Zero Dark Thirty

agcohn said:
I agree. I found the film to be almost completely emotionless, which is odd considering the extremely emotional subject matter. There were definitely some deep emotions driving the main character, but we were never really allowed a glimpse inside. She was just another cog in the military machine.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to compare "Zero (oh...) Dark Thirty"(2012) with "Act of Valor"(2012) which had some number of SEALS 'acting'... emoting... uh well... unemoting... in it.

For a military operation... what sort of 'arc' do people think happens...
 
The main character supports torturing people for information, then later suggests dropping a bomb on a compound when she knows she'll kill some innocent people for one man. Is there any reason why I should want her to succeed? It just doesn't make sense.

It was a good try, but I just found her too unlikable to want to continue watching it. I only stuck around because I felt obligated to stick it out due to the subject matter.
 
Last edited:
I found the film was superbly crafted. But it also seemed like disjointed scenes put together at times, and long. The thrust of the story somewhat uneven, and characters undeveloped. I walked out knowing almost nothing about Maya. I realize she is a CIA op, but so have been other characters in films. I know we're not supposed to get political on the board, so I'll only say that I didn't like the message of the film either. Overall, I'd say it's was well made, but uneven, and I think it's being overpraised.

As to recent war films, I would say it's better than The Kingdom, inferior to Hurt Locker or Green Zone.

If you're looking for war reality, don't watch Act of Valor (which did look cool), but see To Hell and Back Again. That film was superb, gritty real. (I have not seen Restropo, which got good reviews as well).
 
RyanT said:
The main character supports torturing people for information, then later suggests dropping a bomb on a compound when she knows she'll kill some innocent people for one man. Is there any reason why I should want her to succeed? It just doesn't make sense.It was a good try, but I just found her too unlikable to want to continue watching it. I only stuck around because I felt obligated to stick it out due to the subject matter.
Click to expand...

Her character is shown initially to be put off by the torture, but as an employe of an organization that sanctioned those activities she hardens and takes part in it. Her character does not take joy in the process, but accepts it as part of the job, and finds that it gets results.

With the bomb; of course she would choose that initially, as sending in people would potentially get her own countrymen killed (something that deeply effected here when her colleagues were killed in the Afghanistan bombing). She would have had to make a tough choice between risking the lives of her own people, or risking the lives of people who chose to harbor and live with the worlds most wanted criminal. She choses the most efficient choice, though it was not accepted and they went with the special forces instead.

Her character is not meant to be likable, but she provides an interesting glimpse into the cold calculating tradecraft that goes on behind the scenes; tough choices have to be made and someone has to make those choices. Whether you want her to succeed or not is irrelevant to the procedural hunt, though the alternative seems the less savory option.
 
You guys might appreciate this 30+ minute interview with Jeremy Hindle (Production Designer), William Goldenberg (Co-Editor), Dylan Tichenor (Co-Editor), and Paul N.J. Ottoson (Sound Designer).

 
I found this movie boooooring. Overall it was okay, not sure why it didn't hit me on another level. I think it was b/c I kept comparing it to the book "No Easy Day."
 
snowleopard said:
I found the film was superbly crafted. But it also seemed like disjointed scenes put together at times, and long. The thrust of the story somewhat uneven, and characters undeveloped. I walked out knowing almost nothing about Maya. I realize she is a CIA op, but so have been other characters in films. I know we're not supposed to get political on the board, so I'll only say that I didn't like the message of the film either. Overall, I'd say it's was well made, but uneven, and I think it's being overpraised.

As to recent war films, I would say it's better than The Kingdom, inferior to Hurt Locker or Green Zone.

If you're looking for war reality, don't watch Act of Valor (which did look cool), but see To Hell and Back Again. That film was superb, gritty real. (I have not seen Restropo, which got good reviews as well).
Click to expand...

I haven't seen this film yet, due to living out in the sticks, but plan to. And I did watch AOV, but thank you for those other recommendations!

I'm sure it would be hard to construct a film based on what little we know about the lives of the primaries involved. And even if we knew more about the key-CIA character I imagine a very boring movie because really she and her cohorts pursued this objective for ten years. Difficult terrain. So I'll see it for the things that interest me that others report, well crafted and such. SEAL team members have commented in the past that they understand that Hollywood needs to do something to make their story entertaining, because much of the truth would put your ass to sleep; A lot of hurry-up-and-wait, go/no-go, and dry holes.

Yes, politics plays into our actions because they are the reality of the objective. But discussing politics of what is or isn't facts is way beyond any of us unless you were privy to a component part of a given action/decision. I'd much rather see a story about the Men and Women hero's that worked their asses off, putting up with politics swirling around them, to bring forth an actionable event.
 
David Jimerson said:
I've seen it. Being fictional, I wouldn't really put it in the same category.
Click to expand...
Consider - there was talk that the Homeland character inspired the writing for the character Maya. Now having seen the show after the film, I see what they meant
 
A fascinating film... I have seen another on the same subject and read a book written by one of the SEALSs on the raid. All three were "non-Fiction" and "Factual" but all three differed markedly in key areas! However the point some one made earlier was despite knowing the outcome and generally what is supposed to have happened from the News reports shortly after the event* the film did manage to inject some pace, tension and suspense. It is a testament to the quality of the film when that happens.

*not all of the official stuff holds water anyway!

I note with amusement a comment about Hollywood distorting history.... This has been the case since Operation Burma in the 1940's Hollywood has played fast and loose with history ever since. For example recently Saving Private Ryan, U571 and Argo. You have to get used to it. A French friend of mine told me that some Hollywood films involving Delta Force in the middle east were in fact French operations.

Re the torture in the film... I can't see what the fuss is about. It is a fact that the US has been using abduction and torture widely. It is a 99.999% certainty that somewhere in the chain of the intelligence gathering in the OBL hunt people were tortured if not in the exact time, place and people shown in the film.

However we have already established that the full story is never going to come out. That there are several differing factual accounts and a 2 hour film is not going to show *everything* from a 10 year operation. It is dramatised and "some scenes constructed for Dramatic effect".

Overall not a bad film considering like Titanic, The Battle of the Bulge and Tora Tora Tora We all knew the outcome anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top