Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Osama bin Laden’

Yeah, That’ll Do…

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 31, 2026| 3 Comments »

“Civil War” (2024) — movie review
Today’s review is for the near-future action / political thriller “Civil War”, starring Kirsten Dunst as Lee Smith (a veteran war photojournalist who has seen too much and is running on instinct and exhaustion);  Wagner Moura as Joel (a fellow journalist chasing danger with a mix of adrenaline and denial);  Cailee Spaeny as Jessie (a young, inexperienced photographer trying to learn what the job really demands);  Stephen McKinley Henderson as Sammy (an older reporter whose calm presence masks how fragile the moment has become);  and Nick Offerman as the President (a leader clinging to power as the country fractures around him).  Directed by Alex Garland, the film follows a small group of journalists traveling across a collapsing United States to reach Washington, D.C. before the government falls.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film.  This is definitely a movie I would have liked to watch in a theater because of the action scenes and the scale.  Of course, I didn’t due to my on-going health conditions.  This film was recommended to me by both my older daughter and her husband who did see it in a theater when it first came out.  Most recently, it was recommended to me by one of my high-school friends in a follow-up email after our latest group lunch.  The film got a lot of attention for its realism, its focus on journalists instead of soldiers, and its refusal to explain how the country got to this point.  Released in 2024, “Civil War” was not nominated for any Academy Awards, but it generated a lot of discussion about media, polarization, and how fragile civil society can be.  Historically, the film is significant because it’s one of the first major studio movies to depict a modern American civil conflict without leaning on fantasy, zombies, or alternate history.  It tries to imagine what a breakdown might actually look like — messy, confusing, and frighteningly ordinary.
Plot:  The story follows Lee, Joel, Jessie, and Sammy as they travel from New York toward Washington, D.C. while the country is in open conflict.  The Western Forces (an alliance of California and Texas) are closing in on the capital, and the President is making his last stand.  The journalists aren’t trying to take sides;  they’re trying to document what’s happening before it’s over.  Along the way, they pass through towns that look normal until they aren’t, encounter militias with unclear loyalties, and witness violence that feels both random and inevitable.  Jessie tries to learn from Lee, who is torn between protecting the younger photographer and teaching her the harsh reality of the job.  As they get closer to D.C., the fighting intensifies, and the group is forced into situations where being a journalist doesn’t guarantee safety.  The final act takes place during the assault on the White House, where the line between observer and participant collapses almost completely.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  strong across the board;  immersive and unsettling;  a few;  yes / mostly.
Any good?  Yes.  “Civil War” works because it stays grounded.  It doesn’t try to explain the politics or offer a grand theory about how the country fell apart.  Instead, it focuses on what journalists do in dangerous places:  observe, document, and try to stay alive.  The film builds tension through small moments — a checkpoint that could go bad, a town that seems calm until it isn’t, a conversation that feels like it could turn violent at any second.  The pacing is steady, and the sense of dread grows as the group gets closer to Washington.  This is not a “fun” movie.  It’s a dramatically effective one.
Acting:  Dunst gives the film its emotional center.  She plays Lee as someone who has been doing this too long:  tired, wary, and trying to keep her distance from the world even as she documents it.  Moura brings energy and recklessness to Joel, and his chemistry with Dunst feels lived-in.  Spaeny is very good as Jessie;  she captures the mix of fear, ambition, and naïveté that comes with being new to the job.  Henderson adds warmth and gravity as Sammy, and his scenes help balance the film’s intensity.  Offerman, in limited screen time, plays the President with a controlled, brittle confidence that fits the story.  The supporting cast — soldiers, civilians, and militia members — feels believable, which helps sell the world.
Filming / FX:  The film looks and sounds real.  Garland uses handheld cameras, natural lighting, and practical effects to make the action feel immediate.  The firefights are loud, chaotic, and confusing, and that is probably the point.  The production design is subtle:  damaged buildings, improvised checkpoints, and landscapes that look familiar but slightly off.  The sound design is excellent, especially in the final assault, where gunfire, explosions, and shouted commands blend into a disorienting mix.  The film avoids flashy CGI and relies on grounded visuals, which makes everything feel more plausible.
Problems:  A few.  The film’s refusal to explain how the civil war started will frustrate some viewers.  It’s seems a deliberate choice, but it leaves the world feeling vague (and unbelievable) at times.  The characters, while well-acted, aren’t deeply developed; they’re defined more by their roles than by their personal histories.  The final act is intense and some viewers may find it too much.  The film risks being misunderstood.   Some may read it as political commentary when it’s really more about the experience of covering conflict.  None of these issues break the movie, but they’re worth noting.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes / mostly.  “Civil War” is tense, unsettling, and memorable.  It’s not a movie I’d watch casually, but it seems like one that will stick with me (particularly if I view it a few more times).  The focus on journalists gives the story a different angle than most war films, and the performances make the characters feel real even when the world around them is falling apart.  The film raises questions without trying to answer them, which is part of its strength.  It’s a tough watch, but a (mostly) worthwhile one.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “Civil War” is a well-made, grounded, and thought-provoking film that imagines a modern American conflict without today’s typical political sensationalism.  Its historical significance lies in its willingness to depict a fractured United States, and its focus on journalists gives the film a unique perspective.  The acting is strong, the filming is immersive, and the tension is steady throughout.  It’s not comforting, but it’s worth your time if you’re interested in political thrillers, war journalism, or films that explore how fragile society can be.
Final Thoughts:  I had various reactions / observations throughout the viewing:  1) I found it discomforting to see the casual indifference being portrayed in the killing of “fellow” American citizens – particularly the dump truck scene – because they weren’t “American” enough for the folks who had the guns;  2) The flag of the “WF” (Western Forces) had two stars representing Texas and California.  Imagining these two states joining in a succession movement against the rest of the United States is so ludicrous as to border on multi-universes and other altered realities.  Could their combined forces defeat the rest of the U.S. – probably, but the logistics of two geographically separated states (1100 air miles or 1400 ground miles) militarily supporting each other, would be daunting – to say the least.  Now, if Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico had joined the succession, it’s slightly more conceivable, but still unlikely, just based on the political differences between the two main states.  And, 3) during the attack on Washington D.C. and the White House, it greatly troubled me that we were being shown American forces killing other American forces (and civilians) as if there were nothing to it.  Strangely, in the moment, it didn’t bother me at all that the military executed a sitting albeit dictatorial President without judicial review / input.  It’s only in afterthought I remember, I didn’t think it was right for a real person (Osama bin Laden) so I shouldn’t feel comfortable with it happening to a fictional President.  I guess that’s just the American citizen in me…
.
Click here (31 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

You Must Be Important… You Got The Whole Plane To Yourself

Posted in General Comments, History, Movie Review, Movies, Politics, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 28, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Zero Dark Thirty” (2012) — movie review
Today’s review is for the modern-era manhunt thriller “Zero Dark Thirty” (2012), directed by Kathryn Bigelow and starring Jessica Chastain as Maya — a young CIA analyst whose entire professional life narrows down to one target;  Jason Clarke as Dan — an interrogator whose questionable methods (torture) define the film’s early tone;  Kyle Chandler as Joseph Bradley — the Islamabad station chief juggling politics and field pressure;  Jennifer Ehle as Jessica — a senior analyst whose confidence and experience shape Maya’s early years;  Mark Strong as George — the D.C. overseer pushing for results;  and Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt as members of SEAL Team Six, the boots on the ground for the final raid.  Supporting roles include Harold Perrineau, Edgar Ramirez, Reda Kateb, Fares Fares, and James Gandolfini (in a brief role as the CIA Director).  Together they form the backbone of a procedural story built around the decade-long hunt for Osama bin Laden.
Background:  I never saw this film in theaters.  I caught it much later (2020-ish) on streaming after hearing it was “the” movie about the bin Laden raid.  The “delay” was mainly because I heard and took on board the political noise around it — torture debates, accuracy debates, and whether the film was too close to real events.  This was only my second viewing of this film.  Released in 2012, “Zero Dark Thirty” received five Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture and Best Actress (Chastain).  It won one Oscar for Best Sound Editing (shared).  Historically, it stands out as the first major dramatization of the bin Laden operation and one of the few films to tackle the post-9/11 intelligence world with this level of procedural detail.
Plot:  The film follows Maya, a CIA analyst assigned to Pakistan who becomes convinced that a courier named Abu Ahmed is the key to finding bin Laden.  The story moves through years of interrogations, bombings, dead ends, bureaucratic stalls, and occasional breakthroughs.  Maya pushes her superiors, fights internal skepticism, and eventually identifies a suspicious compound in Abbottabad.  After months of surveillance and political hesitation, SEAL Team Six is cleared to conduct the raid.  The final act covers the nighttime assault, the identification of the body, and Maya’s quiet reaction once the mission is complete.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  strong performances;  clean, grounded filming;  a few issues;  mostly no.
Any good?  Yes – with a notable qualification.  It’s a long, steady procedural that avoids big speeches and sticks to the grind of intelligence work.  It’s not an action movie except for the last half hour.  Most of the film is people arguing, waiting, and trying to connect dots.  If you like that kind of slow burn, it works. If you don’t, it may feel like homework.  But as a dramatization of a real-world manhunt, it’s compelling.
Acting:  Jessica Chastain carries the film.  Her Maya is driven, frustrated, and increasingly isolated.  She doesn’t play her as a superhero — more like someone who refuses to let go of a thread.  Jason Clarke is memorable in the early interrogation (torture) scenes, balancing confidence with burnout.  Kyle Chandler and Mark Strong both do well as the “management” layer.  The SEAL actors don’t get much character development, but they feel believable as professionals.  Jennifer Ehle adds some warmth and experience before her character’s arc ends abruptly.  Overall, the cast fits the material.
Filming / FX:  Bigelow keeps the camera work straightforward.  The film uses a lot of handheld shots, dim rooms, and dusty exteriors. Nothing feels glossy or overly Hollywood.  The raid sequence is the standout — shot mostly in darkness with night-vision effects that look practical rather than flashy.  The explosions and gunfire are realistic without being overdone.  The sound design is excellent, which makes sense given the Oscar win.  There’s no “incredible” CGI spectacle here;  it’s mostly grounded environments and real locations (or convincing stand-ins).
Problems:  A few minor;  one major.  The film compresses a decade of intelligence work into a single narrative, which means some events feel simplified or too convenient.  The torture scenes are uncomfortable, but the film doesn’t always make clear what was useful and what wasn’t — which is part of why it stirred controversy.  Maya’s character is also written as a near-mythic lone wolf at times, which doesn’t match how intelligence agencies actually function (IMHO).  The pacing drags in the middle third, especially during the long stretches of surveillance.  And while the raid is well done, the geography inside the compound can be confusing on a first viewing.  MY main problem with the film is the portrayal of the Americans ready acceptance of torture and the implication that it was a source of useful / timely information.  Historically, torture has rarely worked – for timely information or otherwise – and one of the big criticisms of this film was the idea that the torture produced useful / actionable intelligence.  I am not denying the Americans conducted torture.  I am saying I found (and find) the acceptance of it (torture) – individually and organizationally – to be HIGHLY objectionable to me as a U.S. citizen.  These people were breaking the law and should have been held accountable, not celebrated in film or let off in real life.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes and no – mostly no.  The depiction of interrogation / torture, ruined the film for me.  This is not a “fun” movie to start with, even if it is interesting and well-made.  The procedural approach kept me engaged, and the final raid is tense even though we know the outcome.  I appreciated that the film didn’t try to turn Maya into an action hero or force a big emotional payoff.  It’s a serious movie about a serious subject, and it mostly sticks to that lane.
Final Recommendation:  Moderate Recommendation (because of the torture scenes and lack of accountability – otherwise, strong to highly recommended).  “Zero Dark Thirty” is historically significant as the first major film to depict the bin Laden raid and one of the few to tackle the post-9/11 intelligence world in detail.  With its Oscar win for Sound Editing and multiple nominations, it stands as a notable film of the 2010s.  Watch it for Chastain’s performance, the grounded procedural style, and the well-executed final act.  It’s not perfect, but it’s a solid, serious film about a major moment in recent history.
.
Click here (28 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

I Am Spartacus

Posted in Leadership, Politics, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , on August 16, 2018| 2 Comments »

[The following is an opinion editorial appearing in the Washington Post on 16 August 2018.    —    kmab]

Revoke my security clearance, too, Mr. President
Dear Mr. President:
Former CIA director John Brennan, whose security clearance you revoked on Wednesday, is one of the finest public servants I have ever known.  Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John.  He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him.
Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.
Like most Americans, I had hoped that when you became president, you would rise to the occasion and become the leader this great nation needs.
A good leader tries to embody the best qualities of his or her organization.  A good leader sets the example for others to follow.  A good leader always puts the welfare of others before himself or herself.
Your leadership, however, has shown little of these qualities.  Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation.
If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken.  The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be.
William H. McRaven
Retired Navy Admiral
McRaven was commander of the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command from 2011 to 2014.
He oversaw the 2011 Navy SEAL raid in Pakistan that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
[Between 1974 and 1978, I served in the U.S. Army and had a Top-Secret clearance granted in relation to my duties.  I certainly no longer have this clearance.  But, if I did…  You could “revoke my security clearance, too, Mr President”!!    —    kmab]
.
Click here (16 August) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started