The Hurt Locker ---

[Flashy]

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!

very true...the only thing IFC is good for anymore is they show the occasional Tarantino flick, and a couple other really good more mainstream flicks and they have Arrested Development on IIRC (or is that sundance?)

 

[D_Portelay Porquesword]

The Hurt Locker didn't put me off entirely. I did however feel it was a weaker vote for best picture etc. For me, there simply was not enough substance to the film for it to garner so much of the attention it has. It was a documentary type film in it's conception and direction. The characters were not fully explored and it offered a myopic view of the people involved.

I did appreciate the attention it brought to the jobs these people face everyday, I just feel it could have been done through the Discovery channel.

I did not care for District 9 either, not the best take on "visitor" films for me.

 

[tripod]

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!

Don't fuckin' talk shit about IFC, it's got better programming than all of the other movie channels combined... and it's fucking not a pay channel like HBO and Showtime either.

IFC is the shit. It's not there to spoon feed drivel to dullards, it's an outlet for independent films that are all about the passion of making films and not about pleasing the typical ADD American's abysmal palette.

 

[SilverTrain]

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.

I have advanced degrees and a B.A. in history but I wasn't tuned into deciphering whether the military maneuvering in the movie was "realistic" or not. I was not flummoxed by anything I was watching. Nor did I feel misled by any false premises. I was engaged by the setup and the performances, and so I just didn''t really think (or care) about whether what I was watching was "realistic". It is possible that I am particularly undiscerning with regards to my filmgoing expectations, and inordinantly obtuse with regards to my appreciation of filmic reality. But I couldn't bear to watch Ernest Goes to Camp any of the 178 times it was on TBS or TNT while I was surfing the cable galaxy throughout my 20's, so I think I have at least one feather in my cap o' sophistication.

Out of a movie (or fiction book), what I want is to be engaged. With respect to any given movie, there are always going to be doctors who see the flawed presentation of OR procedure, the lawyers who see that winning "legal" arguments are fallacious, Navy Seals who see that protocol is not being adhered to, chefs who notice the incorrect arrangement of the kitchen, "kids" who notice the video game joysticks aren't worked correctly in coordination with what the on-screen tv is displaying, lay people who notice that [insert anything here] is not exactly "realistic", etc., etc., ad nauseum. Such is a hazard of filmmaking. And, in my opinion it's generally a weak argument to ding a movie for failing to be "realistic". Even if it's a "serious" film, a war film, a science-themed film, etc.

That said, I preferred Avatar.*




* But I was glad to see Bigelow win, since I generally find Cameron to be an arrogant bore.

 

[Skull Mason]

I think she made the Apocalypse Now of Iraq

I think if anything the AN of Iraq would be Jarhead, even though it is from the first war. Sam Mendes is a master. People [soldiers] that I have talked to unanimously say how unrealistic hurt locker was, even though I think it's "selling" point was about how it was based on actual events...and dare I say this...you could tell the movie was made by a woman...I watched it with a female movie maker myself and she agreed...

District 9 was the best film of the year for me, although I haven't seen Avatar yet.

 

[gymfresh]

I watched it last night (Netflix).

Meh.

The synopsis describes it as a gripping drama. Yes, it had its tense moments and Jeremy Renner arguably turned in a very good performance, but it also dragged a lot. What I found educational was how much "in the way" the locals seem to be in a war zone. They don't understand, or they refuse to accept, the notion of "go away" or "stop", making our job there incredibly dangerous and difficult. From that standpoint it was informative, and those scenes built much of the tension. I hate to say it, but it made me want the US to "neutron bomb" the country before repopulating and rebuilding.

If you watch the special features section of the DVD, the actors actually seem a bit bored with the whole thing. Even Kathryn Bigelow doesn't look at the camera and appears to wish she were anywhere but talking about her movie. One interesting point she made was that a key goal was to make the viewer the 4th person in the Humvee. I think it more or less succeeded at that.

The only truly animated participant in the special features is Mark Boal, the author of the book. And I couldn't figure out whether he actually served in Iraq or just tagged along there to get material for a book.

It was a slice of life movie. For those of us who will never be in Iraq, it was interesting and probably pretty realistic. But Best Picture of the Year? Probably not.

 

[SilverTrain]

I watched it last night (Netflix).

Meh.

The synopsis describes it as a gripping drama. Yes, it had its tense moments and Jeremy Renner arguably turned in a very good performance, but it also dragged a lot. What I found educational was how much "in the way" the locals seem to be in a war zone. They don't understand, or they refuse to accept, the notion of "go away" or "stop", making our job there incredibly dangerous and difficult. From that standpoint it was informative, and those scenes built much of the tension. I hate to say it, but it made me want the US to "neutron bomb" the country before repopulating and rebuilding.

If you watch the special features section of the DVD, the actors actually seem a bit bored with the whole thing. Even Kathryn Bigelow doesn't look at the camera and appears to wish she were anywhere but talking about her movie. One interesting point she made was that a key goal was to make the viewer the 4th person in the Humvee. I think it more or less succeeded at that.

The only truly animated participant in the special features is Mark Boal, the author of the book. And I couldn't figure out whether he actually served in Iraq or just tagged along there to get material for a book.

It was a slice of life movie. For those of us who will never be in Iraq, it was interesting and probably pretty realistic. But Best Picture of the Year? Probably not.

I was somewhat underwhelmed at the level of thrills.

And I was more than a little irritated that "Kate" from Lost had such a small part (or one that was left on the cutting-room floor). :wink:

 

[Lex]

I am not a big war movie fan.

That said, I enjoyed watching The Hurt Locker. I thought the tension of the day to day experience (of looking for and dismantling bombs) was great as was the camaraderie/tension between the two main characters.

I also liked Black Hawk Down and JarHead. I think these three movies were telling war experiences with different ends in mind and from three vastly different perspectives.

Unless they were all telling the same story of the same men and women sharing the same experiences, I don't see how you can compare them. It's like saying The Young and the Restless is a better day time, small town soap opera than is Guiding Light, One Life to Live or Days of Our Lives. Not apples and oranges, but definitely different kinds of potatoes.

Also - I don't think the backlash of veterans should have any impact on the credibility of the film (or any other film). I have a friend who was in one of the wars and wrote a book of his experiences. Some veterans railed against it. Whatever. How can you tell someone what they experienced? Each of us experiences the same events differently. The extent that experiences are shared is limited to the degree to which we can all agree upon the happenings and our feelings/reactions toward them.

And as an artist, one of the things I always found annoying was people criticizing your work because it is not in the fashion that THEY desire. It's yours for a reason and comes from your POV as it can truly come from no other. If you want to see different art or art from a differ POV, create it already.

 

[DaveHaldolfsen]

"The Hurt Locker" is not a war movie-it's an antiwar movie set in a war zone.

 

[nudeyorker]

"The Hurt Locker" is not a war movie-it's an antiwar movie set in a war zone.

I'm happy that someone else understood this movie besides me and the voting members of The Academy Of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. It's anti-american and anti-war...still can't believe it won. Thank you.

 

[midlifebear]

I had no idea what Hurtlocker was, so I had to open this thread. It may have made a big splash in the States, but even us expats regularly see American Films in English with Spanish subtitles. If, as TaigaStar suggests, it is as lifeless as The English Patient, I'll make it a point to avoid watching it.

I sat through Invictus (sp?) because the year it depicted was the same year The Squeeze spent two months in South Africa right after Mandella became president. bleah. We sat through Avatar -- twice -- once in 3D in English with Spanish subtitles and a second time (sort of by accident) in 2D dubbed in Spanish. To be quite honest, the inside jokes were much funnier in Spanish than they were in English. Go figure. But I was basically yawning a great deal through two hours of "new" CGI animation?

The two films we both enjoyed were Precious (not exactly a fun flick) and Nine. Both were in English with unobtrusive subtitles. We took my mother-in-law, who was born and raised in Calabria, to Nine. She didn't understand it, but loved the song "You've got to be Italian" which we have translated into "Tiene que sea Italiano" and tend to sing it when visiting and helping her out in her home. For 77 years of age, she can really swing her butt.

 

[Mastur]

Could the reason for this be because Sci-Fi is usually the domain of American filmmaking? Would you have liked it more if the spaceship came to a standstill over the typical NY or Washington DC skyline rather than that of Johannesburg?
The appeal of D9 is that for once in this genre, a different approach was taken quite unlike Independence Day that was totally an American movie made for Americans where America the Brave once again saves the day.
IMO It was original, clever and refreshing, commenting on the universal topic of racism but within the parameters of historic Apartheid.
On a personal level, I am quite stoked that for once (and bloody high time) a proper commercial South African movie was made that reached international success, considering that our film history is older than that of Hollywood.

I did not care for District 9 either, not the best take on "visitor" films for me.

 

[DaveHaldolfsen]

I wouldn't say anti-American; our government has the biggest cock on the planet from all the citizens sucking on it. The movie was an indictment of a conflict that was ill-conceived, poorly executed, and incredibly expensive- both in money and lives.

There is a big difference between nationalism and patriotism, and the nationalists have been exploiting the patriotism of Americans for far too long.

 

[midlifebear]

District 9 -- that's one I'll have to wait until it's on HBO or Showtime. I'm very interested in seeing.

 

[Mastur]

My favourite war movie is 'Full Metal Jacket'. I have yet to see 'Inglorious Basterds' - apparently very good...

 

[Mastur]

Good point!

There is a big difference between nationalism and patriotism, and the nationalists have been exploiting the patriotism of Americans for far too long.

 

[Mastur]

...our government has the biggest cock on the planet from all the citizens sucking on it.

Ahahahahaha...!

 

[MichiganRico]

Reading some of these negative reviews leave me wondering just what movie I watched. Maybe it's because I saw it on the big screen or I had seen a 60 Minutes piece on a Michigan National Guard unit which handles ordinance disposal (upon which this story is based, I believe), I had a real visceral connection to the characters. Honestly, I felt noticably "nervous" for at least an hour after the film.

Many of the films cited by other posters were tremendous war epics...but is it really fair to compare a relatively low-budget, no-name cast indie with a film by a Francis Ford Coppola, Oliver Stone, Stanley Kubrick or James Cameron? Certainly The Hurt Locker profited from having ten nominated films this year, thus splitting up the vote, and having a female director. But unless this year is a complete aberration, I've never seen the Academy reward "mediocrity" with six major Oscars. Most everyone loves a David and Goliath story...including the voters of the Academy.

If the brillance of this film still leaves you wanting, just keep reflecting upon the meaning of the title. (After this, I may have to rent the DVD and watch it again myself.) And, if it's any consolation, I thought Morgan Freeman deserved the Best Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Nelson Mandela. Unfortunately, some actors are simply expected to give outstanding performances in every film--and it's simply taken for granted. Just ask Meryl, George or Dame Helen.

 

[SilverTrain]

Morgan Freeman could win every time and I wouldn't complain.

Easy Reader is just that good.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

I was please to see Bigelow win, perhaps only because Cameron did not, and saved me from listening to another of his self-congratulatory speeches. She did some interesting work in Near Dark, Blue Steel, and Point Break, but I have not seen Hurt Locker. She looks pretty good for 58.

Loved the 3-D CG in Avatar. Had to rate the plot as sci-fi Cowboys, and Indians however. Fortunately the Indians won, for once.

Full Metal Jacket is an awesome anti-war film. I'm also a big fan of Thin Red Line by Terrance Malick, if anyone has ever seen it. James Claveziel, the star, is very under rated.