Kathryn Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty remains one of the most guarded films of 2012 as only this morning did we learn James Gandolfini plays a major role in the picture and the film comes out only two months from now on December 19. Well, it appears the veil is slowly lifting as today we also get a new trailer for the film, which centers on the hunt to capture Osama bin Laden and this time we're getting a lot more of the story as the teaser offered little to nothing.
Written by Mark Boal (The Hurt Locker), Bigelow explained the origin of its title saying it comes from the, "[The] military term for 30 minutes after midnight [as well as] the darkness and secrecy that cloaked the entire decade-long mission."
Here's the official synopsis:
For a decade, an elite team of intelligence and military operatives, working in secret across the globe, devoted themselves to a single goal: to find and eliminate Osama bin Laden. Zero Dark Thirty reunites the Oscar-winning team of director-producer Kathryn Bigelow and writer-producer Mark Boal (The Hurt Locker) for the story of history's greatest manhunt for the world's most dangerous man.
Among the members of the cast, including Gandolfini, are Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Joel Edgerton, Mark Strong, Jennifer Ehle, Kyle Chandler and Edgar Ramirez.
Check out the brand new trailer below and leave your thoughts in the comments.
Cannes 2013: Weinsteins Unveil Footage of 'Grace of Monaco', 'Salinger' and 'Mandela'
'The Past' (2013) Movie Review - Cannes Film Festival
'Frances Ha' (2013) Movie Review
'Jimmy P.' (2013) Movie Review - Cannes Film Festival
'The Congress' (2013) Movie Review - Cannes Film Festival
First 'Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom' Poster, Starring Idris Elba
Cannes 2013: 'Jimmy P.' Movie Trailer, Starring Benicio Del Toro and Mathieu Amalric
Watch: Full 'Europa Report' Trailer
Final 'Pacific Rim' Trailer
'The Hangover Part III' Red Band Trailer
'Last Vegas' Trailer
I think nods for Picture, Editing, and sound. but that doesn't matter to me, just as long as we get a great film.
Wow .. I had long held the belief that Zero Dark Thirty won't be a major oscar player, but after looking at this it seems as if it's right in the thick of things. The thing that worked with this trailer is that it looks like an emotional thriller drama, whereas with previous trailer it gave an impression to be an action thriller. Now obviously with strong emotions involved, and Bin Laden killed not long ago, ZDK will be invoke sentimental feelings which might play very well with the Academy. I will put this right up in my Best Picture slot. Oh God, is this the most competitive year that oscars has ever seen.
Initially people thought Life of Pi will be a misfire but it turned out to be great, then Lincoln also looks like very good. Now this. [I have very little doubt that ZDK will not turn out to be super good]. I think if Django Unchained also turns out to be good Academy members are going to have a serious headache [though a nice one to have] and so will the oscar experts.
Agree. I'm actually perplexed as to why "this" was not the original trailer released to the movie-going public. The first trailer made me laugh as it looked like a B-movie release. It was trying too hard. The melodramatic undertones and the narration by Mark Strong suit this trailer very well and 'makes' me want to see this movie.
Mark Strong - The guy simply gets better w/every movie.
Also, with so many great movies coming one after the other, I think the movies coming out later will hold advantage. If ZDT turns out to be what trailer suggests, chances of nominations for films like Moonrise Kingdom, Beasts of Southern Wild and even Master will start diminishing. Argo will definitely be nominated but much of it's shine would be taken away by ZDT because of similarity in the theme.
New trailer makes me very excited for this one. Still don't think it'll be an Oscar contender. Just not up the Academy's alley.
This is actually a very interesting yet sad statement - if true. "...Just not up the Academy's alley..." Then what does that statement say about the Academy? If this is a true statement, then the Academy marginalizes itself. And if that's true, then the awards process along w/the awards themselves are irrelevant.
It looks good. cinematic.
You know where the story is going. The ending in particular.
I can guess they'll be moments of tension...some real, some contrived for movie sake.
I don't know.
I liked the The Hurt Locker, but I hope this isn't the pro US military propaganda film I feared and was relieved The Hurt Locker wasn't.
Oh come on, you honestly think this will be anything other than a "pro US military propaganda film"? KB's Oscar acceptance speech was practically a blow job to the US military...
Your take on Bigelow's "appreciation" of the military is rather interesting. I like to refer back to this Seinfeld clip (minute 1:20 and Kramer's comment) when thinking about her "appreciation" of the military and access granted to her. You don't bite the hand that feeds you, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahLEaVzBMuQ
This movie is now at the top of my most anticipated. Trailer makes it look gripping and lean. This might be the first really enthralling movie involving the US military presence in the Middle East.
Green Zone was unwatchably preachy (I made it about halfway before putting it back in the Netflix sleeve). The Kingdom was done fairly well, and tried to present both sides of the story, especially in the final few scenes, but I didn't feel connected to any of the characters. Act of Valor was better than expected, but too stylized and melodramatic, which is odd, considering the oft-mentioned "real deal" soldiers in the lead roles.
I've seen a few other US / Mideast movies I can't think of off the top of my head, but many of them I just avoid at this point. Too many of them seem like nothing more than the director presenting loaded strawmen arguments for some debate. When what I'm paying for is a movie.
Green Zone was refreshing, because it was nice to see a film that didn't portray the US military as "good, democracy spreading heroes." It seems people only criticize a film for being "preachy" when it has a liberal bias. I never hear anyone complaining about stuff like Homeland, The Deer Hunter, The Pursuit of Happiness and Black Hawk Down for being "preachy." I wonder why...
You are aware that you are accusing me of disliking Green Zone -- not because of acting, cinematography, editing, storytelling technique, dialogue or any other artistic merit -- but because you infer I disagree with its political angle . . . after you praised the same movie as "refreshing", providing no reason for this other than the fact that you happen to, y'know, agree with its political angle. Self-awareness check.
My point is that I prefer movies that focus on character, where you engage with the people on screen as human beings (like Renner's character in The Hurt Locker), even in a comedy, action movie, whatever. If a movie exists solely because the filmmakers are pushing an agenda (even if I happen to agree with said agenda), then it's more difficult to suspend disbelief and fall into the movie. I'm pulled out of the world of the film by the almost-visible strings of the director trying to yank the audience around. It's distracting.
But the characters are SOOOOOOO compelling in 'Green Zone', like #OtherRoyMiller, Right Wing Jerkass, Moustache Soldier, Dumb Journalist and Iraqi Guy who pulls a Steve Buscemi/Billy Madison at the end (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba2VaalmijM).
I accused you of nothing. I was responding to your criticism that the film was "preachy" and I made a general observation about how it seems that many conservative films do not receive the same criticism. That's all I said.
You've never heard of criticisms of The Deer Hunter's politics? Really?
Jonathan Rosenbaum: "Try and imagine a boneless elephant sitting in your lap for three hours while you’re trying to think. It’s flabby beyond belief, convinced not only of its importance but its relevance to Americans (i.e., human beings) everywhere, and even winds up bleating a mournful rendition of “God Bless America” in your ear, hoping that you’ll join in or at least have sympathy for its plight. Waving its snout in your face, it asks you to suspend whatever precious intelligence that you have in exchange for a good cry about what nasty old Vietnam has done to poor beleaguered America."
Pauline Kael: "The Vietcong are treated in the standard inscrutable-evil Oriental style of the Japanese in the Second World War movies ... The impression a viewer gets is that if we did some bad things there we did them ruthlessly but impersonally; the Vietcong were cruel and sadistic."
John Simon: "For all its pretensions to something newer and better, this film is only an extension of the old Hollywood war-movie lie. The enemy is still bestial and stupid, and no match for our purity and heroism; only we no longer wipe up the floor with him -- rather, we litter it with his guts."
But forget critics: how about the actual Vietnam veterans who protested the film as a "bloody lie"? Or the film's freakin' producer Spikings, who suggested, “there was a lot wrong with The Deer Hunter. Would I make a different movie today? Hopefully. It would be more careful about the Vietnamese people. We defamed them. And I regret that ... ”
I admire you for actually taking the time to search out criticisms of that film; but do I hear people criticize Deer Hunter for being preachy in the comment section of articles every so often? No, I don't.
I'm starting to wonder where these movies are that made Green Zone sush a refreshing change for you. Can you help me out with some of the US / Mideast movies that are the gung ho propaganda pieces that have sickened you?
Going back to Three Kings, the protags were US soldiers disobeying orders so they could plan a theft.
In Stop Loss, our hero is accused of going AWOL and deserting the US military.
In Rendition, our hero is uncovering US torture as a form of routine policy.
In The Kingdom, the US agents are presented as equally vengeance-seeking as the terrorists, on no higher moral ground than the enemy.
The Hurt Locker is focused on its main character to the exclusion of the broader political issues behind the whole situation.
Syriana presented the US and Middle Eastern authorities simply cynically using lives to haggle over oil prices.
Going all the way back to what could be considered the first movie of this genre, even Courage Under Fire was more a straightforward mystery with military trappings, not a propaganda piece for the US military.
I'm having trouble spotting all these US / Mideast movies where Hollywood shows the US coming in to save the day as the noble peacekeeping forces taking the high moral road. These movies that, by contrast, make Green Zone so refreshing for you. Where are they? Help me out.
Well, it seems pretty obvious to me (with your hyperbolic statements) that you really want to get me angry and start a long fight and I'm not that susceptible to provocation.
You seem more interested in getting in a fight in which there must be a clear "winner" or "loser," but if you actually want an honest response to your question, here are some films which present a conservative bias (Note: no one limited the field to "US / Mideast" films. It seems YOU made that specification in an attempt to make the field more narrow, nice try ;) In fact, this wasn't even a conversation about the portrayal of the US military in films. I originally said "it was nice to see a film that didn't portray the US military as "good, democracy spreading heroes." It seems people only criticize a film for being "preachy" when it has a liberal bias." - The thesis was that people don't seem to be as vocal when the bias is conservative. So I don't know why you're limiting the conversation to "US military" films, and then even more specific: "US / Mideast" films. My point was about liberal vs. conservative bias in general, so let's not muddy the waters.
I've already listed 3 films:
The Deer Hunter
The Pursuit of Happiness
Black Hawk Down
but I could easily list more:
The Expendables 2
Rambo: First Blood Part II
Act of Valor
Live Free or Die Hard
The Avengers
Captain America
The Dark Knight Rises
Saving Private Ryan
Master and Commander
The Lord of the Rings
Dirty Harry
Top Gun
The Patriot
The Incredibles
Forest Gump
300
Juno
Braveheart
Red Dawn
United 93
All of these films present conservative ideas and themes and are rarely criticized as "preachy."
my ideal war film would be AS vs. internet comment sections. the politics, the violence, the anger, and inevitably - hopefully - the redemption.
would it stink up the oscars? i'd guess hell yes!
"All of these films present conservative ideas and themes and are rarely criticized as "preachy.""
Seriously? Is this a joke?
Dirty Harry
Newsweek: "a right-wing fantasy."
Variety: "a specious, phony glorification of the police and police brutality with a superhero whose antics become almost satire."
Pauline Kael: "single-minded attack against liberal values."
The Patriot
Jonathan Foreman: "The most disturbing thing about The Patriot is not just that German director Roland Emmerich (director of Independence Day) and his screenwriter Robert Rodat (who was criticized for excluding British, Canadian (Juno Beach) and other Allied soldiers from his script for Saving Private Ryan) depicted British troops as committing savage atrocities, but that those atrocities bear such a close resemblance to war crimes carried out by German troops — particularly the SS in World War II. It's hard not to wonder if the filmmakers have some kind of subconscious agenda....They have made a film that will have the effect of inoculating audiences against the unique historical horror of Oradour — and implicitly rehabilitating the Nazis while making the British seem as evil as history's worst monsters..."
Paul Krugman: "The Gibson character was presented as a man who refused to get involved until his own family was hurt — then, he went to war for personal revenge....As Lind said, the truth is that that's more or less the opposite of patriotism, which is about making sacrifices for the national good, not serving your personal motives or interests."
300
Kyle Smith: would have pleased "Adolf's boys."
Dana Stevens "a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war."
Roger Moore "fascist art."
These films and others have been criticised for their values. The problem people have with 'Green Zone' is that it doesn't try to hide its agenda with anything dramatically satisfying. You just know Greg Kinnear is a conservative jerkass because he spouts cliches, you know Matt Damon is the hero because he screams right-baiting arguments like "What the fuck you talking about? Of course it fucking matters! The reasons we go to war always matter! It's all that matters! It fucking matters!" and you know Khalid Abdalla is meant to represent THE ENTIRE IRAQI PEOPLE when he suggests, "It is not for you to decide what happens here." Characters literally scream their political agendas by the end: that kind of writing IS preachy, and deserves to be called that.
Kubrick would have been the only person who could have done it justice...
No, actually, that was the specific genre I was mentioning from the very beginning . . . not all films at any time mentioning anything related to the US. You are incorrect in guessing what I was thinking, which is odd, considering I spelled it out quite clearly for you.
@Jarrod: Way to miss the point...
Honestly, you'd think I'd have to spell everything out in order to make a very simple point.
If you search out criticisms will you find them? Of course! What, you think I'm the only human being who has made these observations about those films? Of course not. Let's remember what my point was: these films RARELY get criticized for being preachy. When they came out, some criticized them, yes, but how many people do you see complaining about them in the comment section of articles these days? Cause I haven't noticed anyone. That was my point. Green Zone? That film came out 2 years ago and flopped at the box office but for some reason people just won't shut up about Matt Damon and his "liberal agenda." Same thing with Michael Moore (although he makes documentaries). It's a double standard, THAT was my point. Try to see the forest through the trees sometime.
Oh, and you'll have to point out where I claimed Green Zone's political message was subtle, cause I never did....
@Scott:
"No, actually, that was the specific genre I was mentioning from the very beginning . . . not all films at any time mentioning anything related to the US. You are incorrect in guessing what I was thinking, which is odd, considering I spelled it out quite clearly for you." - Um, if you refer back to my initial response, my thesis, as I said above, was that films with liberal agenda's tend to be accused of being preachy more than films with a conservative agenda. Nothing was said about US military films specifically. Again, here was my quote:
"It seems people only criticize a film for being "preachy" when it has a liberal bias." - That was the argument I was making. Perhaps I should have spelled it out more clearly for you.
Now that we've cleared that up, you asked me: "Where are they? Help me out."
I provided you with a long list of films. I helped you out. I answered your question, now please respond.
@AS
"Honestly, you'd think I'd have to spell everything out in order to make a very simple point ... Let's remember what my point was: these films RARELY get criticized for being preachy. When they came out, some criticized them, yes, but how many people do you see complaining about them in the comment section of articles these days?"
Oh, I get what your "point" was - it's not that difficult - I just don't agree with its premise. You suggest that 'Green Zone' gets unfairly tarnished because ... people on comments sections don't like it. Thanks, got it. In contrast, I posit that many of the conservative films are also criticised ... by people in the media: i.e. people that others actually read. The idea that you think that films like 'The Deer Hunter' are not criticized for their political agenda is absurd when, like, everyone associated with that film (minus Cimino and a few others) suggests that the cast singing "God Bless America." It's not something that I needed to do 12 hours of research about to find: it's common knowledge. Same with many of the other films on the list: 'Saving Private Ryan' and 'Top Gun' are commonly, commonly criticised by many left-leaning critics and writers. 'Top Gun' has more than once been referred to as a "recruiting video". You reference all these films and say that "people don't seem to be as vocal when the bias is conservative", but given how many times that these films have been criticised (and I have shown that these films have been criticised by many writers), then your "thesis" seems more than a little naive, at best.
@Jarrod
You get part of my point, but you're still hung up on this issue of "there ARE critics who have criticized conservative films." Absolutely there are. I'm not debating that. But I wasn't speaking about film critics. I was speaking about general commenters, like you and me. Whenever I see a film labeled "preachy," it always has a liberal bent. This is not an argument that can be proven, necessarily, since it's too general in nature. But this was intended as more of an observation than an argument.
@AS
I got your point. You complained that people on message boards only suggest that left wing films are preachy. My point is that ... crap left wing films are criticised for being preachy. At no point have you explained why a film with dialogue such as "What the fuck you talking about? Of course it fucking matters! The reasons we go to war always matter! It's all that matters! It fucking matters!" and "It is not for you to decide what happens here" shouldn't be called 'preachy'. You just suggest that commentators bitch about left wing films and never complain about right wing films. There is no evidence to support this thesis, though.
@Jarrod
Okay, the first part of your comment is entirely irrelevant because it assumes that I referred to Green Zone as subtle. I never have. So I don't understand why you continuously bring up how flawed it is. I never said it wasn't flawed and that it shouldn't be criticized. If I did say that, please quote me so that I know what you're referring to.
"You just suggest that commentators bitch about left wing films and never complain about right wing films. There is no evidence to support this thesis, though." - I provided a very long list of conservative leaning films that I have never heard referred to as "preachy" by commenters.
"I never said it wasn't flawed and that it shouldn't be criticized." And yet you criticise others for criticising it. Funny that.
We keep going around in circles: you say that other commentators don't criticise those films as being preachy or having an agenda, but I have cited plenty of examples of those films being rubbished for their agendas ... by people in the media. You just cited a list of films and said that those films never get criticised by tallbackers. But you can't PROVE that assertion. It's just anecdotal evidence: oh, well I only ever see 'Green Zone' being criticised and not right wing films, blah, blah, blah. You can list about as many films as you like, but until you prove that those films are not criticised and that Green Zone is because it is left wing, then the argument doesn't hold water.
@Jarrod
"I never said it wasn't flawed and that it shouldn't be criticized." And yet you criticise others for criticising it. Funny that." - Nope. I never criticized anyone for criticizing Green Zone. Again, back up your assertions with quotes. What I said was this: "Green Zone was refreshing, because it was nice to see a film that didn't portray the US military as "good, democracy spreading heroes." That is the only positive thing I said about Green Zone in all of these comments. So again, if you're going to make statements like that, you have to quote me, otherwise you're just putting words into my mouth.
In my last comment I said: "Okay, the first part of your comment is entirely irrelevant because it assumes that I referred to Green Zone as subtle. I never have. So I don't understand why you continuously bring up how flawed it is. I never said it wasn't flawed and that it shouldn't be criticized. If I did say that, please quote me so that I know what you're referring to." - I'm still waiting for you to quote me on that point...
"We keep going around in circles: you say that other commentators don't criticise those films as being preachy or having an agenda, but I have cited plenty of examples of those films being rubbished for their agendas ... by people in the media." - Yes, exactly, people in the media. If you'd pay closer attention to my responses, you'd have a better understanding of my thesis. I will draw your attention back to a statement I made earlier: "But I wasn't speaking about film critics. I was speaking about general commenters, like you and me." - I don't know how much clearer I can be on this point.
"You just cited a list of films and said that those films never get criticised by tallbackers. But you can't PROVE that assertion. It's just anecdotal evidence" - Once again, please read my responses carefully. I said "Whenever I see a film labeled "preachy," it always has a liberal bent. This is not an argument that can be proven, necessarily, since it's too general in nature. But this was intended as more of an observation than an argument." - That statement was pretty straightforward and I don't think there's much room for interpretation.
@Jarrod
I know you still haven't responded to my last post, but I was just reading the comment section of an article and this ties in wonderfully with my point. Make note of the comment made by "Fred" -
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/will-kathryn-bigelows-bin-laden-movie-zero-dark-thirty-blow-audiences-or-away-or-be-dead-on-arrival-20121019
Oh, wow: one person - out of 17 comments - accuses Green Zone of being histrionic. He didn't argue with it because it features a 'message'. And I don't see any problem with a film being accused of having a message when one character literally says, "It is not for you to decide what happens here."
What is your opinion of the film: SYRIANA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTa2PTcycyI
Oops, The Hurt Locker was a great movie, focusing on the main character to the exclusion of political preaching one way or the other. So ZD30 will be the SECond enthralling movie involving the US / Mideast, in my opinion.
I didn't like Hurt Locker the way everybody else did but I must say that this looks crazy good. Hurt Locker's budget was minuscule probably compared to this and what Bigelow did with it was unbelievable. Ratcheting up the tension was masterful on that and it'll be really cool to see that again with this.
As for it's oscar chances, I think it'll get recognized in probably every tech category. The cinematography already looks oscar winning. The bigger categories are a crapshoot. I can easily see Chastain getting a nomination in Lead Actress for this mostly because of the weakness of the category and if it's a great performance, I see her being the winner. I think it will get in for Picture if it's well received but Director is a really competitive race, plus Bigelow won in 2010. We shall see.
It's really funny because it seems like the movies aimed towards Oscar, are the movies that are actually turning out to be the standouts this year. Only Looper and The Perks of Being A Wallflower have been standouts this year, among a slate of films racked with high expectations. Who knows, maybe the Best Picture nominations, really will be THE best in this year?
I stopped watching or even acknowledging the Oscars a couple of decades ago because I don't place any value in them at all. I was sick of movies being given awards for their topic rather than their craft (Historical/Socially Relevant movies win: Horror, Sci-Fi etc doesn't get a look-in). Remember when that South Park episode about killing Bin Laden won an award even though it was one of the show's lamer efforts?
Yes!! Looks exciting, Kathyrn Bigelow is one of my favorite directors. I can see Jessica Chastain getting a nod (2nd year in a row) for Lead or Supporting Actress here...hopefully. Can see this getting nods for some of the technical categories including Editing & Sound Mixing. Also, Picture. This is my number 2 anticipated movie rest of the year so I really hope ZDT doesn't let me down.
One thing that stood out was how prominent Chastain's character is in the trailer. She seems to be the film's lead, based on the trailer. So if her performance is great, I think it'd make sense for her to be campaigned under Lead Actress rather than Supporting. She'd have more of a chance with Lead, I think. I could see her knocking out Knightley for a position in the top five. Lawrence, Cotillard, and Wallis seem like locks at this point, while the other two positions could be taken by anyone. Winstead, Riva, Knightley, Watts and Mirren are all in contention, but Chastain could sneak in there. The field's still wide open.
The academy will give this one a nod. But if it wins, I just seriously hope THEY GIVE IT FOR THE RIGHT REASONS...I don't want another King's Speech vs. Social Network
I like a couple of Bigelow's films, but I just couldn't like 'The Hurt Locker' as much as I wanted to when I watched it although I appreciated at the time it wasn't interested in the larger politics specifically as much as what the people on the ground doing that job actually have to do and try to look at the psychology of it.
I really did want to like it more.
I don't believe right now this is a film I'll make a special effort to see in cinemas unless it garners a lot of Awards momentum, but it's probably one that I would eventually try to see regardless.
This is kinda dumb, but is that Jeremy Irons at the 1:40 mark? It looks kinda like him, but I can't tell.
That looks like Michael-Mann-in-his-prime quality filmmaking.
I can't explain why, but some part of me totally needs to see how that night went down. Sort of like United 93. I just needed to go through it.