Zero Dark Thirty

[ono]

Touche, but when you list the director of fucking TWILIGHT, there's gotta be something amiss.

[polkablues]

Thirteen was so good I forgive Twilight.

[HeywoodRFloyd]

Just watched this. I absolutely loved it, right up my alley, felt like it was influenced by Syriana (which is a film I quite like, contrary to popular opinion), but maybe that might have been because Alexandre Desplat scored both films.
I think the brilliant track 'Electricity' from Syriana was also used in this several times. A huge cast I wasn't even aware of, small Actors I've noticed and taken a note of from several films were featured here, so my respect for Bigelow just bumped, as I had whimsical intentions of casting them in the future. Surprised by the amount of small but great Australian actors in the film, good on them. Really surprised by why it's rated so low on IMDB. Films usually get overrated in the first 10 thousand votes, not the case for Zero Dark Thirty.

EDIT:
Okay I did a little bit of listening of the actual soundtrack, and it's not the same track, but it's definitely a rendition of that melody from Syriana. It kicks in at the 1min mark

[Cloudy]

I liked it, but I'm not understanding how this is so critically acclaimed at all. The first third of the film might be one of the worst moments in film of 2012 (this is relative to well regarded films), it was so poorly staged and crafted that I was just waiting for them to just move on. Those torture scenes reminded me of Vimeo short films tackling torture.
The film eventually picks up, and I was engaged, but nothing really was overly astounding? I never really cared about the characters, and the OVERLY emotional monologues that were given were tonally out of context from the rest of the film.
It was very interesting seeing how they tracked down these people, and eventually the raid of the fortress was great, but a well-done documentary could have done the job better.

I think the film was lacking FEELING. If this makes any sense. I never really felt emotionally connected, and when it tried to it felt contrived. But maybe this is the point they were going after? I might be seeing this again anyways.

For me, Hurt Locker was a better film.

[The Ultimate Badass]

I liked it, but I'm not understanding how this is so critically acclaimed at all...

The director has a vagina; her movies are mainstream, and viewed by the press as "serious". She also has a vagina.

[ono]

I liked it, but I'm not understanding how this is so critically acclaimed at all...

The director has a vagina; her movies are mainstream, and viewed by the press as "serious". She also has a vagina.

This.  Also because Bin Laden.  'Murrica!  USA!  USA!  USA!

[Frederico Fellini]

I liked it, but I'm not understanding how this is so critically acclaimed at all...

The director has a vagina; her movies are mainstream, and viewed by the press as "serious". She also has a vagina.

Putting Ultimate Badass's blatant misogyny aside for a second... She makes really good movies. That's why.

[MacGuffin]

Martin Sheen, Ed Asner Join 'Zero Dark Thirty' Protest (Report)
The actors are voicing disapproval over the Oscar-nominated film's depiction of torture as a strategy in the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
Source: THR

Martin Sheen and Ed Asner are joining the protest against the hotly debated torture scenes in Zero Dark Thirty, Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal's Oscar-nominated nail-biter about the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

Hands down the most controversial film of awards season, Zero Dark Thirty has drawn complaints that it glorifies torture and also suggests that torturing prisoners played a crucial part in tracking down bin Laden.

Both Sheen and Asner have issued an appeal to fellow actors to let their conscience guide them in deciding whether to cast a best-picture Oscar vote for the movie, reports CBS' Los Angeles affiliate station.

The two are siding with David Clennon, an actor who is also a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science, in his campaign urging other members to "sign on to the letter," according to the Los Angeles Times.

"One of the brightest female directors in the business is in danger of becoming part of the system," Asner was cited as saying in a press release.

A rep for Asner did not immediately respond to THR's requests for comment. Sheen's publicist could not immediately confirm the actor's involvement in the memo to Oscar voters.

Zero Dark Thirty has been nominated for five Academy Awards, including best picture, but in a surprising snub, Bigelow did not make the cut in the best director category.

It opened in limited release last month and wide Friday, raking in $9 million and putting it on course to earn $25 million-plus at the weekend box office.

On Friday, Sony Pictures Entertainment co-chairman Amy Pascal jumped to Bigelow and screenwriter Boal's defense against charges it justifies terrorism, saying in a statement: "Zero Dark Thirty does not advocate torture. To not include that part of history would have been irresponsible and inaccurate. We fully support Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal and stand behind this extraordinary movie. We are outraged that any responsible member of the Academy would use their voting status in AMPAS as a platform to advance their own political agenda."

Her response came following an opinion piece posted Wednesday on the website truth-out.org by Clennon. "I'm a member of Hollywood's Motion Picture Academy. At the risk of being expelled for disclosing my intentions, I will not be voting for Zero Dark Thirty - in any Academy Awards category," he wrote.

[RegularKarate]

I feel like it's really stupid to think that this movie advocates torture. Is Martin Sheen a real dummy or something?
The movie clearly lets you make up your own mind about the events... is that what scares people? That they are deciding that torture must have been necessary?

[polkablues]

I feel like it's really stupid to think that this movie advocates torture. Is Martin Sheen a real dummy or something?
The movie clearly lets you make up your own mind about the events... is that what scares people? That they are deciding that torture must have been necessary?

I don't think it's a stretch to conclude that the film comes down on the side that torture was necessary and useful.  It makes it fairly explicit that the protagonist (after she gets past her initial squeamishness) and the other "good guy" characters feel that way, and what better barometer for the movie's stance do we have than that?

Even setting aside the question of whether or not torture was a useful tool in the search for Bin Laden, the movie completely punts on the question of the moral acceptability of torture, which is problematic.

Setting all THAT aside, I thought the movie itself was well-made and great and I didn't care about any of this while it was playing .

[diggler]

The film betrays it's journalistic tone a few too many times (the 9/11 audio, the monkeys, "a lot of my friends died trying to do this", "I'm the motherfucker who found this place"), but it is competently made and engaging. I can't help but feel like the last half hour would've made a better short film, though. The film did a pretty shitty job at portraying the passing of time. A few years go by and it feels like the next day, which made the film feel a bit disjointed.

[RegularKarate]

They are essentially "allowed" to torture for the first half and then that's taken away from them. They essentially say "How can we find Bin Laden if we can't torture people?" and then they do... which brings up the question "did they NEED to torture in the first place?"... the film doesn't answer that question.

[polkablues]

Except that they specifically show that torturing the first detainee led to the key information that kickstarted the entire process that ultimately led to bin Laden. The movie is explicitly stating that torture worked. Sure, they have to adjust their tactics later on, but it is never once questioned whether or not torture is useful, it's just assumed and demonstrated to be the case.

[RegularKarate]

Except that they specifically show that torturing the first detainee led to the key information that kickstarted the entire process that ultimately led to bin Laden. The movie is explicitly stating that torture worked. Sure, they have to adjust their tactics later on, but it is never once questioned whether or not torture is useful, it's just assumed and demonstrated to be the case.

It showed that it worked, but it didn't show that it was necessary.
I guess I just need to retract my earlier statement... I see where people are coming from, just don't agree

[diggler]

I think buyoffs are the only thing the movie explicitly says doesn't work. If the movie is saying torture doesn't work, why depict it so much? This movie is not about torture, it's about capturing Osama Bin Laden, and it clearly depicts that torture was essential to that process. Sure that guy gives up information over lunch, but that only came after being emotionally and physically broken (and being led to believe he had already given information). Structurally, the movie seems to be trying to say that torture wasn't essential to the process, but that those other avenues were only explored due to having their hands tied, not due to any moral objection.