/ Zero Dark Thirty
Has anyone been to see it and can offer an opinion?
I think it was backed by an independent film production company, if that eases your concerns about "Hollywood production" (whatever that might mean in the first place)
I thought it was very well done for a (almost) blockbuster, better than Argo in my opinion.
Well put together, well acted action adventure with obvious historical intrest. Gripping even though you know the outcome, and not too many moments where you thought "that wouldn't have happened like that".
> I thought it was very well done for a (almost) blockbuster, better than Argo in my opinion.
Cheers. Yes I can't believe Argo is up for a raft of Oscars. Upon leaving the cinema we agreed that while it wasn't a bad film the story itself was actually better than the film if you see what I mean. Maybe it just goes to show that 2012 was a bad year for mainstream films.
Argo I thought dreadful. Pretty good if you enjoy the Hallmark channel.
ZD30 a much more engaging film, left the cinema feeling thoroughly depressed though. 30 or so minutes of waterboarding and torture at the start doesn't exactly leave you punching the air for the goodies when the bad man in the skirt and beard gets slotted.
saw it and its great
the CIA groundwork leading to his location and the op itself is done very
its a good film
I saw lincoln the other night and can say that DDL is just brilliant in it, the best 'proper' actor we have. However the film, I thought, was again good but not stunning oscar material itself.
I will see zero dark probably next weekend and was wary of it, but now quite looking forward to it, sounds like its a reasonable film.
> ZD30 a much more engaging film, left the cinema feeling thoroughly depressed though. 30 or so minutes of waterboarding and torture at the start doesn't exactly leave you punching the air for the goodies when the bad man in the skirt and beard gets slotted.
There's been a lot of comment about the fact that torture was portrayed in the film as being integral to tracking down Bin Laden, when in fact a number of officials have indicated that this wasn't the case at all. The CIA also seems to have heavily influenced the direction & content of the film with several advisors working with the film makers, so many seem to see it as a propaganda film for them, it certainly seems heavily politicised in this context.
It was also suggest that this was the reason it didn’t win any Oscars, despite being a ‘better’ film than Argo, which is ironic as that’s also a film about the CIA and also distorts the true.
I haven't seen either yet, so can comment, but thought the media comment was interesting.
To be honest, I thought it could do with a bit more Hollywood production. Very dry film with the only chance for any action (at the end) being wildly inaccurate.
If you read the history books CIA wrote the textbook. In the film it doesn't come across as an amateur discipline. It's clear they have a blackhat team ready to go whenever and whereever these situations arise. Officials don't want the public to know about this because they signed off on it and it makes the moral case for prosecuting a protracted war very sketchy.
Argo was better
er, but this is what actually happened no?!
I think he means the effects. They were a bit lame.
Elsewhere on the site
If asked to name a British female climber who stood out at a time when British women's climbing wasn't... Read more