"we don't know what we don't know"
"what the fuck does that mean?"

still perhaps the finest example of the dirty handheld "realism" as it serves bigelow's blurring of firsthand details, dates, facts, events, and timelines into a foreground of abstract obscurity and moral erosion. the hazy information is being fed, the players are locked in knowingly/willingly or not (reduced to images in time and data on screens), the gears are turning, the war machine is self-sustaining now. good luck finding closure in it. for "god and country"... indeed.

About as controversial as the subject matter it's based on, Kathryn Bigelow's follow up to her award winning Hurt Locker succeeds in dividing opinion perfectly. While many may pick apart the movie, and deeply examine specific info, I, on the other hand, just sat and watched this movie that is deeply engrossing at times, especially the climactic end.
Without getting into all the political issues this deals with, Zero Dark Thirty, as a movie, has some excellent performances by several talented actors, and doesnt shy away from the real issues of war. Heck, Starlord himself, Chris Pratt is even in this... that was a great surprise.... 3/5

8 years of obsessive stalking and planning for one guy she couldn't let go...

women, am i right?

finally managed to watch this all the way through. it still is not a good movie. it's cold, lacks empathy (with maybe a few small exceptions), and sides unequivocally with the american military complex. it's worth pairing and comparing this with AMERICAN SNIPER, which, while generally uncritical of Chris Kyle at least doesn't absolve him in the name of a metaphysics of results. both of Bigelow's war movies, this and THE HURT LOCKER, seem to revel in the industry of war. THE HURT LOCKER tries to attend to trauma but manages only to touch on it tangentially. again, AMERICAN SNIPER is worth using as a comparison. Eastwood focuses so singularly on Kyle that witnessing his trauma, his PTSD, the pain, is impossible to avoid. Eastwood makes it harder to just side with Kyle. Eastwood's neutrality, or camera-neutrality, is a singular one. Bigelow's is a siding with America via an exploitation of brown bodies, not legible as persons to the US.

I've seen it twice and it's really good... But I'm totally totally convinced that it's equal to the sum of its parts.
Jessica Chastain KILLS it, I love her. It's amazingly acted, technically sound, insightful, and important... But just kinda hollow. Like it was great, but not transcendent

Even though it's runtime is a little too long, I still found myself engaged with the film and interested with what was happening.  I question some of the choices the film made and felt it was heavy on exposition, but still found myself entertained enough.  This is such a weird movie because I can't really put my finger on why I liked it, I just did, despite its awful characterization coupled with decent acting. The scene with the actual night of the raid though was extremely well shot. Maybe it was the story that interested me. Nonetheless, there is plenty to enjoy here and I think that this is a worthwhile watch if you're interested enough in the story and don't mind the runtime.

Inspired filmmaking turns the hunt for bin Laden into a first-rate political thriller. The final twenty minutes are nail-biting perfection. - ▲▲

she doesn't know where she wants to go.

*my moral compass won't let me actually rate this but. hard five stars. jessica was robbed

i still love it. i swear it keeps getting better, but that's probably because i keep getting older and i'm able to understand it more.

Previously I saw 'Seal Team Six' which told the story of going after Bin Ladeb but from the marine team's perspective. So, when I saw this, at first I was apprehensive that it had a different focus. Over time, however, I warmed up to it, and ended up appreciating it for its different take. Four stars.