Day Zero.

"Day Zero chickens out of exploring the stickier consequences of a possible national draft, which, if recent history is any guide, would probably involve among other byproducts of civil disobedience a sharp rise in Canadian tourism," writes Michael Joshua Rowin in indieWIRE. "Intentionally or not, Day Zero ends up positing that the only responses to the obligation of fighting in a useless war are cowed acceptance or death, making the film not only an exercise in superfluity, but stupidity."

"With ludicrous gravity and a narrow-minded view of courage and conviction, the film's what-if scenario is presented as a reality check to every ostensibly unimaginative male who's come of age in the draftless years since Vietnam," writes Ed Gonzalez in the Voice. "One caveat: The many shots of the New York skyline are haunting, as if a military or monster attack could bring it all down in the blink of an eye."

"Its view of the near future may be vaguely plausible and its performances persuasive, but its formulaic construction, internal inconsistencies and fuzzy ending undermine its integrity," writes Stephen Holden in the New York Times. "It has nothing to say about the big issues - manhood, war and friendship - that hasn't been explored with more depth and honesty in a hundred other movies."

"Risking one's life for one's country is a difficult, serious decision. But Day Zero makes it look at once trivial, naïve, and absurd," writes Meghan Keane in the New York Sun.

For Filmmaker, Nick Dawson talks with director Bryan Gunnar Cole about "real politics, imaginary wars and his disinclination to see the film he calls The Bucket Line."

And Jesse Ashlock talks with Cole for Tribeca.

Posted by dwhudson at January 18, 2008 9:05 AM