The Hurt Locker ---

[Flashy]

anyone as baffled as i am how people have given this nearly universal acclaim? Best picture? Critics falling all over themselves?

i was excited to watch it...after 20 minutes i was waiting and waiting...then i was miserable for the remaining 1 hour and 40 minutes...

blah...it felt like a more serious version of Top Gun, but with IEDs...

i have heard it excused as a "character study"...but it did not really study the characters.

it seemed like just another run of the mill action flick.

I love a great war film, and it has to be pretty damn good to be a good war film, and for that film to win best picture...The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, Platoon...those are great war movies...this felt like an action thriller.

I guess what got me, is the fact that there were no really great lines, or much humor, or anything really profound in the screenplay

it went for the whole "war is a drug" angle...but that is bullshit to a degree.

what really made me angry was the silliness with which the main character and his unit were portrayed...now, i understand artistic license, and taking a few liberties here and there...i am not pedantic enough to say "they have the american flag patch on the wrong shoulder", and i am glad there was no "USA#1 jingoism"....but shouldn't a film that claims and is lauded to be ultra-realistic portrayal of combat over there, actually be realistic?


the difference between a true war film, and a war action/thriller, is the ability to be realistically in the situations...could this have happened? would it have happened like this? Is it believable?

frankly, i found the whole "renegade" soldier bit a total retread...no way EOD guys do what he did. He would be yanked out of that unit so fast and court-martialled before he could say "boom".

Also, 3 guys in a humvee, without any security rocking around Iraq totally alone in every scene? miles out in the desert, or middle of the night *ALONE* in BAghdad? Renner running offbase alone for the night? the three of them splitting up totally alone to go after insurgents?

it just became ludicrous after awhile...i am flabberghasted how this thing got such good reviews...and jesus...*ENOUGH* with the shaky cam! It was interesting when it was used in Saving Private Ryan and BlackHAwk Down...now it is just an annoyance.

am i alone here?

 

[girlheknows]

I haven't seen it, but I just have one question - Is it really gory at all? Like, apart from the apparently crappy screenwriting, are there many disturbing scenes? With graphic death, rape, etc. I'm asking because I need to know if I could handle it, haha. I'm good with horror and thriller, but give me a war movie with people having their legs blown off and I'm up and out the room in seconds. I couldn't even handle Thin Red Line.

 

[Flashy]

I haven't seen it, but I just have one question - Is it really gory at all? Like, apart from the apparently crappy screenwriting, are there many disturbing scenes? With graphic death, rape, etc. I'm asking because I need to know if I could handle it, haha. I'm good with horror and thriller, but give me a war movie with people having their legs blown off and I'm up and out the room in seconds. I couldn't even handle Thin Red Line.

well, there are a few explosions, (IED's) all the gunshots are quick and not particularly gory...aside from a closeup of dead person, it really is not very gory at all. certainly nowhere near Saving Private Ryan.

 

[Skull Mason]

honestly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I couldn't wait for it to be over once it started. And to top it all off I was watching it on a new flat screen tv with that motion tech crap and it completely tweaked me out the entire time. Top Gun was way better.

 

[Flashy]

honestly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I couldn't wait for it to be over once it started. And to top it all off I was watching it on a new flat screen tv with that motion tech crap and it completely tweaked me out the entire time. Top Gun was way better.

thank god i am not the only one...after the 20 minute mark i was watching the time progress bar every 5 minutes, waiting for something to happen, hoping it would end soon.

 

[nudeyorker]

I rarely like war movies, but I did like The Hurt Locker; I've never been in combat but I think it showed the chaos of war mentally and physically. What made the movie was for me was that the story is more visceral than cerebral. I think she made the Apocalypse Now of Iraq

 

[TaigaStar]

I've never even heard of this movie, but from what you guys are saying, it sounds like another "The English Patient" where it was so acclaimed and the movie actually sucked (and not in the good way). Thanks for the heads up to avoid it.

 

[Flashy]

I rarely like war movies, but I did like The Hurt Locker; I've never been in combat but I think it showed the chaos of war mentally and physically. What made the movie was for me was that the story is more visceral than cerebral. I think she made the Apocalypse Now of Iraq

i wouldn't call it the Apocalypse Now of Iraq...AN was about much more than just war...it was about the loss of sanity, and about man and the primordial.

i understand the chaos of war mentally and physically, but how can you show it properly, when you are showing it by people doing things that are not done by the people you are examining? the EOD unit itself was so ridiculous that it was baffling.

in terms of chaos, Blackhawk Down was the best representation of modern combat i have ever seen, and Saving Private Ryan was the best of showing WW2 chaos...

i think Hurt Locker would have been a noble effort if they had actually put it in to a realistic situation.

considering people in the military and the EOD units have been laughing at this film and talking about it as being totally ridiculous, i think its realism goes right out the window, and if it is unrealistic, then that hits the credibility of the story.

IMO

 

[Flashy]

I've never even heard of this movie, but from what you guys are saying, it sounds like another "The English Patient" where it was so acclaimed and the movie actually sucked (and not in the good way). Thanks for the heads up to avoid it.

it won Best Picture at the Oscars...you haven't heard of it? :wink:
If you choose to see it, wait for it to come out on HBO...see it for free...don't spend money on it...this way you can turn it off and not feel badly about wasting money if you hate it.

 

[Novaboy]

I have not seen it yet but will on DVD at some point.

The best picture win I couldn't understand was "No Country For Old Men" I hated that movie.

 

[nudeyorker]

You asked an opinion, I gave it. Period the end. Sorry you did not understand the film.

 

[flame boy]

You're not alone Flashy - I was so psyched to sit down and watch this movie. I will admit I had very high hopes (post Oscar win) and I was hugely disappointed. I thought it possibly deserved the Best Director oscar, possibly, but I certainly don't think it was a deserving Best Picture winner - at all. I would have been happier with something like District 9 taking that gong.

I didn't hate the movie, but the hype surrounding it made it out to be unmissable - i've seen plenty of better war movies. My other half summed it up best when he said "Well, that really did nothing for me".

 

[Northland]

I hurt my jaw watching in stunned disbelief.

There was a second or two of reality, it passed quickly, if you sniiffled, you missed it.

My take was that some loophead created what the crowd wants- a feel good film. A drop of reality here and there, about as enticing as scattered droplets of rain on a hot humid summer day. You think, 'oh here comes something good' and then are disappointed. Being a feel good film, most soon forget the disappointment and babble about the way that you can "almost taste the dust" as it kicks up (failing to realize, that you are tasting dust as movie goers race out of the theater).

A feel good film combined with decent looking actors and good publicity, works almost every time and reality isn't what they always want to give, or will give, unfortunately. You see, reality, might also bring a down note, and for whatever reason they didn't want to go there with this film.

 

[Flashy]

You asked an opinion, I gave it. Period the end. Sorry you did not understand the film.

I understand and appreciate your opinion...and i understood the *ATTEMPT* of the film...i was simply stating that how can you attempt to describe the chaos of war, by lying about the situations in that war?

there is plenty of reality of the confusion and chaos of war when using actual situations...what i am saying, is why did the film need to outright lie in order to try and get that across?

when folks in the military who were at Normandy praise Saving Private Ryan for its realism, when folks who were in Somalia or others areas praise BlackHawk Dawn for its intensity/combat, but then virtually the entire military laughs at the hurt locker's depiction, than something is seriously wrong with that depiction.

my problem was not with showing the fatigue of war, or the chaos...that is to be assumed...i expect them to show it realistically, no?

 

[Flashy]

I hurt my jaw watching in stunned disbelief.

There was a second or two of reality, it passed quickly, if you sniiffled, you missed it.

My take was that some loophead created what the crowd wants- a feel good film. A drop of reality here and there, about as enticing as scattered droplets of rain on a hot humid summer day. You think, 'oh here comes something good' and then are disappointed. Being a feel good film, most soon forget the disappointment and babble about the way that you can "almost taste the dust" as it kicks up (failing to realize, that you are tasting dust as movie goers race out of the theater).

A feel good film combined with decent looking actors and good publicity, works almost every time and reality isn't what they always want to give, or will give, unfortunately. You see, reality, might also bring a down note, and for whatever reason they didn't want to go there with this film.

very true...

to be honest, i think most of the hype that pushed this thing derived from the fact that it was directed by a woman...taking on a traditionally male genre.

 

[Flashy]

You're not alone Flashy - I was so psyched to sit down and watch this movie. I will admit I had very high hopes (post Oscar win) and I was hugely disappointed. I thought it possibly deserved the Best Director oscar, possibly, but I certainly don't think it was a deserving Best Picture winner - at all. I would have been happier with something like District 9 taking that gong.

I didn't hate the movie, but the hype surrounding it made it out to be unmissable - i've seen plenty of better war movies. My other half summed it up best when he said "Well, that really did nothing for me".

me too...i thought it was going to be awesome, since a war movie has to be exceptional to win best picture (saving private ryan did not even win best picture, while Spielberg won for best director)

even more annoying was the best original screenplay nod...i cannot see how it was original considering he based it off an article he wrote a few years ago...also, i did not hear a single remotely interesting line, or conversation, or anything profound...i just kept waiting...and waiting.

I couldn't agree more with you on the hype angle...i an just glad i did not spend the money in the theaters!

i honestly do not think i would have noticed any difference from this movie had the cast been changed even if you did everything directly the same...

they could have put Nic Cage, Jamie Foxx and someone else, and had Tony Scott direct it, and if it was exactly thesame in every regard, this would have just been another ignored action/thriller...

i honestly believe the hype was for Bigelow, and really nothing else.

i was really stunned by its mediocrity.

aside from the high production values, the errors, unbelievable situations and total boredom were utterly maddening to me.

 

[Flashy]

I think this article, by a former officer states it best:

Opinion: Why Vets Aren't Buying 'The Hurt Locker' - AOL News

 

[SilverTrain]

The criticism (as put forth in the quoted article) that it fails as a film because it takes artistic license with certain military protocols is arguably a weak one. Especially as the author describes the film's numerous impressive strengths, but dismisses them because they got the number of humvees in a convoy wrong.

Apocalypse Now is one of my all time favourite films, but I am very aware of how much artistic license is taken by Coppola therein (and which he discusses in commentaries, and interviews). That doesn't hinder it as a filmgoing experience in the slightest for me. Perhaps it did for some veterans of the Vietnamese Conflict.

Roger Ebert, in his review of JFK, discusses the criticisms of Oliver Stone's taking gratuituous liberties with proved facts in making the film. Ebert acknowledges that the film may be factually deficient, but gives it four (out of four) stars because he finds it cinematically brilliant.

 

[Big Irish]

I'll be happy when we quit supporting directors, who do nothing more than mentally masturbate on film. Just watch IFC for a coupla days, and you will see more worthless shit than in most sewage treatment plants!

 

[Flashy]

The criticism (as put forth in the quoted article) that it fails as a film because it takes artistic license with certain military protocols is arguably a weak one. Especially as the author describes the film's numerous impressive strengths, but dismisses them because they got the number of humvees in a convoy wrong.

Apocalypse Now is one of my all time favourite films, but I am very aware of how much artistic license is taken by Coppola therein (and which he discusses in commentaries, and interviews). That doesn't hinder it as a filmgoing experience in the slightest for me. Perhaps it did for some veterans of the Vietnamese Conflict.

Roger Ebert, in his review of JFK, discusses the criticisms of Oliver Stone's taking gratuituous liberties with proved facts in making the film. Ebert acknowledges that the film may be factually deficient, but gives it four (out of four) stars because he finds it cinematically brilliant.

neither apocalypse now or JFK claimed to be realistic, however, unlike The Hurt Locker.

and apocalypse now, was about far more than warfare.

taking artistic license in a "realistic film" is one thing...making it totally preposterous is another.

the artistic license in apocalypse now, was used to illustrate the insanity and craziness of war...

there was nothing like that in the Hurt Locker...the one thing that the Hurt Locker claimed to have going for it was realism...once you abandon that, you devalue the strength of the movie.

so how does something, like the main characters "addiction" to the juice of war, play out, if something like that can never happen? If he ever pulled even one of his little stunts like he did from the very beginning, he would have been court martialled immediately...so ify ou cannot tell a story about the reality of war, in the actual reality of war, than you are not in fact making a war movie based on realism.

in which case, the Hurt Locker fails. There is a difference between being pedantic over minutiae and being utterly flummoxed by silliness.

If coppola had said "this is what happens over there", it would have been a laugher. between the surfing, the cow being airlifted, the playboy bunnies, to name a few things...but Apocalypse Now was not claiming to be realistic. The war was a setting for a bizarre story.

That was not what the Hurt Locker was about...THL was about bomb disposal units and the danger of their job and how it affected its soldiers. It in fact did not show that at all, since it delivered a completely false premise.