chortles 263 Posted January 30, 2013 Yeah. It sort of felt like one of all those dumbed down movies were they keep the main characters in as many scenes as possible, so they won't have to introduce even a single new character and explain him, and make sure that the viewers understand that the scenes in the movie are actually all related to each other, as opposed to random scenes with no plot :pI mean his past CIA activities before the raid -- there's nothing in No Easy Day that rules out all of that being true. :p It was Nicholas Schmidle's article Getting Bin Laden that described the terp as "Ahmed", a Pakistani-American who "had been pulled from a desk job for the mission and had never descended a fast rope", though that account has him attired "as if he were a plainclothes Pakistani police officer. He looked the part, wearing a shalwar kameez atop a flak jacket."Gotta say: As soon as I saw the guy on the motorbike pull out a Glock, I thought it was the Raymond Allen Davis incident and that Edgar Ramirez was playing Davis. :o Turned out to not be the case, though the incident never comes up in the movie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mihikle 2 Posted February 4, 2013 Personally I agree with abs, I found the documentary much more gripping and informative than the actual film! lol. For me, this film was a bore up until the actual raid which was absolutely awesome, I nearly yelled "'merica!" myself. haha! The film seemed to focus on an uninteresting desk job, when much more interesting things could have had more focus, such as the actual CIA guys that hid up a few houses from Bin Ladens compound. It didn't really make sense with all the information they were getting either. They showed the info, however not the source which I found frustrating. For example one of the key parts of the documentary was the fact a UAV got a picture of an old man pacing the compound and they used his shadow to work out his height and found it was the same as Bin Ladens height. I was so looking forward to this film as well! lol. Even if it was realistic in terms of the actual fighting, the rest of the film was an outright bore that could have been better if the first hour and a bit was put into about 30 minutes of film. All-in-all, a bit disappointing. 5/10. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sabre 244 Posted February 4, 2013 (edited) I found the documentary much more gripping and informative than the actual film! Hah imagine that, a documentary more informative than a film. :P I enjoyed it. Was thankful that the raid wasn't Hollywood overdone, I'll admit I really did expect it to be. Suprising lack of American's playing the Murican's as well in a movie on this subject. Edited February 5, 2013 by Sabre Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chortles 263 Posted February 5, 2013 Even if it was realistic in terms of the actual fighting, the rest of the film was an outright bore that could have been better if the first hour and a bit was put into about 30 minutes of film.... then the movie would have been an hour long at most. :rolleyes: And it's not surprising to me that it's focused on the "desk job" -- there's an intentional focus on the film, and it sure ain't on the raid itself.I enjoyed it. Was thankful that the raid wasn't Hollywood overdone, I'll admit I really did expect it to be.If you want "Hollywood overdone" there's the National Geographic SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama bin Laden. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mihikle 2 Posted February 5, 2013 And it's not surprising to me that it's focused on the "desk job" -- there's an intentional focus on the film, and it sure ain't on the raid itself. I meant the CIA fieldwork rather than the raid itself :P I was very pleased with the portrayal of the raid! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chortles 263 Posted February 9, 2013 I meant the CIA fieldwork rather than the raid itself :P I was very pleased with the portrayal of the raid!What did you think was insufficient about "the fieldwork"? We get a guy bribing a guy, from which we get some cell phone convos, which eventually (through Maya's "pushing" to put it mildly) leads to an attempt to track the phone and tie it to an individual... there isn't much needed of "depiction of CIA fieldwork" for the chosen narrative. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mihikle 2 Posted February 9, 2013 They completely missed out the fact that a CIA ground team spent a few weeks actually a few meters from his house observing the target and the doctor was in there for like 20 seconds... most of the actual real dangerous stuff that the CIA did was left out. Too much focus on the torture of the prisoners for my liking, i'm not denying it happened and it should be in the film, however most of the film was spent on this and people sitting at desks or shouting at each other for one reason or another. If you watch the documentary followed by the film it's like two different things completely. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chortles 263 Posted February 9, 2013 They completely missed out the fact that a CIA ground team spent a few weeks actually a few meters from his house observing the target and the doctor was in there for like 20 seconds... most of the actual real dangerous stuff that the CIA did was left out.Considering how few will ever actually talk about how many, why the surprise that she wouldn't depict this? Somehow I think the deliberate omission of any depiction of "a CIA ground team" observing the house is intentional, not least because the narrative is focused around Maya and her narrow perspective -- which I've definitely gotten the sense was a deliberate writing decision. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mihikle 2 Posted February 10, 2013 Hmm I guess that makes sense, but they could have at least mentioned it! :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
