Zero Dark Thirty (is it really a spoiler?)

I agree, but I think the timing and the enhanced interrogations hurt her even if she directed them very effectively. This statement from a member of the academy is actually a little disturbing:

So because the movie doesn't match your politics, it can't get a vote huh?

Edited by GomesBolt 2013-01-13 8:17 PM

Haven't worked with any operators directly, but I've met a few over the years and seen some in action, training around bases. 

Seeing the trailers, I was thinking the same thing; they all looked kind of "chubby" for operators.  Even for Ranger-types. 

Unless they were the pilots...

I thought the category was "Best Picture" ... not "Best Picture That Doesn't Offend My Tender Sensibilities."

Roughly analogous to an annual performance review:  "You did a GREAT job this year in your job.  You worked overtime, you got all of your work done, you did better than anyone else in the office.  You made us a TON of money.  Unfortunately, you don't go to my church... so I'm giving the "big bonus" to someone else."

Another data point in my assertion that all awards shows are "ego-stroking douchetaculars."

Just saw it.   It was good, not great, definitely not best picture or best actress.   The intel stuff was mildly interesting, but the raid was first rate, fantastic filmmaking.

Honestly, I thought the torture stuff was surprisingly apolitical.  It was not an "America F Yeah" moment, nor was it an indictment of what happened

My .02

I saw the movie Saturday and read "No Easy Day" yesterday.

They tell the same story.  That statement sounds obvious on the surface.

Not sure why the former SEAL was taking so much heat and the movie received so much praise.  I don't think Tom Clancy ever took much heat.  Granted, he was not recently retired from the military, but his info was just as classiffied as the info released in the SEAL's book.

Bigelow deserves a lot of credit because her political views may not follow what she learned in research for the movie, but she seems to have portrayed the story how she found it.  The intel community maintains that there is significant value from enhanced interrogations.  There was a movie critic on air yesterday who made a great point that what the movie didn't show was the dozens of enhanced interrogations that resulted in no intelligence or in "innocent" people being mistreated until the interrogators had enough. For every 20 successful detainee arrests, there are probably 1 or 2 accidental arrests made.  

I would believe the scene in the movie where the analysts are sitting around a table and they're giving % of probability instead of a yes or no answer.  Then she blows a gasket and says "100%...OK 95% because I know how much certainties freak you guys out!"  

I think the "No Easy Day" controversy was pumped-up by the book's publishers to sell books.  I really don't think it had any legs to it.  

I saw it last night and thought it was ok.  I guess I was expecting more.  Not sure what thought, but left me a little lacking.  Maybe I was waiting for my sock to get blown off like they were with Hurt Locker?

I thought the sec ops guys seemed a little slow/amateur but I have nothing to base that on.  I COULD be that whenever Hollywood does a scene like that (or from all my Clancy novel), they always make them super fast/efficient and "cool".  Maybe it was more real life when you are not sure.

Some little things I noticed:

The main character was upset with the torture tactics at first, then seemed to accept them more and more.

The scene where they shot up her car while just parked on the corner in site of the drive and guard tower?  Um, that guy needs to get fired.  How does he let her leave when he sees two guys sitting in a car on the corner all morning?

I leaned over to my wife and whispered "this is not going to end well" when they let the Dr. through the front gate of the base.  That seems like a poor decision to me.

I think they only shot one women in the infiltration scene, and she conveniently was going for a gun (and "winged" another.  Probably catering to the movie goers sensibilities?  I thought they shot more in real life?  I figure, when you go into something like that, ANY adult is probably a target if you are 14 and over, man or woman, it's probably safer to take them out than risk it.

I wonder why if they were practicing trade craft in security and hiding, why they didn't have a bit more protection (thank goodness they didn't).  A couple strategically placed claymores and some night vision and they could have put up a bit more resistance.  That's always the first thing I think of when playing the "defend my home in a post apocalyptic" game.

I thought the movie was more about the CIA techniques, politics, putting the attacks in-context (the Marriott, the Khobar attack, The London attack, etc.).  I know a guy who was killed at Camp Chapman.  It was sad to see that scene. 

oooohhhh good pilot burn......  $hit wait that's me!  (not military, recreational pilot)

CIA agent Maya made a statement that she was recruited out of High School?  I thought College was where the CIA and FBI and other agencies recruited from..

Was there something I missed about her background.

All coat tail riders have the right to have an opinion.    I have fought to defend that right and will do so in the future to preserve that right.   That doesn't mean I have to take the REMF seriously.

I'll go stand in the corner now. 

"I think they only shot one women in the infiltration scene, and she conveniently was going for a gun"

I read teh book the next day.  What I saw in teh movie adn confirmed in the book was that she was covering her shot husband.

"why they didn't have a bit more protection (thank goodness they didn't). A couple strategically placed claymores"

The book explains they believe there were no booby traps due to children being present.

From the sounds of the book, they were trying to be very careful on who they took out for political reasons.  Just going in and shooting up the place was not an option they were given.

Fun movie... had me laughing at several parts.  The woman playing the lead was great (and hawt!).

The term "enhanced interrogation" cracks me up, too.  Typical modern military over-the-top "PC" attempt to label something to make it sound like it isn't what it is.  It's like the military is ashamed to admit to itself what it does, hehe.  It really makes me miss the days when the military didn't make excuses for itself or what it does.

The Camp Chapman scene disturbed me.  Very sad, and man, did we ever get played on that one.

One thing that I took note of was the higher level view of what was going on within the CIA and the timing of the various notable attacks worldwide. I'd never really had that perspective before of how things tied together.