Zero Dark Thirty

musicismylife78

jessica chastain should definitely be nominated. I still dont know if Anne Hathaway will be nominated for lead or supporting, but, i think Anne is going to win whatever she is nominated in, so if i was jessica i'd hope that its supporting actress.

It was wierd to see Coach Taylor swearing.

And how about Mark Duplass, for a guy that started out making indie films, low budget films, you couldnt find a more bizaare dichotomy of appearing in this film which is one of the biggest of the year, major director, major stars. he was the CIA guy, brielfly, who showed Jessica chastain the images about the multiple people in the house.

Jessica chastain was driven in this film, her character was, and she was as an actress. Intense role.

Im still upset about how the film really doesnt take a stand on issues of torture. Maybe Bigelow was just trying to present it, and let the audience decide, but Jessica Chastain is initially turned off by it, then grew to accept it.

In fact, you could make the case that the film suggests torture is useful. They were able to glean information from everyone they tortured in the film. And that what happened to Chastains friend, and the dangerous and violent nature of the work she was doing, made her accept torture as necessary.

If anything I'd say this film almost is militaristic in that it celebrates the efforts of our troops, and it legitimizes waterboarding and sleep deprivation and loud music as torture.

THat said, Hurt Locker didnt really make too much of a statement on war either, despite the subject. There was that scene about the guy in the supermarket, and i think maybe some grumbling about being reactivated and called back, but it wasnt a moralizing and statement filled film

musicismylife78

davidtrios wrote:

PJFAN13 wrote:

Just watched this last night...
Incredible is an understatement
If you happen to be fascinated at all by the planning and capture of Osama Bin Laden, this movie will blow your mind.
Also - if you like action, suspense, great dialogue, superb acting, cool cinematography and being engulfed in a movie, then this one is for you.
Wow.

could not have said it better myself. the first 15 mins or so are kinda of slow, but after that, you feel the suspense and tension throughout the movie. its a safe bet that this picture should be up for best pic and best director.

Its a damn good film, but i definitely feel like stuff like Lincoln, or Amour, Moonrise Kingdom were way better. I think it should get noticed because of Jessica Chastains performance, but i wouldnt say its the best picture of 2012.

DURP

I'm not allowed to watch these movies. It fucks with my P.T.S.D I've never seen Hurt Locker obviouslly. The last military movie I watched was BlackHawk Down and I had nightmares and sleepwalking events for weeks. Even with my medication I do not watch these movies for fear of having episodes while I sleep then the depression the next few days.

whitepants

ZDT finally comes out this weekend in my area and I will see it. I'm really suspicious about the "death" of Osama Bin Laden and I'm curious about how this film presents his "demise".

marcos

I heard it was awesome despite some factual problems but who really knows with the CIA, it's better to keep some things secret anyway. I love anything spy related regardless of truths.

eeriepadave

DURP wrote:

I'm not allowed to watch these movies. It fucks with my P.T.S.D I've never seen Hurt Locker obviouslly. The last military movie I watched was BlackHawk Down and I had nightmares and sleepwalking events for weeks. Even with my medication I do not watch these movies for fear of having episodes while I sleep then the depression the next few days.

that sucks man.

patrickredeyes

81 wrote:

Gotta be better than hurt locker

What was wrong with Hurt Locker?

musicismylife78

like someone else said, this is an edge of your seats type movie. But as i was saying above, for the hype prior to release, and in terms of dealing with 2 explosive topics, bin laden and torture, the film is stunning in its understated nature. And thats a good or bad thing depending on your point of view. I wouldnt want every film to be some sort of treatment on the war and its effects, but going off the 2 most recent Bigelow films, she really doesnt seem like she's pushing an agenda. And if she is, its not an antiwar, end torture type statement.

musicismylife78

patrickredeyes wrote:

81 wrote:

Gotta be better than hurt locker

What was wrong with Hurt Locker?

It was a good film but i was left wanting same with Zero. It just felt like a slice of life movie. A slice of life of war and death to be sure. And i love slice of life films. But i sort of wanted a point. A statement. It sort of felt like just a story or a movie about some soldiers. Obviously people loved the film, but it sort of felt just thrown out there. Heres a story about some soldiers. And thats it. Both films you could as easily say are pro-war jingoistic films as you could say they are antiwar films. No clear statements of any kind are made, and if they are made, they are hidden, quiet, and oftentimes missed. The soldier coming home and choosing cereal threw alot of people, because it seemed to not fit in with the movie, and because it wasnt as clear as maybe it should have been. I think that scene was clearly a stand on the monotony of modern living, the intense situation we put the military in death, violence, murder, horror, and then we have them come home and they make inane decisions like if they want captain crunch or fruit loops, and I think it was a statement on maybe why soldiers would go back, modern living in regular society isnt thrilling. However, the scene wasnt explicit in its points. And I think most people didnt get it. Its just a boring scene in a grocery store i think most people might think.

I guess im more used to more explicit moral war films. Apocalypse now, Saving Private Ryan, Deerhunter, Full metal Jacket, Casualties of War, Born on the Fourth of July, And the countless films post vietnam about returning soldiers, like Coming Home.

Hurt Locker didnt make war sound great, but i think Bigelow had a chance to say something, as she could have in Zero. Some larger statement about how inhumane and illegal torture is. The ethics of going into another country and killing another person, reguardless of who that person is. The 10 year detour from 9/11 to bin ladens death. Im not even sure if thats even discussed in the film, the fact that the reason there werent people to go after bin laden, was because they all were in Iraq and afghanistan. Its hinted at, but im not sure its explicitly stated, "you dont have soldiers to capture bin laden, because we are engaged in 2 illegal and unnecessary wars".

Bigelow is understated. And thats fine, but i think when I see war movies, I think i want it laid out there. This is what its like, this is the situation, this is the reality.

Im still at a loss, as to how, she portrayed torture in maybe the most real and explicit manner, yet in the end the torture is legitimized, isnt questioned, and in effect the movie argues, led ultimately to the capture of Bin Laden. The torture shown is gross, and disturbing. Jessica Chastain winces at the torture, but it ultimately leads to Bin ladens capture. Im not at all comfortable with that scenario.

The Juggler

musicismylife78 wrote:

jessica chastain should definitely be nominated. I still dont know if Anne Hathaway will be nominated for lead or supporting, but, i think Anne is going to win whatever she is nominated in, so if i was jessica i'd hope that its supporting actress.

It was wierd to see Coach Taylor swearing.

And how about Mark Duplass, for a guy that started out making indie films, low budget films, you couldnt find a more bizaare dichotomy of appearing in this film which is one of the biggest of the year, major director, major stars. he was the CIA guy, brielfly, who showed Jessica chastain the images about the multiple people in the house.

Jessica chastain was driven in this film, her character was, and she was as an actress. Intense role.

Im still upset about how the film really doesnt take a stand on issues of torture. Maybe Bigelow was just trying to present it, and let the audience decide, but Jessica Chastain is initially turned off by it, then grew to accept it.

In fact, you could make the case that the film suggests torture is useful. They were able to glean information from everyone they tortured in the film. And that what happened to Chastains friend, and the dangerous and violent nature of the work she was doing, made her accept torture as necessary.

i would agree with this. it was also insinuated towards the end that their jobs got a lot tougher when the new admin discouraged torturing.

musicismylife78

The Juggler wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

jessica chastain should definitely be nominated. I still dont know if Anne Hathaway will be nominated for lead or supporting, but, i think Anne is going to win whatever she is nominated in, so if i was jessica i'd hope that its supporting actress.

It was wierd to see Coach Taylor swearing.

And how about Mark Duplass, for a guy that started out making indie films, low budget films, you couldnt find a more bizaare dichotomy of appearing in this film which is one of the biggest of the year, major director, major stars. he was the CIA guy, brielfly, who showed Jessica chastain the images about the multiple people in the house.

Jessica chastain was driven in this film, her character was, and she was as an actress. Intense role.

Im still upset about how the film really doesnt take a stand on issues of torture. Maybe Bigelow was just trying to present it, and let the audience decide, but Jessica Chastain is initially turned off by it, then grew to accept it.

In fact, you could make the case that the film suggests torture is useful. They were able to glean information from everyone they tortured in the film. And that what happened to Chastains friend, and the dangerous and violent nature of the work she was doing, made her accept torture as necessary.

i would agree with this. it was also insinuated towards the end that their jobs got a lot tougher when the new admin discouraged torturing.

good point. and thats part of the head scratcher. Whatever you feel about obama, the guy isnt an antitorture guy. Gitmo and the other torture centers are still up and running. Its clear, Obama just like bush did, believes that torture is justified and can yield results. In fact, right now, as of a day ago, Obama's new pick to head the CIA, was a guy who had previously been explicitly pro-torture tactics. Bush certainly shares blame for torture being used, but Obama had a chance to completely change things, he could have shut down gitmo, given all suspected terrorists access to lawyers, done away with the disturbing tactics the movie expertly shows. The fact is, he hasnt done any of that. The secret prisons still exist.

I think that was part of my beef with the movie, it seemed like the torture was shown during the bush years during the film, then it was suggested that Obama was somehow standing in the way of these tactics, when he is essentially for them.

Chomsky suggested something, and im apt to believe it, that Obama is more militaristic than Bush. And I think he has a point. Bush for all his major flaws and misdeeds, never went into another country and killed leaders. He killed civilians to be sure, But obama seems to view the solution as secretly going into another country, killing someone and then thats that. Thats a dangerous precedent to set.

I dont get Bigelow. She could have done so much more with this film.

The Juggler

for the record, i think the movie was great...

i believe the obama admin banned the use of waterboarding when he came to office as well as some other interrogation tactics. i think this was what bigelow was getting at in the movie, especially considering the first 20 minutes of the movie.

musicismylife78

The Juggler wrote:

for the record, i think the movie was great...

i believe the obama admin banned the use of waterboarding when he came to office as well as some other interrogation tactics. i think this was what bigelow was getting at in the movie, especially considering the first 20 minutes of the movie.

to each their own i guess. Looking at the top movies of 2012 list, seems like i watch more movies than nearly anyone on the board, and i hardly ever go see the mainstream popcorn films. I love all films, and saw hundreds this year, but most were indie films.

He has the power to get rid of gitmo. What exactly do you think is happening there? Did Obama get rid of the inhumane no access to lawyer "rule". The fact is, any torture, including all those tactics shown in the film are not only inhumane, but also are illegal as defined by the Geneva Conventions. Obamas not alone in refusing to abide by these, Bush did it as well. Gitmo flat out shouldnt exist. In fact, much like the idea of pulling out of iraq, obama in 2008 ran on the idea that he'd close gitmo and all other torture facilities.

What the film shows i think, is the variety of torture tactics used. Yes, i absolutely and obviously beleive waterboarding is torture, but so is sleep deprivation, the use of playing music at extremely high volumes for extended amounts of time, stress positions, chaining detainees up, sensory and light deprevation, withholding of food and water, not allowing them access to bathrooms, and locking detainees up in what seemed to be a wooden box, and denying access to family, and legal counsel. Seems to me every one of these things is still in use, and still is acceptable. The whole point of a place like Gitmo is, its not on U.S. soil, so people can claim detainees dont have rights as citizens. Obama is for indefinite detention of detainees, and the Patriot Act as well.

The 2012 election featured nary a statement on torture by either Romney or Obama, and clearly if he's considering appointing a protorture guy to the head of the CIA, torture isnt a big priority for obama. Plus, you obviously could make clear assessments that things like drone strikes, military commissions, and essentially he's given other countries the go ahead to torture.

If he outlawed waterboarding, thats great, i just dont believe that was ever done. I certainly never saw it.

In my view, i think Obama and his administration, which is essentially the same hawks and jingoists that started the war, all believe that torture is frowned upon by the public. And I think they also know, that many people, and seemingly Bigelow too, this insane and delusional idea that if you torture someone, be they innocent or a Al Qaeda ringleader, that these tactics will yield results. Thats essentially what the film argued and I dont see that point of view out of step with what Bush and Cheney would argue, nor is it radically different from what Obama would argue.

Essentially we are being told Bin laden was caught because of torture techniques. I vehemently disagree.

musicismylife78

The Juggler wrote:

for the record, i think the movie was great...

i believe the obama admin banned the use of waterboarding when he came to office as well as some other interrogation tactics. i think this was what bigelow was getting at in the movie, especially considering the first 20 minutes of the movie.

thats a funny stand for bigelow to take, considering the main character goes from disgust and disturbed by seeing torture tactics to believing thats the way you glean information about taking out bin laden. Either tortures wrong or its justified. And to me, Bigelow suggests that its justified, and that we owe torture thanks for nabbing us bin laden.

Jessica chastain looked like she was going to throw up in those first 20 minutes. Then she comes around to the "torture is justified" paradigm.

Its not like once Bush leaves, during the movie, that Chastain is any less militaristic and forceful and vengeful in how she wants to nab bin laden. In my mind that character would have stopped at NOTHING to capture and kill bin laden. And she has personal reasons for that as shown in the film, what happens to her friend and I think the lack of support she got from the government in trying to capture bin laden. The paranoia she felt in that Al Qeada may kill her too. All that seemed to play into her decision

I didnt leave the film thinking that character, Chastains character was disavowing torture. In fact, it seemed she was completely satisfied with those tactics. The Chastain who told the detainee, "you can help yourself by telling the truth", is the same Chastain we see to end the film. Her mindset hasnt changed.

Chastain gave one of the best performances of the year, and its an interesting movie and gripping, but thats where it ends for me.

That character's objective was to get Bin Laden at all costs by any means neccessary.

The Juggler

less is more sometimes. you gave 2 lengthy replies to my one post. i don't know where to start....

The Juggler

musicismylife78 wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

for the record, i think the movie was great...

i believe the obama admin banned the use of waterboarding when he came to office as well as some other interrogation tactics. i think this was what bigelow was getting at in the movie, especially considering the first 20 minutes of the movie.

thats a funny stand for bigelow to take, considering the main character goes from disgust and disturbed by seeing torture tactics to believing thats the way you glean information about taking out bin laden. Either tortures wrong or its justified. And to me, Bigelow suggests that its justified, and that we owe torture thanks for nabbing us bin laden.

Jessica chastain looked like she was going to throw up in those first 20 minutes. Then she comes around to the "torture is justified" paradigm.

Its not like once Bush leaves, during the movie, that Chastain is any less militaristic and forceful and vengeful in how she wants to nab bin laden. In my mind that character would have stopped at NOTHING to capture and kill bin laden. And she has personal reasons for that as shown in the film, what happens to her friend and I think the lack of support she got from the government in trying to capture bin laden. The paranoia she felt in that Al Qeada may kill her too. All that seemed to play into her decision

I didnt leave the film thinking that character, Chastains character was disavowing torture. In fact, it seemed she was completely satisfied with those tactics. The Chastain who told the detainee, "you can help yourself by telling the truth", is the same Chastain we see to end the film. Her mindset hasnt changed.

Chastain gave one of the best performances of the year, and its an interesting movie and gripping, but thats where it ends for me.

That character's objective was to get Bin Laden at all costs by any means neccessary.

i'm not certain bigelow was trying to say it was justified or it wasn't. i think she was trying her best to give an accurate portrayal of how they tracked down bin laden and (MAJOR SPOILER ALERT! DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM YET. REPEAT: DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THIS MOVIE YET :x :x ) eventually killed him . and whether people want to admit it or not, they did glean a lot of information out of those tactics.

regarding the first 20 minutes--i don't think it was that she was disgusted by what she was witnessing. i think they were just trying to emphasize how green she was and how that was her first exposure to water boarding. in fact, her telling the guy he can help himself by telling the truth enhances the fact that she was more on board with it initially than you think. i thought of it as her playing the "good cop" to the other guy's "bad cop."

great movie.

musicismylife78

The Juggler wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

for the record, i think the movie was great...

i believe the obama admin banned the use of waterboarding when he came to office as well as some other interrogation tactics. i think this was what bigelow was getting at in the movie, especially considering the first 20 minutes of the movie.

thats a funny stand for bigelow to take, considering the main character goes from disgust and disturbed by seeing torture tactics to believing thats the way you glean information about taking out bin laden. Either tortures wrong or its justified. And to me, Bigelow suggests that its justified, and that we owe torture thanks for nabbing us bin laden.

Jessica chastain looked like she was going to throw up in those first 20 minutes. Then she comes around to the "torture is justified" paradigm.

Its not like once Bush leaves, during the movie, that Chastain is any less militaristic and forceful and vengeful in how she wants to nab bin laden. In my mind that character would have stopped at NOTHING to capture and kill bin laden. And she has personal reasons for that as shown in the film, what happens to her friend and I think the lack of support she got from the government in trying to capture bin laden. The paranoia she felt in that Al Qeada may kill her too. All that seemed to play into her decision

I didnt leave the film thinking that character, Chastains character was disavowing torture. In fact, it seemed she was completely satisfied with those tactics. The Chastain who told the detainee, "you can help yourself by telling the truth", is the same Chastain we see to end the film. Her mindset hasnt changed.

Chastain gave one of the best performances of the year, and its an interesting movie and gripping, but thats where it ends for me.

That character's objective was to get Bin Laden at all costs by any means neccessary.

i'm not certain bigelow was trying to say it was justified or it wasn't. i think she was trying her best to give an accurate portrayal of how they tracked down bin laden and (MAJOR SPOILER ALERT! DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM YET. REPEAT: DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THIS MOVIE YET :x :x ) eventually killed him . and whether people want to admit it or not, they did glean a lot of information out of those tactics.

regarding the first 20 minutes--i don't think it was that she was disgusted by what she was witnessing. i think they were just trying to emphasize how green she was and how that was her first exposure to water boarding. in fact, her telling the guy he can help himself by telling the truth enhances the fact that she was more on board with it initially than you think. i thought of it as her playing the "good cop" to the other guy's "bad cop."

great movie.

interesting. For me, i just see torture as completely evil and wrong. And seeing a film like this, like Hurt Locker, where its so open ended, its brilliant in one aspect, but in the other, the absolutist in me dislikes it. I listed my favorite war movies and they all were very "this is war, and this is why its hell". They took clear stances. Bigelow seems content in making films that dont do that. And seeing as how im completely antiwar, and completely anti torture, makes sense why i would be having trouble with these 2 films. Even if they caught bin laden based on information obtained from torture, to me, that still wouldnt justify or legitimize torture as a tactic to be used. Thats what threw me off from the film. Bigelow clearly could have presented it any number of ways. What that detainee went through, its all too clear why someone would admit to something or would make something up, even if they were innocent, merely to stop the torture. That detainee could have confessed to anything at all merely to get out of that hell he was enduring. And thats precisely why torture doesnt work. You can get someone to admit to anything, and those tactics they used were inhumane. But what happens-they get good information from him. The torture is justified as portrayed in the film. I have major problems with this. I dont think anyone should be treated like what was shown in the film. Not innocent people and not terrorists or suspected terrorists, not murderers, not rapists, not anyone innocent or guilty.

The film also by going the "torture provided us with information leading to bin laden" route, ignores the fact that torture isnt only used in that manner. For every person they torture who does have information, theres 10 others who they tortured and nothing was obtained, or rather the person confessed not out of guilt, but rather to stop the torture, or you have people tortured so horrifically they die in custody. Bigelow didnt show any of those detainees. Torture is only shown as something that gets you results. Is it too violent or too harsh a tactic? Who knows, says the film, but it got us bin laden, so theres that.

She could have shown so much more. more on those accounts, but also gone more into depth about why it took 10 years to capture bin laden. The whole film was about Chastain fighting the government who wouldnt take her seriously. But its not gone into detail as to why that was (namely the 2 wars that took time, money and attention away from the goals, and useless tactics like torture, and 2 administrations just not doing anything about it

davidtrios

i think chastian will win the oscar.

musicismylife78

davidtrios wrote:

i think chastian will win the oscar.

I agree, especially since Anne Hathaway was indeed nominated for supporting actress.

That said, Emmanuelle Riva gave a hell of a performance in Amour. Film starred two 80 year old actors, about a husband dealing with a wife going through Alzheimers. It was absolutely brutal, one of the best films of the year, and stunning performances all around. Depressing as hell, but glad its nominated for best picture and that Riva got the nod.

And indeed Chastain's performances was incredible. I thought she should have been nominated for both Take Shelter and Tree of Life. She's has an impressive resume

musicismylife78

looks like i wasnt the only person who felt the film didnt take a hard enough stance against torture