Acting under the cover of a Hollywood producer scouting a location for a science fiction film, a CIA agent launches a dangerous operation to rescue six Americans in Tehran during the U.S. hostage crisis in Iran in 1980.
A young man who survives a disaster at sea is hurtled into an epic journey of adventure and discovery. While cast away, he forms an unexpected connection with another survivor: a fearsome Bengal tiger.
Maya is a CIA operative whose first experience is in the interrogation of prisoners following the Al Qaeda attacks against the U.S. on the 11th September 2001. She is a reluctant participant in extreme duress applied to the detainees, but believes that the truth may only be obtained through such tactics. For several years, she is single-minded in her pursuit of leads to uncover the whereabouts of Al Qaeda's leader, Osama Bin Laden. Finally, in 2011, it appears that her work will pay off, and a U.S. Navy SEAL team is sent to kill or capture Bin Laden. But only Maya is confident Bin Laden is where she says he is. Written by
Jim Beaver <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In an unusual step, acting CIA Director Michael Morell issued a statement about the film emphasizing that while the production team had met with the CIA, the film is a dramatization and is not historically accurate. Morell specifically contradicted the film's assertion that "enhanced interrogation techniques", also known as "torture", had been of significant benefit in locating Osama bin Laden. Director Morell stated, "That impression is false. We cannot allow a Hollywood film to cloud our memory." See more »
As Maya watches the modified Blackhawks take off from the forward base, she lifts her hand to shield her face from the rotor wash. But in the next shot from farther away, she is standing with her hands at her side. See more »
Let's see. I've seen comments like shallow, slow, inaccurate, and so on.
The instant I hear anyone associated with a film start talking about a character's "arc", run for the hills. For that is exactly what I did NOT see.
The novelty of rush to production was beyond evident here. At the risk of dredging up a very bad moment in history, this reminded me of 9/11 in reverse. Instead of watching a suspense thriller (after all, this is the movies and a certain amount of acceptance towards suspension of disbelief has to be, well, accepted), I felt like I was watching a slow destruction of history, in backwards deconstruction. I could not decide if I should get behind the characters and this so called "arc" (I did say run for the hills when you hear that word), or the historical unveiling of events, or just the spectacle.
When the movie ended, I was unable to get behind any of these.
Let's make it simple. Disgruntled employee rises above. Hang hat on premise for 2/3rds of the story. Sorry, worn out premise that fell on its face here.
A good script and good story telling backed by solid characters makes for good flicks. This had none of them. If it had been told in documentary form, it might have stood a chance. That this thing was up for best film of the year is a testament to the fickleness of human nature to back the wrong horse because it might have had an interesting pedigree. In this case, the pedigree was a historical event. This horse needs to be given over to the humane society and delivered to a nice family with a pasture, which is where it should be retired to.
PS, because extra additions are now part of a film's experience (DVD), I must add... when the materials focus on things like "being proud of" or "strove for accuracy" or such things... run for more hills. I find films that are worthy stand on their own with great writing, great stories, great direction, essentially greatness which none of this had. The most memorable take-away of watching this is when one remembers the phrase "they are taking themselves way too seriously". When the work stands, little needs to be said. When productions take themselves too seriously, keep running for them thar hills. This effort took itself way too seriously, down to the extras.
5 of 9 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?