Zero Dark Thirty

[Devildog]

Took my kid with me to see this movie tonight.

I'm glad I went to see it. I thought it was put together well.

They may have taken some license with the story but overall, I think they got it right.

It's a dark story about killing... But it needs to be told.

[Donuthole]

I saw it last night. It was good. Maybe even very good. However, unlike MG, I thought it dragged quite a bit in the middle. The final 40 minutes is amazing, but there was a 25-30 minute lull in the middle I could have done without. I realize they are cramming a decade into 3 hours, but they probably could have crammed it into 2:20 without losing much. At some points I felt like it was a really boring episode of Homeland.

I have another criticism, but I don't know how to use spoiler tags on my iPad, so ill post it another time. It has to do with unnecessary foreshadowing which stole what could have been a spectacular moment.

[falafel]

Seeing it in about 40 minutes.

[Jacob]

I saw it last night. It was good. Maybe even very good. However, unlike MG, I thought it dragged quite a bit in the middle. The final 40 minutes is amazing, but there was a 25-30 minute lull in the middle I could have done without. I realize they are cramming a decade into 3 hours, but they probably could have crammed it into 2:20 without losing much. At some points I felt like it was a really boring episode of Homeland.

I have another criticism, but I don't know how to use spoiler tags on my iPad, so ill post it another time. It has to do with unnecessary foreshadowing which stole what could have been a spectacular moment.

I agree with this review. Good movie, but not great. Powerful and intense in parts but boring in others.

[MarkGrace]

I saw it last night. It was good. Maybe even very good. However, unlike MG, I thought it dragged quite a bit in the middle. The final 40 minutes is amazing, but there was a 25-30 minute lull in the middle I could have done without. I realize they are cramming a decade into 3 hours, but they probably could have crammed it into 2:20 without losing much. At some points I felt like it was a really boring episode of Homeland.

The movie was 2:37, so it was only 17 minutes of the mark you were looking for. Not bad.

I'm usually the first to complain about movie length (headed off to see Django in a minute, and already somewhat dreading the length of that one), and I wouldn't disagree that it has some lull moments (after the opening torture scenes and the closing 40 minutes, it's hard for some moments to not feel that way in hindsight). But my only real impression walking out of the theater was that it was appropriately long, given that, as you said, they were trying to capture ten years here. I already mentioned it once, but given the length of time, the number of characters and locations, and all the moving pieces, I think they did a remarkable job pulling it into one coherent story. I was interested in it the whole time.

I have another criticism, but I don't know how to use spoiler tags on my iPad, so ill post it another time. It has to do with unnecessary foreshadowing which stole what could have been a spectacular moment.

I think I might know what you're going after here, so I'm interested in what you're going to say.

[MarkGrace]

One other thing. I saw the TV trailer for the first time the other day, and I'd be interested to know how many people were pissed off by the movie they got relative to what they thought they were getting based on that trailer. Reminds me of that lady who sued the makers of Drive because based on the trailer she thought she was getting the next installment of The Fast & The Furious or something. lol.

[Jacob]

One other thing. I saw the TV trailer for the first time the other day, and I'd be interested to know how many people were pissed off by the movie they got relative to what they thought they were getting based on that trailer. Reminds me of that lady who sued the makers of Drive because based on the trailer she thought she was getting the next installment of The Fast & The Furious or something. lol.

I don't think I ever saw the trailer.

but since this was a work of fiction, allegedly, it would have been nice to see Osama squirm a bit at the end. Right?

[MarkGrace]

This is not exactly a newsflash, but Chastain is seriously gorgeous.

[falafel]

This is not exactly a newsflash, but Chastain is seriously gorgeous.

Really? I wouldn't kick her our of bed for eating crackers, but...

[MarkGrace]

Yes, really!

[Maximus]

Can someone explain what "foreshadowing" you are talking about re: runing some scene?

[Donuthole]

I have another criticism, but I don't know how to use spoiler tags on my iPad, so ill post it another time. It has to do with unnecessary foreshadowing which stole what could have been a spectacular moment.

I think I might know what you're going after here, so I'm interested in what you're going to say.

Can someone explain what "foreshadowing" you are talking about re: runing some scene?

Spoiler for Foreshadowing Blunder:

My complaint has to do with the build-up to the bombing that killed Elizabeth Bennett . . . er . . . Jessica. As they were setting it up, I had absolutely no suspicions of a suicide bomb attempt. All we knew was that this guy was inside Al Quaeda and was going to give up some key info. However, as soon as they made an issue of whether to let the guy through security without an inspection, we all knew exactly what was going to happen. Any surprise factor was completely lost, and even before the guy blew himself up, I began processing the stuff which would have been more impactful had the bombing actually taken me by surprise--i.e. the loss of Jessica, how close Maya was to being there, etc.

My initial thought was they should have taken some liberty with that sequence and come up with a made-up reason why the guy didn't need to go through security (or just not address it at all). However, a little googling reveals that the true story would have been better than the one they gave is. In actuality, the guy had already met with the CIA several times prior to the bombing, and therefore was let through without a security inspection. This was the perfect explanation, and was actually true (well, if wikipedia is to be believed, anyway).

Very simply, the movie should have laid some foundation in advance (or afterwards) as to why the guy was trusted and then not addressed the security issue on the date of the meeting. Instead, they chose to make this whole scene about letting him through security without a search because he has demanded it, and the viewer immediately assumes (correctly) the guy is going to blow himself up.

Perhaps that was naive of me to not suspect a suicide bomber (but no more naive of CIA professionals, apparently), but so be it. I feel like if I wasn't expecting it, 90% of viewers probably would be expecting it either.

[MarkGrace]

Spoiler for Foreshadowing Blunder:

My complaint has to do with the build-up to the bombing that killed Elizabeth Bennett . . . er . . . Jessica. As they were setting it up, I had absolutely no suspicions of a suicide bomb attempt. All we knew was that this guy was inside Al Quaeda and was going to give up some key info. However, as soon as they made an issue of whether to let the guy through security without an inspection, we all knew exactly what was going to happen. Any surprise factor was completely lost, and even before the guy blew himself up, I began processing the stuff which would have been more impactful had the bombing actually taken me by surprise--i.e. the loss of Jessica, how close Maya was to being there, etc.

My initial thought was they should have taken some liberty with that sequence and come up with a made-up reason why the guy didn't need to go through security (or just not address it at all). However, a little googling reveals that the true story would have been better than the one they gave is. In actuality, the guy had already met with the CIA several times prior to the bombing, and therefore was let through without a security inspection. This was the perfect explanation, and was actually true (well, if wikipedia is to be believed, anyway).

Very simply, the movie should have laid some foundation in advance (or afterwards) as to why the guy was trusted and then not addressed the security issue on the date of the meeting. Instead, they chose to make this whole scene about letting him through security without a search because he has demanded it, and the viewer immediately assumes (correctly) the guy is going to blow himself up.

Perhaps that was naive of me to not suspect a suicide bomber (but no more naive of CIA professionals, apparently), but so be it. I feel like if I wasn't expecting it, 90% of viewers probably would be expecting it either.

Spoiler for Listen to the base go boom explosion:

Yeah, that's exactly the scene I suspected. And, like you, I had also read about what actually happened because I was quite convinced it didn't go down the way it did onscreen. Here's my suspicion as to why they changed the facts in that sequence: they didn't want to the two bombing sequences to play the exact same way. The scene in the Marriott was them going for the all out surprise, and it would have been redundant for them to do the air force base the same way. I remember one of the criticisms people had of The Hurt Locker is that the bomb sequences started to feel the same (which is fair), and you create that same possibility here by setting up the bombings in a similar manner.

So instead you get the Marriott bomb versus the base bomb and it's a different experience. An unexpected blast where you go "holy shit what just happened?!" compared to that sustained dread of "OMG this is coming and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it." They weren't trying to hide anything from you there -- in fact, I would say they very deliberately tipped their hand and wanted you to know it was coming from a mile away, because walking that next mile was absolutely brutal. I could barely look up.

Of course there real embarrassment is watching this movie and having anything be a surprise at all. I can't believe how many of these things I had forgot about.

[Donuthole]

Spoiler for Listen to the base go boom explosion:

Yeah, that's exactly the scene I suspected. And, like you, I had also read about what actually happened because I was quite convinced it didn't go down the way it did onscreen. Here's my suspicion as to why they changed the facts in that sequence: they didn't want to the two bombing sequences to play the exact same way. The scene in the Marriott was them going for the all out surprise, and it would have been redundant for them to do the air force base the same way. I remember one of the criticisms people had of The Hurt Locker is that the bomb sequences started to feel the same (which is fair), and you create that same possibility here by setting up the bombings in a similar manner.

So instead you get the Marriott bomb versus the base bomb and it's a different experience. An unexpected blast where you go "holy shit what just happened?!" compared to that sustained dread of "OMG this is coming and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it." They weren't trying to hide anything from you there -- in fact, I would say they very deliberately tipped their hand and wanted you to know it was coming from a mile away, because walking that next mile was absolutely brutal. I could barely look up.

Of course there real embarrassment is watching this movie and having anything be a surprise at all. I can't believe how many of these things I had forgot about.

Spoiler for Spoiler:

I guess the main difference for me is that nobody we (the viewing audience) cared about died in the Marriott bomb, which instantly differentiates it from the Camp Randall bomb, even if they had both been unforeseen. Also, the Camp Randall bombing had the chance to lull you into a false sense of security (legitimately, as it turns out) and then blindside you, whereas the Marriott bomb was completely random. In other words, there are enough distinguishing factors that I don't think the Hurt Locker comparison is valid. And since this is a movie where 100% of the viewing audience knows how it ends, I felt like it needed to take advantage of its few opportunities to take you by surprise.

I totally agree with you that someone who is more familiar with the developments is going to know all this stuff anyway. But I put that at less than 10% of the viewing public (which, as you say, is pretty embarrassing).

[Paperback Writer]

Spoiler for Spoiler:

I guess the main difference for me is that nobody we (the viewing audience) cared about died in the Marriott bomb, which instantly differentiates it from the Camp Randall bomb, even if they had both been unforeseen. Also, the Camp Randall bombing had the chance to lull you into a false sense of security (legitimately, as it turns out) and then blindside you, whereas the Marriott bomb was completely random. In other words, there are enough distinguishing factors that I don't think the Hurt Locker comparison is valid. And since this is a movie where 100% of the viewing audience knows how it ends, I felt like it needed to take advantage of its few opportunities to take you by surprise.

I totally agree with you that someone who is more familiar with the developments is going to know all this stuff anyway. But I put that at less than 10% of the viewing public (which, as you say, is pretty embarrassing).

I agree.

Spoiler for Spoiler:

I very much agree. I think it would have added to the suspense to develop the internal al-queda source a little bit. Put a face on him. Make it known that he was a trusted CIA informant. And then allow him to go forward with the plot and bombing. In my view, that's closer to the realities and perils of intelligence gathering. I think the film makers could still have captured much of the same inpending doom with that approach"]