Zero Dark Thirty (Bigelow, 2012)

[erikdean]

This was pretty masterful filmmaking from top to bottom.

Procedural yet very suspenseful. Knowing the ending doesn't do any disservice to the path that got there and Boal and Bigelow's careful and convincing depiction of the decade long hunt for bin Laden, the woman that persevered in order to find him and the men that ultimately killed him.

Like The Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty is very intimate even though it's dealing with a such a larger scale event. It's cinematically stylish without ever drawing attention to itself and instead draws the viewer in closer. It's a stunning film.

ETA: I suppose I should comment on the torture element since it's been such a controversial, hot-button issue. I feel like the swarm of commentary about it has been overblown, overstated and utterly ridiculous. Not only is it a small part of the film and story it doesn't shy away from the truth about its use or the validity of it (or lack thereof).

[Aurelius]

The most important question: is it the birth of a new Legend? A Legend of Realness?

[RRA]

The most important question: is it the birth of a new Legend? A Legend of Realness?

Only that the legend of Bigelow grows.

[Rage Colored Glasses]

I think the most telling statement the movie makes about torture is the fact that Jason Clarke's character burns himself out and has to go back to Washington before obtaining any meaningful intelligence. The movie essentially is stating that torture will break the interrogators themselves before it gets anything out of the prisoners.

[Habsburg]

Ur review sux.

Realness?

Not on the same level as Lincoln is it?

[Bean]

I think the biggest question is whether or not Erik went down to LA just to see this.

[erikdean]

I think the most telling statement the movie makes about torture is the fact that Jason Clarke's character burns himself out and has to go back to Washington before obtaining any meaningful intelligence. The movie essentially is stating that torture will break the interrogators themselves before it gets anything out of the prisoners.

This is a great point. Ironic since he kind of treats Maya, at the beginning, like she'd be too soft (female?) to handle what she's going to see. I loved the way they tricked the guy into thinking he gave up information that he didn't. Maya's 'it's not what they tell us, it's what they don't tell us' idea ended up working out pretty well in terms of being able to further pinpoint the importance of the courier.

The most important question: is it the birth of a new Legend? A Legend of Realness?

She is quite the badass. "I'm the motherfucker that found him."

I think the biggest question is whether or not Erik went down to LA just to see this.

I did not.

[Scarmi]

Having ruminated on this for a few days, I think I'm going to come out about where I was with The Hurt Locker: yes, it's a very good film with a perfectly constructed narrative and a lot of thrilling, beautifully shot sequences, but the politics of it are too safe and, like, tailor-made for mainstream American cultural critics (I know that's a little unfair and reductive, but it's more or less my feeling) for it to really be one of my favorites of the year.

ETA: I suppose I should comment on the torture element since it's been such a controversial, hot-button issue. I feel like the swarm of commentary about it has been overblown, overstated and utterly ridiculous. Not only is it a small part of the film and story it doesn't shy away from the truth about its use or the validity of it (or lack thereof).

I mean, the fact that the film's presentation doesn't quite match the truth is the problem, isn't it? I've already talked a lot in the news thread about my views regarding how this film treats torture and my broader problems with the relationship between the making of this film and reality, and I don't want to be obnoxious, so that's all I'll say about it for now, but I think this sort of misstates the controversy--no one ever accused the film of "shying away" from the issue.

[RRA]

On that issue I'm reminded of the controversy over Oliver Stone's JFK from back in the day for allegedly misleading people into believing Stone's own counter assassination plot theory using garbage evidence and his own creative license. And I suppose could be true, but I would argue why JFK worked so well for many people (asides from being an intensely entertaining, thoughtful murder mystery) is that it made Baby Boomers revisit that dark period in their lives, how that murder seemed (as nonsensical as it was) to set up the next 10 years with Vietnam, riots/protests, Watergate, etc. There had been fringe theories that Oswald didn't kill Kennedy or that he wasn't alone immediately after Kennedy's head blew off, in the 70s you had countless books that were successful enough to force a Congressional re-investigation into the matter. But Stone's movie gave all those lingering questions and that unresolved national generational trauma (plus the aftermath) almost a cathartic release in dealing with it since the public knew Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy. Of some kind. Something Something.

Because quite frankly, Oswald did kill the President. Once upon a time I loved the grassy knoll shooter and all that stuff, but now I'm convinced otherwise if you know you ignore the junk evidence out there. (Of course was he part of a conspiracy and made the patsy for it? Who knows, maybe?) Anyway, Bigelow is being accused of giving pro-torture folks a dramatic narrative that excuses their ideology. Was Stone wrong for giving the conspiracy folks cocaine like JFK, or pushing those folks who thought maybe there was a conspiracy off the fence in favor of it?

[steve4922]

I loved every minute of JFK--one of the most brilliantly edited movies I've ever seen--even though I knew that much of Stone's "evidence" was complete crap.

[erikdean]

I mean, the fact that the film's presentation doesn't quite match the truth is the problem, isn't it? I've already talked a lot in the news thread about my views regarding how this film treats torture and my broader problems with the relationship between the making of this film and reality, and I don't want to be obnoxious, so that's all I'll say about it for now, but I think this sort of misstates the controversy--no one ever accused the film of "shying away" from the issue.

I think what I meant to say/imply was that it's been accused of both flat-out lying that torture of any kind was involved to not making a strong enough case that torture was indeed intrinsic to getting the right information. It's like the film can't possibly win because one side will accuse it being one thing and the other, the other.

I just thought the film did a good job of essentially riding the fine line in the middle so I understand and agree with your comment about it falling into mainstream American politics.

[veritas]

I thought this was a masterpiece in every sense of the word. Impeccable craftsmanship on all playing levels, from Bigelow's direction to Boal's mammoth screenplay to Fraser's delicate touch.

ALL HAIL LEGEND CHASTAIN, THE GODDESS OF REALNESS!

[DirkDiggler]

I thought this was a masterpiece in every sense of the word. Impeccable craftsmanship on all playing levels, from Bigelow's direction to Boal's mammoth screenplay to Fraser's delicate touch.

ALL HAIL LEGEND CHASTAIN, THE GODDESS OF REALNESS!

I agree with every word of this review.

ALL HAIL LEGEND CHASTAIN, THE GODDESS OF REALNESS!

[haqyunus]

I think what I meant to say/imply was that it's been accused of both flat-out lying that torture of any kind was involved to not making a strong enough case that torture was indeed intrinsic to getting the right information. It's like the film can't possibly win because one side will accuse it being one thing and the other, the other.

I just thought the film did a good job of essentially riding the fine line in the middle so I understand and agree with your comment about it falling into mainstream American politics.

I don't think people had problem with that. At least I don't recall it. It was of course the former as you mentioned. Plus that it doesn't condemn torture or it should strongly comes of as anti-torture. Or that it comes as implying that torture actually worked (which had both of these objections a) incorrect facts b) morally wrong.)

[lazarus]

This was damn good. And a superior film to The Hurt Locker (which was very good but probably not worthy of its accolades).

Why isn't Mark Strong in more films? Holy shit that guy is good. Impeccable American accent. He really made this and Tinker Tailor much better films.

Chastain doesn't step wrong anywhere, and it's a challenge to express most of your character's inner life through a constant veil of fatigue. She's the lead but doesn't have an overwhelming amount of dialogue compared to anyone else. Is she Oscar-worthy? Maybe. I don't know that what she does is more impressive than Lawrence, and if it's between those two I'm ambivalent about the result.

Boal's script is better than the one he previously won for as well.

[DirkDiggler]

Why isn't Mark Strong in more films? Holy shit that guy is good. Impeccable American accent. He really made this and Tinker Tailor much better films.

I know! Definitely my favorite supporting performance in the film.

The great Jason Clarke probably has the better shot at a nomination, but Mark Strong will remain my personal favorite. Why doesn't his performance have any buzz?

[MrJeffery]

as with hurt locker, i really appreciated the moral ambiguity of the picture. the more i think about it, the more interesting and deeper the film gets. i don't think it aims to please any particular political pov and the film's second half is quite thrilling, but those expecting gung-ho america! catharsis at witnessing bin laden's cinematic death will be disappointed.

[B. Fallout]

this is definitely the best american film of the year.

[MrJeffery]

wait. that was jennifer ehle?

[lazarus]

Another great turn from her, and I think a supporting nom would be justified.