f13.net

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYFhFYoDAo4

Surprised there wasn't a thread for this already.


Saw this on Saturday and thought it was amazing. I am fairly clueless about the politics behind it and didn't know much more about the raid on Bin Laden's compound other than what was reported by the mainstream media. The movie is taking some heat about being "pro-torture" but I think it was pretty much the opposite. Torture and the detainee project are depicted with quite limited results and it does show how other methods and to be honest, luck, helped locate bin Laden.

Really want to see it again.

Both the left and the right have problems with it therefore it must be doing something right  :grin:

Anyone else watch/read any interviews with Mark Boal the script writer?  Guy comes off as a pretentious douche bag in a big way.

I haven't seen this yet but the lead actress seems like she'd be a bit of a distraction, in a good way.  :grin:   Tbh in movies like this I prefer more homely types.

I thought this movie sucked. They turned in into some kind of Jack Bauer/Jack Ryan superhero CIA agent movie about how despite everything the hot chick saves America and gets Bin Laden with just a tiny dash of "was that even worth it?" and "maybe torture sort of sucked but it sort of worked!" thrown in neither of which were very effective or distracting enough from how stupid so many of Mya's scenes were.

Was way too overhyped and expected far too much out of it. Left severely disappointed.

So just like Hurt Locker? :why_so_serious:

Enjoyed this a lot.

Not sure what all the fuss was about re: torture.

In the print I saw there was plenty of torture in the headless chicken part of the search, but actual intel came out of hard work etc. For me it almost crossed the line into moralising about how ineffective torture is.

You could see how the film changed from something originally written about a failed hunt, and not sure it is worth all the nominations it received. But worth the 3 hours.

One thing that did bother me - why does the main character not age at all during what was presumably supposed to be her mid twenties to late thirties?

Because in Hollywood, actresses do not appear to age from their mid-20s to their late-30s.

I really disliked The Hurt Locker while everyone else was jizzing all over about it. I've never really liked any of Bigelow's films. Can't imagine I'll like this one any better.

I didn't think the Hurt Locker was bad, it just wasn't all that great. It just kind of strolled in, sat around for 2 hours and then left, and afterwards I couldn't really figure out why it had there or what we'd done while it was there. Definitely not Oscar material. The only Bigelow movie I've ever given much of a shit about was Strange Days, and that's one of my favorite movies ever.

Hurt Locker wasn't the be-all end-all for the accolades it got, which I suspect are in large part because "omg woman director."

The movie bored me enough I flipped channels after the first half-hour and still have never completed watching it.  I am quite glad I didn't pay theater money for it. 

The Hurt Locker is end-to-end sensationalistic bullshit. Nothing about it made the least sense in the context of a drama film or even a war film. It was a mindless action movie that ended up being pieced together as a character drama in the editing room. There have been many interesting and insightful or plain horrific movies made about the psychological effects of war, but Hurt Locker isn't one of them. Any two hours of Generation Kill far outstrips Hurt Locker in any genre it may chose to place itself.

The single scene of Renner indifferently staring at cereals in the supermarket is so cliché that it should have disqualified the movie for Oscars outright.

It's not about indifference, more like indecision and paralyzed by choice...something that actually happens when you've been in a shithole for a while and come back to the US.

It's about indifference to the choice - he had to choose eventhough it made no discernable difference what he chose. I know the sudden loss of life-threatening risk does this. I imagine lots of people do - it's one of the most well known effects on survivors of catastrophic events. That's why it's a cliché and superficial portrayal of war trauma.

Strange Days and Near Dark are good.

It seems to me that her newer films get praise because their subject matter is more "serious." Sort of similar to David Cronenberg.

I thought Hurt Locker was ok but by the last third I was bored and the sniper scene rung extremely false.

Sheesh. Her best movie is Point Break. Duh.

My fucking mind is blown.

For what it is worth, I thought this was better than hurt locker.

The film benefits from the constraints of the basic story being laid down by history. Hurt Locker had the freedom to follow a standard narrative and did so.

Here is an amazing 7-page telling of the real story, ending with a viewing of Zero Dark Thirty:

The Man Who Killed Osama bin Laden... Is Screwed (http://www.esquire.com/features/man-who-shot-osama-bin-laden-0313#ixzz2Kasi2lcl)

Caught this on on-demand.

For me the first 3/4 were more interesting than the last 1/4 because I'd read 'No easy Day' which the script seemed to follow almost verbatim.

Was rather enjoyable, and Jessica Chastain is what makes the film worth it. Before I thought she was kinda wierd looking, now I find myself thinking all sorts of bad thoughts about her. yum.

Really, it feels like they were so impressed with the lady the character was based on, they told her story and tacked "No Easy Day" on as the blowoff.

--Dave

Just watched it, and overall I didn't much care for it.  I liked the assault, that was aces.  But the hoops they had to jump through in the investigation left a lot out.  Oh and they showed torture is effective at getting solid intel.  My understanding is that is the opposite.

I felt there were a lot of inaccuracies and they were enough to put me off it.  Plus the person who found OBL was indeed obsessed.  And a guy.

Hurt Locker and Point Break are much better intense dramas.   :oh_i_see:

People keep saying this film showed torture as the only way to catch bad guys. Which is weird, because in the print I saw, torture just produced a confused mess, and annoying amounts of hard work were involved in developing useful intelligence. Not to mention the manner in which it laboured on the dehumanisation those involved. To be honest I thought the anti torture message bordered on heavy handed.

I am seriously starting to wonder if there are two edits of this film.

They left the question of torture ambiguous.  The trail to the courier starts with a torture scene, but most, nearly all of the good info that leads to him (and therefore OBL) comes from normal interrogation plus diligent analysis and legwork.  They deliberately passed on the opportunity to carry a message about 'enhanced interrogation'.  It was just one of the things that was happening.

--Dave