TERMINATOR GENISYS Turns Heavy Metal Into Pop

TERMINATOR: GENISYS Review:

- Maybe it's just the times we live in, but man, I really wanted the new Terminator to be good. We're living in an infantilized age, where as adults we are spoon-fed the same PG entertainment as kids, and we tend to lap it up. So in the age of the PG tentpole movie, I occasionally yearn nostalgically for the glory days when movies like Terminator 2 provided R-rated carnage that, to a generation of kids and teens, put some proverbial hair on their chests and showed them that action movies could deliver more hardcore thrills than whatever sanitized, family-friendly funtimes Disney happened to be peddling. And so, there's something existentially sort of depressing about getting a new Terminator flick that on one hand tries to pay homage to the original James Cameron films, yet on the other hand feels very much like a product of our PG-ized, four-quadrant tentpole times. This is the heavy-metal Terminator franchise as pop-song remix. And not a very good one at that.

TERMINATOR: GENISYS has some elements that could have made it a worthy entry in this franchise. The smartest thing the movie does is it brings back Arnold Schwarzenegger as an aged Terminator, who in this film's timeline has been protecting Sarah Connor since she was a girl. It's a clever way to bring Arnold back to one of his most iconic roles, but in a way that takes into account his advancing age and plays off of it in a fun way. Arnold is the best thing about the movie - the man has always had a gift for spouting off droll one-liners, and his performance here is vintage Arnold. He's got a fun father dynamic with Sarah, and Schwarzenegger seems excited to be back playing a cyborg. But even the mighty Austrian cannot save the film's convoluted and ultimately silly script.

Time travel on film is always tricky business. But what makes it work is the usage of solid internal storytelling logic. GENISYS is severely lacking said logic. Without spoiling anything, the main characters seem to use time travel in a way that fundamentally makes no sense. Not in a nitpicky way, but in a blatant way. Like, why are characters in a hurry to time-travel to the future when the very act of time-traveling makes time relative? Why are they traveling to a specific point that is so close to doomsday that our heroes are now encumbered with a self-imposed countdown clock to save the day? They could have traveled literally days - or months - or years! - earlier and saved themselves the headache.

If the wonky time travel stuff was the movie's only issue, it wouldn't be a total loss. But the time-travel problems are indicative of a script that is just way too careless and hokey and not in keeping in the spirit of Terminator. This is a franchise about evil-as-crap looking robots who want to kill us all. So when we meet the ultimate manifestation of Skynet - the movie's big bad - it's hard not to feel underwhelmed.

The cheesiness also extends to the movie's romantic subplot between a younger-than-we're-used-to Sarah Connor and her sent-from-the-future, would-be savior Kyle Reese. The original Terminator movie did a great job of showing the two's blossoming, apocalypse-tinged romance. Here, there is little chemistry between the two leads, and the predetermined nature of their hook-up is more of a box to tick than a genuinely interesting part of the film. I'm a huge fan of Emilia Clarke as Daenerys Targaerian on Game of Thrones (who isn't?). She's solid here, but even the biggest Emilia Clarke fan has to admit that she seems a bit miscast as badass-female icon Sarah Connor. Ably played in the past by Linda Hamilton - and then by Clarke's GoT castmate Lena Heady in an underrated turn - Clarke's version of the character is more comic-book fantasy version of female hero than the tough-as-nails, legit-badass warrior that Hamilton played. But Clarke still comes off a lot better than Jai Courtney as Kyle Reese. I'm not a total Jai hater - he's been good on occasion. But this is Jai at his most Jai - bland, charisma-less, and utterly forgettable as a hero. Jason Clarke also feels somewhat miscast as messianic John Connor. Unfortunately, previews spoiled the movie's big twist about Connor, but ultimately it doesn't matter that much because this version of Connor is quickly reduced to the part of sneering villain. You've got to feel bad for Clarke, because his role is totally thankless. At one point, he moves in to attack Sarah and Kyle, and they pointedly mention that he can't kill them, or else he'd cease to exist. His response is something along the lines of "it doesn't work that way!" Um, okay. I've also heard some reviewers give praise to JK Simons as a loopy cop who witnessed the first Terminator time-travel incident way back when. It's another instance, to me, of the movie taking a great, very likable actor and giving him a pretty poorly-written role. JK does his best with it, but I found the character to be sort of a waste of time within the context of the film - more comic relief when what the movie really needed was more legit badassery.

As much as I've been ragging on GENISYS, it is occasionally enjoyable. There's some fun action, and watching old Schwarzenegger kick-ass, take names, and even square off with a younger version of himself is pretty fun. When I wasn't thinking about things like plot, character, or justificatoin for this movie's existence, I found myself enjoying some of the movie's more visceral thrills. I love the whole Terminator universe, so sure, part of me was happy just to visit it once more. If nothing else, this one is faster-paced and more dumb-fun entertaining than the Christian Bale-starring Salvation misfire from a few years back. This is a cast you want to like (well, Jai Courtney excepted, perhaps), and director Alan Taylor gives the film a sleek (if somewhat bland) look, with some of the future-set scenes in particular being pretty legitimately eye-popping.

But as a franchise re-starter, TERMINATOR: GENISYS is a near-total bust. The film left me with little interest in future sequels, and gives little to chew on after first viewing. What's funny is the the film tries to do the whole Marvel big-post-credits-reveal thing, but the big cliffhanger reveal is very forgettable. Interestingly, the cancelled-too-soon Sarah Connor Chronicles series on FOX was able to explore the Terminator mythology with a lot more depth and darkness than this movie does. It really does feel like the candy-colored little sibling to the original films - Terminator for the whole family! But in creating this slick, CGI-filled beast, they've lost sight of why Terminator was a sensation back in the day. It was dark, grim, badass, rock n' roll. And it was surprisingly smart in its storytelling. This one tells you what you need to know in its title. Not because it's the genesis of a Terminator revival. No, it's because they spelled "genesis" with a freaking "y."

My Grade: C

DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES a Stunning, Twilight Zone Reflection of Our World

DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES Review:

- I recently watched through the old Planet of the Apes sequels from the 70's and early 80's, and though they are cheesy, campy fun, there's also a sort of heartbreaking element about them. Following in the tradition of the Rod Serling-penned original, the sequels contain elements of social commentary (as all the best sci-fi does) that, remarkably and semi-shockingly, is as relevant today as it was 30+ years ago. It leads you to wonder: are we as a species doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again? Can we resist the  temptation for war, discrimination, subjugation, greed, corruption, and violence? Or will our darker inclinations inevitably cause us to live out endless variations on the same tragic story? The original Apes franchise - with its gonzo time-travel logic, ruminates on this very question in a not-so-subtle fashion. Annihilation is coming for us all, and it will be of our own doing.

DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES continues with this theme, offering a starkly cynical view of humanity that feels all-too accurate at the moment. In fact, the events of the film so closely mirror the outbreak of the current wave of Israeli-Palestinian violence that you wonder if director Matt Reeves and his team of writers didn't create the movie with some sort of supernatural prescience. But then you realize: all of this has happened before, and all of this will likely happen again.

Let me first just state: the first in the relaunched Apes franchise, RISE, is one of my absolute favorite big blockbuster films of the last several years. It was jaw-droppingly good - a total stunner. And even more remarkably, its sequel is just as good. I was bummed to hear that Rupert Wyatt, who did such a bang-up job directing Rise, would not be returning for the sequel. But Matt Reeves totally steps up to the plate and knocks it out of the park. I was a fan of Reeves going into this: I thought Cloverfield showed a director with a lot of promise, and I thought that Let Me In was as good as an American remake of the original film could possibly have hoped to be. But DAWN shows us that Reeves has what it takes to do big, blockbuster filmmaking on par with the absolute best in the biz. In fact, I think with this movie, Reeves may have actually catapulted himself ahead of his buddy JJ Abrams on the list of exciting sci-fi directors (we'll see how Star Wars goes). Reeves builds on what Wyatt did with the first film, but also crafts a movie that looks absolutely stunning in each and every scene. Every moment feels big and weighty and iconic - even the quiet ones. And the entire film bristles with a moody, ominous intensity.

The film focuses on the apes much more so than Rise. Set ten years after the end of the first film, we learn that the virus hinted at in Rise has now wiped out much of humanity. Ceaser and his fellow intelligent apes live in the forest outside of San Francisco, and it's been two years since they've seen a human. For all they know, the humans are wiped out completely. The film opens with a group of apes on a hunt - a fascinating look at this strange new world in which Ceaser's apes live in a tribal culture away from humans. They have slowly learned speech and writing, and have a basic set of laws that they adhere to ("Ape does not kill ape."). The opening hunt scene, and subsequent scenes with the apes, show us a primitive society that is nonetheless quickly evolving in a way that mirrors the path of humans. To Reeve's credit though, he never shies away from the otherness of the apes - large portions of the movie are subtitled (the apes primarily still talk with sign language), and the movie does not portray the apes as the human-esque, upright-walking creatures of the original films.

Eventually, Ceaser's tribe faces upheaval in the form of a group of humans who come across the tribe as they search for an abandoned dam that could be the key to their community's survival. They come from a community that has formed in the ruins of San Francisco, that is on the verge of exhausting their power supply. Very quickly, we see the parallel, opposing attitudes that exist on both the human and ape side of the fence. Malcolm (Jason Clarke) and his wife Ellie (Keri Russell) try to peacefully explain their situation to Ceaser. They want to coexist. But the hothead of the group, Carver (Kirk Avecedo), nearly ruins everything, as his temper and hatred of the apes (he blames them for the virus outbreak) clouds his rational mind. Meanwhile, the community's leader, Dreyfus (Gary Oldman), sees the apes as a threat to his people and sees war as inevitable. Among the apes, Ceaser is willing to work with the humans and let them repair the dam. But most apes saw only the darker side of humans - not the friendlier side that Ceaser experienced in Rise. Chief among Ceaser's doubters is Koba (a motion-captured Toby Kebbell), a scarred ape who harbors deep resentment over his mistreatment as a lab monkey for many years, before having been freed by Ceaser's uprising.

Seeing how small events, misunderstandings, and agenda-laced manipulations bring on the inevitable escalation of violence between human and ape is a scary, legitimately disturbing mirror-image of our own reality. What's so striking is that no characters in the film are insane or completely wrong in their thinking. All have some real basis for their fears and hatreds. All feel justified in doing what they feel they have to in order to protect their own people, and it's not a huge stretch to see why they feel that way. In so many films, we see battles played out in a cartoonish way in which all the violence is okay, because we're so clearly rooting for a good guy to win out over an evil bad guy. But here, the violence - while spectacular and visceral - is also the kind that puts knots in your stomach. We don't actually want either side to win - we just want them to stop fighting and make peace. And yet, the peace that we root for seems hopelessly out of reach - and its proponents - like Ceaser and Malcolm - seem almost naive for pursuing it. There is simply too much fear, rage, and desperation for peace to win out. The drums of war are too loud, even if the fighting is clearly a zero sum game for all.

As Ceaser, Andy Serkis gives his most remarkable motion-captured performance yet. Even in a film filled to the brim with uber-talented live-action actors, Ceaser is, far and away, the star. What Serkis - in tandem with the film's CGI animators - does here is nothing short of astonishing. There is no uncanny valley. Ceaser is simply another character on screen, and a great one at that. He is an epic hero, a boy turned king, a father, husband, and champion. Serkis' movements, emotion, and personality are all captured and brought to life. If this isn't acting, I don't know what is. Hail Ceaser and hail Andy Serkis, says I.

I've also got to really single out the similarly amazing motion-capture work done by Toby Kebbell as Koba. Koba is simply a great character and a pretty epic villain. The best kind of villain, who truly believes that what he is doing is right and noble, even as he crosses line after line. There is a real unhinged, tragic quality to Koba, exemplified in some scenes both funny and disturbing, in which Koba realizes that the way to trick humans into thinking he's not a threat is to act in a stereotypical circus-monkey manner. To have a CGI motion-captured character in these scenes, acting outwardly silly, but with a real threat of barely-concealed danger and anger in his eyes - is truly incredible.

All of the movie's motion-capture work is phenomenal. In general, the apes looks remarkably real and are remarkably expressive, and they are seamlessly integrated into the film's various environments, and alongside its human actors. In fact, I think it's safe to say that DAWN has some of the flat-out best visual f/x ever seen, to this point, in a blockbuster film. I found myself continually wowed by the action on screen and the sophistication and scope of what we were seeing. But again, as much as I credit the CGI artists here, I also credit Reeves for making it all sing. The action in the film is incredibly shot. It can be brutal, and it can be elegant. We get chaotic large-scale battles and epic one-on-one fights. We get apes on horseback, apes in tanks, and apes majestically swinging from treetop to treetop. It's all filmed with sweeping grace and engrossing immersiveness (and sidenote: the 3D in the film is very, very good - a must-see in 3D if possible). I'll also mention the excellent score by composer Michael Giacchino. It mixes classic orchestral stuff with some appropriately retro bits of atmospheric, space-oddity weirdness that evoke the original Planet of the Apes.

Clarke, Russell, Oldman, and the rest of the human actors all do more-than-solid work. Clarke is a great presence, and Russell maximizes somewhat limited screentime by really bringing a lot of empathy to the character of Ellie. There's a subplot involving Ellie slowly being accepted as a surrogate mom by Malcom's son, Alexander (Kodi Smit-McPhee) that feels a little cut-short, but what is there gives the characters some nice dimensionality. Oldman's Dreyfus is also an interesting character in that he's fairly rational, just unable to see the bigger picture, the forest for the trees. From our god's-eye perspective as viewers, we can sense the futility of Dreyfus' desire for aggression. But we also have to wonder what we'd do were we in his shoes.

That sort of creeping dread - the idea that we too, as individuals and as a society - might also succumb to the desperate cycle of violence that these characters give in to - is what makes DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES such profound, evocative, hard-hitting sci-fi. Every day on the news, we see competition for resources escalate into violence. We see misunderstandings and isolated acts of aggression escalate into full-scale war. We see deep-seated hatreds prevent us from seeing people as individuals, instead adopting an "us vs. them" mentality, in which we neatly divide people into faceless sides. "They" are bad. "They" are evil. "They" hate us, and therefore can't be trusted. It might sound silly, but in this film's conflict between species, we see a dark mirror held up to our own everyday existence. The magic trick of DAWN is that, without ever explicitly spelling it out, it hammers home the realization that the very concept of apes vs. humans is all one great lie. Once the apes gain intelligence, they are susceptible to all the same faults as the humans they take pains to differentiate themselves from. They are as seduced by the power of the gun. They are as prone to corruption. They are as likely to act in self-interest while claiming to act for the greater good. The one real difference, the one real advantage for the apes, is that they are still at a stage where they are not reliant on technology, and can therefore thrive in a world that had quickly descended into primitiveness. But it's only a matter of time - and evolution - until the apes have that same crutch.

A lot to think about for a summer sci-fi blockbuster. And that's why these new Apes films have, I think, transcended the genre to become something truly special. These are movies that have a lot to say, even as they dazzle with bar-raising visuals. DAWN not only raises the bar visually, but it raises the bar for the series, and paves the way for a third film that is now among my most-anticipated. DAWN masterfully follows in the grand tradition of the Planet of the Apes films (and in the tradition of original Apes writer Rod Serling) - for it is a profound, Twilight Zone reflection of our own world, and an absolute must-see movie.
My Grade: A

WHITE HOUSE DOWN Is Ridiculous ... But Also Ridiculously Entertaining

WHITE HOUSE DOWN Review:

- The marketing of White House Down was all wrong. I can't help but wonder if the misdirection contributed to the film's underwhelming box office performance. The ads and trailers made this out to be some sort of gritty, hardcore action film. But in reality, it's anything but. This is, thankfully, vintage Roland Emmerich. Big, bombastic, cheesy as all hell, and possessing of a childlike glee and unironic grandiosity that has become Emmerich's trademark over the years. Think of it this way: Spielberg's classic family films appeal to your inner eight-year-old - wish-fulfillment fantasies that play off of childhood fears and flights of fancy. Michael Bay's cynical Transformer films repackage childhood nostalgia for the too-cool-for-toys high school jocks. Emmerich hits that sweet spot just in between. His movies are BEST MOVIE EVER! material for twelve and thirteen year olds everywhere. They're fundamentally innocent and naive, but there's just enough over-the-top violence, epic scope, and strategically-timed profanity to give them that added cool-factor. I mean, I still remember that day in 1994, coming out of the theater after watching Independence Day, having been rocked to my twelve year old core. This, I was convinced, was the best thing I'd ever seen. The movie had everything I ever dreamed of in one film: aliens, aerial battles, Area 51, and Jews kicking ass. It was everything my preteen self wanted in a movie and more. I imagine that one or two twelve year olds are going to get a similar feeling of "best thing ever" after walking out of WHITE HOUSE DOWN. No, it's not in the same league as Independence Day, but there's a similarly unbridled sense of movie-making joy at play here. It's not particularly smart or cerebral or sophisticated. Logic is sparse. But holy hell, does Roland Emmerich go all out here. Lacking a subtle bone in his body, Emmerich crafts a movie that is joyously, eye-rollingly ridiculous, and, undoubtedly hugely entertaining. You will probably lose brain cells - many brain cells - while watching it. But hey, this is what Emmerich does, and does well. It's a summer blockbuster for the twelve year old in all of us.

Where Emmerich has always drawn comparisons to Spielberg is the way in which the big action arcs of his movies intertwine with more personal arcs that are, in their own way, just as integral to the story. And so, Emmerich takes his time in this one setting the stage for the carnage to come. He introduces us to Channing Tatum's John Cale - a White House security staffer who's hoping to make a career upgrade to the President's secret service detail. It's all part of the divorced Cale's plan to get his life back on track, and to impress his preteen daughter Emily (Joey King) - a budding political and presidential buff. When Cale goes for his interview (conducted by Maggie Gyllenhaal's head-of-secret-service, who happens to be an old flame), Emily accompanies him, so that the two can take a tour of the White House together afterwards. As the two take the tour (and Cale mopes after being denied the job - seems he's got raw potential but not the qualifications), all hell breaks loose. As it turns out, the President (a very Obama-esque Jamie Foxx) is looking to sign a controversial Middle East peace treaty, and certain right wingers want to stop it at any cost. With the help of an inside man or two, the White House is attacked by a paramilitary group (led by Zero Dark Thirty's Jason Clarke), and Emily is part of a group taken hostage by the bad guys. Of course, Cale is left as all that's standing between the attackers and their potentially earth-shattering plans.

Here's another area where the movie's marketing was misleading: the ads made it seem like this was to be the Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx show. But the truth is much more exciting, in that the two leads are surrounded by a ton of fantastic supporting players. A trademark of Emmerich's films is a strong ensemble cast, and White House Down is no different. And for a movie like this, you need people who can pull off earnest and over-the-top without getting too silly. Luckily, the movie is in some ways carried by young Joey King. She's great as Emily - smart and sweet, but creeping up on teenager-ish smart alecky tendencies. We all know that kid characters can be super annoying in this sort of movie, unless played by a special talent who knows how to play things just right. Luckily, King is up to the task, and plays a kid who other kids can identify with and root for, and who adults will only roll their eyes at once or twice.

Also, dude ... Lance Reddick is in this movie. He's really just a minor side character, but I'm still going to mention him right up top. Because Lance Reddick is awesome, and he is basically *the* best actor in the biz at selling lines like "Sir, Norad has been compromised." and making otherwise insane-sounding things seem totally badass and gravitas-infused. Note to all movie marketing people: put Lance Reddick in your movie trailers, and I'll know that the film is legit. Meanwhile - and from the trailers, who knew? - a crap ton of other awesome people are in this movie. People like the great Richard Jenkins, as the meek Speaker of the House, and James Woods, as the retiring Head of Presidential Detail, who ends up playing a major, unexpected part in the film. Yep, Lance Reddick, Richard Jenkins, and James Woods are ALL IN THIS MOVIE, and they each kick a fair degree of ass, hamming it up and doing what they do best.

Jason Clarke is great as a take-no-prisoners mercenary type. This guy is going places. Also excellent as a villain is Kevin Rankin - so good on Justified as Devil - as Clarke's redneck right-hand-man. Jimmi Simpson is also awesomely evil as the team's psycho-sinister computer hacker. This is another area where Emmerich channels Spielberg - each of his characters has some quirk or defining trait that makes them stand out. No generic stuff here. Suffice it to say, what could have been a bland team of villains is made hugely entertaining thanks to the antics of Clarke, Rankin, and Simpson.

As for Tatum and Foxx, both are good, but in some ways, they may be the weakest part of the movie. Tatum is okay as the leading man, but to me, he still lacks the sort of action-hero charisma that you want for this sort of movie. It's weird, because he's proven that he can be funny as hell in movies like 21 Jump St. But as an heir apparent to the Stallones and Schwarzennegers of the world, I'm not quite sure he has what it takes. Foxx, meanwhile, was so good in Django, and perhaps that movie was still too fresh in my mind to take him seriously as the kind of guy who could become president. Foxx adopts several Obama mannerisms and tics (he even chews Nicorette gum), but to me, there was never any doubt that his President Sawyer would be able to kick ass when called upon. And so scenes where we're supposed to be shocked and delighted that this President can mix it up with the terrorists mano e mano, well, they aren't all that shocking. And Foxx plays President Sawyer as a somewhat comedic character - you can see him revert to his over-the-top Living Color days when he's quipping and spouting one liners. Point being, this is the sort of movie where the actors need to play it totally straight for things to work (think Bill Pullman in Independence Day). Foxx is a little too broadly comic at times for us to take his Prez very seriously.

Back to Emmerich for a second ... the director does give in to modernity a bit and throws in some quick-cut editing and shaky-cam fight scenes here and there. Mostly though, watching WHITE HOUSE DOWN is a pleasant reminder of how a good action director can craft a battle or fight scene that's exciting and tells a story, all while being relatively easy to follow. Emmerich doesn't get enough credit as a great action director - he does Michael Bay style bombast without all the visual excess - he keeps things clean, and knows how to do big money shots for maximum dramatic effect. If anything, he at times overdoes the melodrama. Like I said, there isn't a subtle bone in his body. And so certain moments are *so* melodramatic that they are just too much. At the same time, I think that Emmerich is above all a showman, and he seems pretty well aware that he's crafting over-the-top, borderline ridiculous entertainment. He knows he's doing a live-action cartoon, and the humor and numerous winks at the audience in the film speak to that.

At the end of the day, on the grand sliding scale of Roland Emmerich summer blockbusters, this one falls well below the legendary awesomeness of Independence Day, but well above more mediocre efforts like The Day After Tomorrow. And, hey, maybe it's just me, but as the years go by, Emmerich's old-school brand of popcorn spectacle takes on an increasing tinge of nostalgic charm. What was once controversial and shocking now feels safe, reliable, and relatively harmless. In the world of Emmerich, Presidents can personally deliver K-O's to terrorists, a down-on-his-luck blue-collar schmo can save the world *and* win back the love of his daughter, and nobody - and I mean nobody - can get one over on the good ol' U-S-of-A. Cheesy? Sure. Ridiculous? Hell yeah. But in some ways, this is all you could want from a dumb-fun summer blockbuster. Bring the whole family, and enjoy.

My Grade: B+

ZERO DARK THIRTY Is a Riveting Account of the War On Terror

ZERO DARK THIRTY Review:

- Zero Dark Thirty is one powerhouse of a film - a riveting mix of CIA procedural, real-life recent history, character-based drama, and ultra-intense actioner. Between this and The Hurt Locker, director Kathryn Bigelow is having one hell of a second act. She's making damn good movies - films that are ultra entertaining narratives that also have an immediacy, a relevance, an of-the-now electricity, that is unrivaled. What's so amazing to me about Zero Dark Thirty is that it serves as both a fact-based account of a landmark moment in recent US history, and as a smart, measured, non-politicized examination of that moment - of its implications on the national psyche, and on the psyches of those directly involved in the op. The op, of course, is the years-long hunt to find and kill Osama Bin Laden in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It's a remarkable story on a number of levels, and Zero Dark Thirty brilliantly captures the many facets of what unfolded. Featuring several incredible performances, a no-nonsense yet still-multilayered storytelling style, and a pulsing intensity that leaves you on the edge-of-your-seat, Zero Dark Thirty is one of the year's best films, hands-down.

Bigelow's film focuses in on Maya (Jessica Chastain), a spitfire CIA agent who was recruited directly out of high school. Her whole career has been focused on one thing - finding Osama Bin Laden. And now, as she's shipped off to Pakistan - where Al Qaeda prisoners are kept in lockdown, tortured for any intel they might possess - she finds herself at the epicenter of that search. Bigelow opens the film on a haunting note - playing audio feeds of phone calls from the WTC on 9/11, playing snippets of news reports - reminding us of the horror of that day. With one fell swoop, she sets the stakes for this film. The evils perpetrated by Bin Laden and his agents are now fresh in our mind as we flashforward a few years, where the hunt for the terrorist mastermind continues.

But that hunt is going poorly. The CIA keeps coming up against dead-ends, and their methods of information extraction - cringe-inducing torture among them - are producing few useful results. In Pakistan, Maya meets Dan (Jason Clarke) - the site's chief torturer and information-gatherer. She also begins working with Jessica (Jennifer Ehle) - a world-weary analyst. They're all under the purview of Joseph (Kyle Chandler), their supervisor, who has grown cynical and short-tempered after so many of his efforts to decimate Al Qaeda have fallen flat. However, the arrival of Maya gives the group a new spark. Dogged and determined, she becomes obsessed with a potential lead that she believes is the key to finding Bin Laden - a courier named Abu Ahmed, who is said to be Bin Laden's personal messenger. Find him, and find Bin Laden. Easier said than done, sure, but Maya refuses to back down or give up. And her persistence and force of personality ends up sending shockwaves all the way to Washington, where the intel she uncovers, eventually, leads to the now-famous nighttime raid on a walled Pakistani compound.

Jessica Chastain is phenomenal as Maya. It's one of my favorite performances of the year, because it's somehow both naturalistic and hyper-dramatic all at once. Maya feels like a real woman, a fully-fleshed-out character, who has plenty of quirks and flaws but who you can't help but admire and root for. Chastain gives her the essence of the down-home girl-next-door who's also sort of a genius, and also just a tad crazy. But man, when it comes time for the big, dramatic scenes ... Chastain is also able to go big and knock 'em out of the park. If this was any other actress, we'd probably be complaining about overexposure of late. But Chastain is so good that you can't fault Hollywood for casting her whenever possible. Another big revelation here though is Jason Clarke as Dan - one of the most subtly interesting and complex characters in the film. Dan is, on one hand, a laid-back, friendly, easygoing dude, who calls everyone "bro" and amuses himself in the Pakistani desert by affectionately playing with monkeys he keeps around the CIA base. And yet, he wearily partakes in savage sessions of torture, inflicting great harm on his prisoners even as he buddies up to them. It's a fascinating dynamic, and Clarke plays it to perfection. It's funny, because in Chastain and Clarke we sort of get an microcosm of America in a post-9/11 world. Conflicted, filled with a mix of rage and empathy, left with lingering fears, and consumed by a desire for closure. Both characters also embody the film's naturalistic, non-judgemental storytelling style. Bigelow never tells us what to think of these people, never hits us over the head with judgement. She simply presents this story and these characters as is, and lets us take away from them what we will. That said, she also gives us a lot to chew on. The big issues - the politics of torture, the hopelessness of winning over religious fanatics, the debate of whether to use the carrot or the stick - it's all here. The movie makes you think, deeply, about these issues. But it doesn't do your thinking for you, and never talks down to or lectures the audience.

There are a ton of other standouts in the cast. Mark Strong brings heavy-duty gravitas as a CIA bigwig who reams his lieutenants for not bringing him enough terrorists to kill. James Gandolfini is the been-there, done-that old hat who sees in Maya the kind of vim and vigor that, perhaps, he once had. Joel Edgerton is badass as a gruff Navy SEAL, and Chris Pratt of Parks and Recreation provides some comic relief as a SEAL who gets his kicks from well-timed gallows humor (he blasts Tony Robbins on the way to kill Bin Laden). The previously mentioned Jennifer Ehle is also a standout, especially as she begins to form a sisterly bond with Maya and becomes a confidante. Kyle Chandler is a good foil for Chastain, and Harold Perrineau - of Lost fame - is also solid as a CIA techie.

I mentioned Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt as two of the Navy SEALS from the squad that raids that Pakistani compound. I should also mention that, as intense as the movie is for much of its running time, Bigelow and team take it to another level during the last-act SEAL raid sequence. Even though we know the end-results, it's an incredibly-shot, white-knuckle ride that is exciting and terrifying, while also being strikingly un-glamorized and stark in its realness.

Bigelow and writer Mark Boal divide the film into titled chapters, and it's an effective tactic. The chapter structure allows the film to jump from year to year, location to location, in a seamless manner. Despite a long running time, the movie zips by with a relentless pace. And the tension builds and builds - as the spycraft, interrogations, backroom politics, and personal struggles mount ... culminating in that breathless raid in Pakistan. Boal and Bigelow attack the story from all angles - we see the war on terror as fought from the halls of Washington D.C. to the deserts of Afghanistan to the streets of London to the villages of Pakistan. We see the techies, the suits, the muscle, the soldiers, the SEALS, the moles, the spies, and everyone in between. This is sprawling, epic storytelling. But it's also of-the-moment and journalistic. The movie leaves a lot unsaid, but everything is in there - sometimes between the lines, sometimes on the expression of a character's face.

As for the debate on the movie's depiction of torture - to me, it's a non-issue. Some in government are criticizing the movie for implying that torture led in some way to the discovery of Bin Laden's location. In my view, the movie keeps things open for interpretation, and also goes to great pains to show that torture alone does not tend to yield actionable results. In fact, two of the key pieces of intel that propel Maya's hunt  forward come from bribes, not torture. That said, I also think it's silly and naive to act as if torture never works as a means of extracting information. Do I support it in most instances? No. But I'm also not going to claim that it can't ever be effective. In any case, ZERO DARK THIRTY handles the issue deftly - showing the emotional toll the practice takes on those who utilize it, and those who condone it as accomplices. It also shows torture in a brutal manner that makes us see it for what it is. There's no fantasy-revenge element in the torture scenes (as you might find in more over-the-top fare like "24"). It's brutal to the point that we sympathize with some of the victims, and hope for them to divulge information and be cooperative so as not to put themselves through such cruelty.

This is a movie that smartly opens up the debate on torture, on national security, on counterterrorism, on foreign policy - but not in a biased or judgmental manner. Instead, it looks at the cost that the war on terror had and has on the lives of the people in the trenches, and on the national psyche over the course of the decade since 9/11. This is a movie that shows us the world as it was and is. It's exciting, riveting, intense-as-hell ... but it also hits at a level of truth that few movies do, combining the thoroughness and intelligence of a great magazine expose with the drama, intrigue, emotion, and action of a great cinematic thriller.

Kathryn Bigelow is on fire right now, making the best, hardest-hitting real-world dramas in the biz. ZERO DARK THIRTY is a gut-punch of a film - a must-see nail-biter and conversation-starter - bad-ass, thought-provoking, smart, and poignant. A highlight of 2012.

My Grade: A