to my World History 2 class to discuss contemporary issues of terrorism and the relationship that governments have to it.
Wouldnt be surprised if there was a twist in this movie and Osama lives in the end or Morgan Freeman steps in and give some nice speech and everybody is enlightened (kinda like the ending in Inglorious Basterds). Well, thats what id expect if it was directed by M night Shymalan
I just started watching this o.O I think that the criticism of torture being glorified by the movie really doesn't hold a lot of weight. While I don't hate Dan as a character, I definitely have a better appreciation of the horrors the CIA put prisoners through. It's disgusting.
The main problem with this movie was the trailer, the movie is amazing, but its nothing like the trailer and was not what I was expecting at all. In the end I came out liking the movie, but also a bit confused.
They made it out to be some black ops action movie, and instead what you got was an intellectual eye-opening film with very unique cinematography, where not all the information is spoon fed and you have to figure it out yourself. The beauty of this movie lies off the screen, not what is shown to you directly. Very few movies blur the lines of morality, and let the viewer decide for themselves.
Not really a spoiler as it kinda just jumps into and doesn't really affect the plot, but just incase. + Show Spoiler +
I think if I saw the movie again, I would discover a lot more things that I didn't the first time. Things like the torture methods changing after the Obama election, and CIA operatives looking at the change in political dynamics (from Bush to Obama), one of them deciding to retire and trying to convince another to do the same, realizing that they could end up in military court even though they were simply following orders from the previous president.
The trailer just ended up attracting the wrong bunch of people, and pushing away the people that would have actually really enjoyed it. People who are gonna wanna watch the next Rambo are simply not going to appreciate that kind of stuff.
Something like The DaVinci Code where you kind of knew what you were up for would have been better, but this movie is simply the opposite of what I expected and it was really hard to change my train of thought halfway through the movie.