The Hurt Locker ---

DaveHaldolfsen

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Posts
39
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
153
You continue to fixate on EOD being fundamental to the movie-it's not. It could have been any group that gets to play with death regularly. EOD was chosen because it was easiest to film. Can you imagine what it would have been like to film room-clearing to demonstrate risk attraction?

You miss the point of the movie because you continue to believe it's a war movie.
 

nudeyorker

Admired Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2006
Posts
22,742
Media
0
Likes
820
Points
208
Location
NYC/Honolulu
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Like that's gonna stop you, you zealot.
And your point is?
Like you don't have a well-stocked bar.
And your point is?
Like there aren't subways and taxis. :rolleyes:
I use a car service; so your point is?



BTW, DaveH? My new hero!
Mine too! Should we all meet for drinks and take a Town Car home?
 

DaveHaldolfsen

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Posts
39
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
153
Hero? Really? Haven't thought much about why I defend The Hurt Locker have you?

I interviewed for jobs with DynCorp, Triple Canopy, and Blackwater before I watched the second GOP primary debate. Now I placate myself with the idea that the FED will destroy the dollar
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
:confused: Gotcha?? What are you even talking about? I'm pretty sure I've never discussed economics with Trinity; that would be a waste of my time. I'm pretty sure I've never quoted Alan Greenspan either, as I don't hold him in particularly high regard. If I understand the point I think you're trying to make, I'll say this: There is a world of difference between relying on and referencing the opinions of experts in the field vs. pontificating ad nauseum one's decidely one-sided point of view, even if it is supported by anecdotal evidence.
i would expect you not to understand since it is a simple fact. People rely on experts when they are either not an expert, or are not there to witness an event, or study it. Obviously, you cannot figure out a simple analogy.

I am glad you think you understand the very simple point being made.

As for pontificating ad nauseum, well, you would be the authority on that wouldn't you?

So i am curious, what do you do when you need to buttress all those claims of yours? Do you point to facts, or just go with the flow? As for my "one-sided point of view", just what exactly do you call the point of view of the corner you fight from? Two sided? Flexible? Spare me. you spend as much time rooted firmly to your little ideological fencepost as anyone.

and i really enjoyed your accusation about my one-sided point of view so much, i almost forgot, that in actuality, ones point of view is supposed to be one sided: "If you consider something from a particular point of view, you are using one aspect of a situation in order to judge that situation."

the facts that support my point of view in this case, are not merely anecdotal. even someone like you would have to realize that military fact and procedure are not anecdotal. So stop dancing around the issue.
3 man EOD teams do not split up alone at night. That is not anecdotal, that is fact.

There are definitely at least two sides to this coin, and plenty of voices within the military that support the film as well as criticize some inaccurate details. May I remind you first of all this is a fictional movie based on reality, not a documentary. Regardless, it is entirely reasonable to take certain artistic license when trying to condense a story of such complexity into a two hour format and still keep it compelling. And to nit-pick on the inaccuracy of minor details, which occur in virtually any film, is to miss the larger picture.
thanks for reminding me. i already stated a dozen times before your grand entrance into this thread that i do not expect perfection, or a documentary from a feature film. but i expect a semblance of realism, when one stakes their claim about the quality of the movie being its "realism".

as for "missing the larger picture", i do not need your lectures, since obviously you cannot read where i said earlier in the thread that i do not care to pick at minutiae, like an up-armored humvee in 2004 or the *DOZENS* of nitpicky inaccuracies that i have not mentioned, and do not take issue with such as:

(some inaccuracies from goofs list - i omitted about 20 more to save space)


  • Anachronisms: The Army ACU uniforms worn did not come into service until 2005.

  • Revealing mistakes: None of the scopes and sight attachments in the film have crosshairs. The M68 aimpoint didn't have a dot, the ACOG scopes didn't have the standard crosshairs, and the scope on the Barrett was without crosshairs as well. This would make accuracy impossible as you would only be able to fire in the general direction your scope was pointed

  • Factual errors: In the scene where Eldridge is observing the goats on the bridge, his Aimpoint CompM2 is shown with zoom capabilities. The real Aimpoint CompM2 is a red dot sight, and has no magnification.

  • Revealing mistakes: The ACOG sights mounted on James' and Sanborn's M4s are clearly replicas. ACOGs only have 2 knobs used for windage and elevation, the ACOGs in the movie have three knobs.

  • Factual errors: Jeremy Renner is credited as "Staff Sergeant William James," an E-6. But his character wears the rank of an E-7, Sergeant First Class (3 chevrons and 2 rockers).

  • Revealing mistakes: The "radio" that SSG (or SFC) James wears on his head is really only ear protection with built-in mics to allow one to hear normal conversation. It has the capability to be connected to a radio, but his isn't.

  • Factual errors: The EOD team usually went out of the wire by themselves. Usually when EOD goes out of the gate they are escorted by a quick reaction force (QRF) of 3 or more Humvees.

  • Revealing mistakes: James would not have been able to put out the raging car fire with a single medium sized fire extinguisher.

  • Continuity: The wheeled 6x6 APC appearing right after the Humvee in the opening scenes is not a US Army vehicle, but a South African made Ratel modified in Jordan with a Ukrainian KMDB BAU-23-2 turret.

  • Factual errors: During the scene at the DVD market stall outside the US Army base when James is asking the trader what happened to Beckham, the trader tries to sell a DVD to James for "five dirhams". The Dirham is the currency of United Arab Emirates. The Iraqi currency is the Dinar.


  • Factual errors: In the scene where James stops the Iraqi taxi, he draws his pistol. The pistol he draws is the earliest model of the Beretta 92 and would not be used by the U.S. military. Later in the film his pistol is a Beretta 92FS, which is the standard issue for the military.

  • Factual errors: The Humvees used in the movie are not used by the US Army. Only the US Marine Corps utilizes Humvees with the Snorkel. The snorkel is the tube on the hood on the passenger side that extends up to the roof line.


  • Factual errors: The bombs pictured would not have to be "disarmed" as portrayed. The military munitions were fused with primer cord. Simply cutting the primer cord would have isolated the bomb from the electrical cap ignition circuit thereby making it inert. Primercord explodes but with the force of a M-40 firecracker not high explosive force. Prima cord is in fact a high explosive and explodes at a velocity much greater than a firecracker, approx 23,000 fps

  • Anachronisms: In the movie, all the soldiers are wearing the digital ACU (Army Combat Uniform). While the opening scene takes place in Baghdad in 2004, the first units to be issued the ACU did not receive them until February of 2005. The correct uniform for the time period would have been the three color DCU (Desert Combat Uniform).

  • Factual errors: Early in the film Sanborn says to James, "So you were a Ranger", and James replies that he was. While James wears the shoulder sleeve insignia of a Ranger battalion from his prior deployment, he does not have a Ranger tab on his left shoulder, which is needed for any leadership position in the 75th Ranger Regiment. Also, as part of ordnance disposal he would only be deployed attached to a Ranger battalion, and wouldn't actually be a Ranger.

so save it. I have said, i don't demand perfection, but i do demand *REALISM* in a "realistic" war film. I take issue with *MAJOR* absurdity, not minor errors.
Yes, there are differing opinions, but plenty of military folk have come out strongly in support of the film, including top brass - including, amazingly enough, Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This is most notable, as it comes after the Department of Defense withdrew its support of the film, as often happens when a film is made that is more than a rah-rah puff piece like 'Top Gun' for example. For some balance on the opinions expressed:
Nice one moron. Robert Gates is the Secretary of Defense, not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Do a bit of research, genius.




Boal: "We certainly made creative choices for dramatic effect," he said. "But I hope the choices were made respectfully and conscientiously." . . .

snip


Before you accuse me of cherry-picking, the entire article is there to digest, along with alternative opinions. "Gotcha".
very amusing. yet not one of them said the film was a *REALISTIC* portrayal of the situations. i do not need to accuse you of cherry picking, since the quotes make the points.

liking the film, is different from it being realistic and as the various people said:

Sloan, a former U.S. Army captain, said "The Hurt Locker" offered a perfect snapshot of modern conflict. "This is what's going on for the men and women who are fighting this war," he said.
(notice, he did not say that it was accurate...he was talking about the stress, the uncertainty, the fear, that soldiers endure over there, clearly)
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
(cont)

Jim O'Neil, the executive director of the EOD Memorial, which honors those killed defusing bombs, was equally enthusiastic about the film's accuracy. "It's not just a movie," he said at the panel discussion. "It's something that's actually occurring as we're sitting in these chairs."

(notice he did not say *HOW* it was happening. he was clearly referring to dealing with IEDs, VBIEDs, etc.)

since you are so clever, you might want to read this article, to read what that *SAME MAN* said and what another officer said as well:

"I enjoyed the movie. There is some artistic license taken, with some of the situations and processes," he says. "You know, it's a movie, not a training film." He says if Hollywood made a two-hour movie of a guy in a bomb suit, "you'd put everyone to sleep."



Veterans Say Exaggerations Abound In 'Hurt Locker' : NPR

Robert Gates, has a very positive view of the movie. "This is the first Iraq war movie that he has liked, or for that matter seen," said Press Secretary Geoff Morrell. "In looking at all previous films he thought they had too much of a political agenda. "He just thought it was a very compelling, and what he thought was authentic, portrayal of what life is like for many of our troops in Iraq. Of the films that have been done about this war, that is the most authentic."
LOLOL. it's the first Iraq film that he has liked & the first he has seen. Who could argue with that kind of glowing praise? presumably, Maxie-Pad, even you are astute enough to see, that clearly, this statement is bullshit...how is this the first and only Iraq movie he has seen, but when he looked at all previous films on Iraw he thought they had too much of a political agenda? LOLOL. Surely even you can see the absurdity of that.
he thought it was very compelling (his emotional view) then he said it was an *AUTHENTIC PORTRAYAL OF WHAT LIFE IS LIKE FOR MANY OF OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ.* (yeah what life is like for many of our troops, but not the reality of the situations)

i notice you had the gall to actually underline the last line. hysterical even for you. he has never seen any of the Iraq war films, but feels this one is the most authentic. LOL

So which is it? Has he seen it? Has he not seen it and just had his rep give his own review? How can he know if this is more realistic then the others when he has not seen them?

total nonsense


Again, what do you mean by the "feather in my cap" comments, Peter Pan?
exactly what i said. it was quite an incredible and original idea, using the blue type. You should be proud.

So which is it, posting in blue makes me original, different or not? You seem to be saying both. Not surprising. Oh look, I did figure out how to go default. I guess I am capable of this after all. Is this more to your liking? Does it make my opinons any more or less worthy of consideration? Do let me know.
obviously you do not understand sarcasm. I recall you had problems with that awhile back.

congrats on your big discovery, onwards and upwards from here. Your opinions are not worthy regardless, so type wont help, but obviously you thought the bold blue made them more worthy.

and it is much more to my liking. i hope you continue though your opinions will no doubt remain just as absurd.
By the way, I have explained elsewhere some reasons why I post in this typeface, not that it really matters. Thank you for being so dead set against freedom of expression.
ah yes poor baby cannot find his widdle posts in a thread without the big bold blue type.

So, it's a first amendment issue now? it sucks to be persecuted huh? maybe you should storm the barricades again because this is actually just you being an attention whore.

In conclusion: you sir, as I have said before, are a self-absorbed pseudointellectual blowhard, an obnoxious annoying little shit to boot. In my humble opinion.

:cool:
and you maxiepad, are a self-aggrandizing, melodramatic, arrogant, pretentious attention whore, an absurd, despicable drama queen, who flexes his own self-importance by being involved in 10 different thread wars all at once. Even i have never managed more than 1-2 at a time. Yet you are so intent on seeing your own ramblings to the tune of 30 or so posts a day.

and before you whine about the length of the post, much of the rambling is yours that i had to snip.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Jeeze oh pete Flashy we get it you did not like the movie. Some of us did. Can we move on. For the record I hated Avatar!

this is a thread about The Hurt Locker. what did you expect would be discussed here nudey?

I did not see Avatar, so i do not care, but i expect i will hate it, since it is a Jim Cameron film that focuses on incredible technical achievement instead of story, dialog, and acting. I will be dazzled by the effects, and nothing else.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
. . . and so the dissertation continues. Why is it whenever you point out that someone is an obnoxious annoying self-absorbed pseudointellectual blowhard, they do everything possible to prove it? Weird.

and why is it that you felt the need to find and start a war with me in this thread? Sounds like you are rather obsessed with getting into yet *another* thread war to add to the 8-9 you are already in at the moment.

you really are not one to speak about being an obnoxious, annoying, self-absorbed pseudointellectual blowhard considering your current body count of thread conflicts underway, where you exhibit exactly those qualities.

You seem not to be able to help yourself, since you found your way in to this thread with no provocation from me, didn't you?

I expect i will be seeing a great deal more of you doing this, though.
 

Xcuze

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Posts
2,903
Media
0
Likes
276
Points
303
Location
In a treehouse
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I have no interest whatsoever in war films. Its just a genre I avoid totally. Im sure there are some good ones but Im just not into that theme. Except porno ones!

This looks particularly dull. I think I read that its the least successful(financially) Oscar winner ever.

ps; still glad it beat Avatar though. Which gets worse the more I remember it.
 
Last edited:

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
But it's not a film about combat, it's a film about humanity. You continue to focus on the details, completely missing how elemental those 80 seconds are to the character.


oh, it's not about combat? like fuck it isn't...it is about the *ADDICTION* to combat right? so now is this a medical film? Sorry, and details are important, because if something cannot in fact happen that way, then the experience is not accurate. EOD guys don't do any of that, so his addiction is false and made up.

It's about humanity? Bull...if it was, they could have showed a film of him at home, struggling with the horrors, for half the movie, and showing long flashbacks that have caused him to be brought to this level.

those 80 seconds are not "elemental"...they are a copout. An easy way to wrap things up without actually addressing the big issues.
they show *NOTHING* of the stress and horrors soldiers go through when they return home.

You ramble on about realism, and how much you know because others told you or you read it somewhere, and believe that qualifies you to dismiss a portrayal of humanity after warfare.

i did not say "how much i know"...I know alot, but not everything. but i know bullshit when i see it...and this was it. My own opinion and tastes in films qualify me to appreciate or dismiss this film. This is a film, genius, if it does not portray something accurately to me i have every right to dismiss it.

Don't tell me about my "humanity" because i found this to be a false representation of a "portrayal of humanity".

If i want to see a movie about portrayals of humanity during war, i will watch "The Killing Fields"...something that truly addresses issues of humanity, in a genuine way.

or the Deer Hunter.



PTSD is not the same as addiction, and this film is not about PTSD, it's about adrenaline.

no shit...it isn't. I was making a point about *ALL KINDS* of traumas that soldiers experience when they arrive home. Many that go far worse than PTSD.


You didn't like it because you didn't get it, because you can't.

go fuck yourself...i didn't like it because it rang false in its absurd presentation.

Sorry, if i can get the Killing Fields and The Deer Hunter, i can comprehend this piece of crap. That is what it was...an action flick trying to pose as a deeper film. Guess what? Sorry, it failed, by showing me a false portrayal to the point that it cheapened the message it was trying to relate.

Oh, i get it...i get the fact that it could not sell me on what it was saying because it tried to hoodwink me throughout most of it.
I doubt you have the empathy necessarily to consider something not laid bare before you (thus the 'show night sweats, and trembling')

laughable...now you are questioning my empathy as a human being because i did not like The Hurt Locker? You are a fool.

Ryan McDermott: The Hurt Locker: A Veteran's Take

Apocalypse Now? Like when the bunnies do a show for GIs FAR from anything called civilization-was that realistic? Was it necessary to the story?

Didn't you just say the Hurt Locker was not about combat? It was about humanity?

Apocalypse Now did not *CLAIM* to be realistic, genius. It was always designed by Coppolla to be a mythical journey back in time.

and yes, it was necessary to the story, since if you knew anything about the film, the bunnies, were in terms of the mythological aspects of the film, supposed to be the "Sirens" from the Odyssey...it was an allegory set against the Vietnam War, based of the novel "Heart Of Darkness" that was ten times deeper than the Hurt Locker could even dream of.

Please don't tell me the Hurt Locker was going for any of that type of depth.
Saving Private Ryan? The whole premise is farfetched-sending a Ranger captain and his men into occupied territory for a private? Because all of his brothers died?

i agree...the premise was utterly ridiculous...which is why it is one of my least favorite war films in terms of plot. In terms of realistic combat film-making, and the portrayal of the Normandy landings and many battles there after, it is absolutely epic and breathtaking.

You can cite innumerable SOF groups and movies that you have seen, but what you can't do is appreciate the psychology of the characters because you haven't had that experience and don't want it.

i never said i could appreciate the psychology of having war addiction...but it is a fact that the movie was completely absurd with regards to its realism, and as a result, the realism of the psychological problems that we need to see addressed, are minimized, and not explored at all.

this movie was supposed to make me *FEEL* the psychology of the addiction to combat...and it failed. Had it been realistic, well written, and really *EXPLORED* those aspects, it would have made me feel very differently i expect.

I cannot appreciate what it is like to be a heroin addict...yet Requiem For A Dream, to me, was an emotionally devastating film.

I cannot appreciate what it is like to have been in Vietnam...yet the Deer Hunter scrambled my brains with sadness and still affects me.

sorry, the hurt locker did none of that, and i am more than able to feel empathy. This movie simply failed at the goal that it set...to convince me it was a realistic portrayal of war, and the drug of combat to some soldiers.

sorry if you do not like that. Obviously, many others agree with me as well, and we have every right to feel that way. Because one does not like The Hurt Locker does not mean that one does not have empathy. :rolleyes:
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You continue to fixate on EOD being fundamental to the movie-it's not. It could have been any group that gets to play with death regularly. EOD was chosen because it was easiest to film. Can you imagine what it would have been like to film room-clearing to demonstrate risk attraction?

oh yeah...it's about humanity.

sorry...it was about addiction to combat...as stated in the very first line, and then re-enforced with the last scene at home and him walking off into "the sunset"

and yes, EOD was fundamental to the movie, since that is what they chose...and, i am sure had they made it *REALISTIC* it would have had just as much effect on people like yourself then how they butchered the "combat".
You miss the point of the movie because you continue to believe it's a war movie.
LOL...okay...so now it is not a war movie? let's see, it is about addiction to war and the combat and rush of war, but it is not about war? You said in one of your first posts, that is an anti-war movie. So that would still make it a war movie, no? It is about war, it's a war movie.

sorry dude...you have now officially lost it.

I must have missed the point because i thought it was a movie about the addiction to war...and if there was no war, then there is nothing for him to be addicted to can there? without the Iraq War, he would have to just become a bungee jumper to get his danger thrills.
 
Last edited:

DaveHaldolfsen

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Posts
39
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
153
No it means you continue to rely on video and the experiences of others for your understanding of war.

You cited those movies as models of realism-not I.

"never said i could appreciate the psychology of having war addiction...but it is a fact that the movie was completely absurd with regards to its realism, and as a result, the realism of the psychological problems that we need to see addressed, are minimized, and not explored at all"

No shit, fuckface-the dopey public keeps buying the nationalist bullshit on TV and the lofty words of corporatist politicos to further the empire.

Unfortunately, no one released "The Deer Hunter" in 2009

What, in your vast couch jockeying experience, WAS the best movie of 2009? That movie that might cause some viewers to question their position on a present issue? Speaking of which, cocksleeve, what IS your position on the GWOT/OIF/OEF?

Name me ONE movie that questioned a war while Americans were still deployed.
 

DaveHaldolfsen

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Posts
39
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
153
Not one anti-war movie that was released while troops were still deployed? How about you cheerleader? Can you name one anti-war movie that questioned a conflict where troops were still engaged?
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
No it means you continue to rely on video and the experiences of others for your understanding of war.

You cited those movies as models of realism-not I.

lol...nowhere did i cite Apocalypse Now as an example of "realism".

point out, quote and cite where i did.

and yes, i pointed out SPR for it *combat* realism.

and i pointed out Deer Hunter and Killing Fields for their *emotional* resonance, not for combat realism.
"never said i could appreciate the psychology of having war addiction...but it is a fact that the movie was completely absurd with regards to its realism, and as a result, the realism of the psychological problems that we need to see addressed, are minimized, and not explored at all"

No shit, fuckface-the dopey public keeps buying the nationalist bullshit on TV and the lofty words of corporatist politicos to further the empire.

LOL...way to turn this thread, that had no political flag-waving, into a retarded screed about corporations and nationalism...in just two lines.

no-shit fuckface indeed.

Unfortunately, no one released "The Deer Hunter" in 2009

i see...so now, chronology has something to do with this? The Deer Hunter can be rented on video or dvd anytime.

What, in your vast couch jockeying experience,

LOL...what exactly is "couch jockeying"...i spend most of my time in a comfortable office chair, at work and in my home office where i type from. The only time i ever "couch jockey" is when i watch a movie or a tv program that i really want to give my undivided attention to.

WAS the best movie of 2009? That movie that might cause some viewers to question their position on a present issue? Speaking of which, cocksleeve, what IS your position on the GWOT/OIF/OEF?

LOL...what was the best movie in 2009? in my opinion?
1. first of all, the best picture is not one that "might cause some viewers to question their position on a present issue." That has nothing to do with cinema. If that was the case, why didn't Philadelphia win best picture in 1993? or what about Precious this year? or Babe in 1995?

Your point is moot, but, thus far, my pick for best movie of 2009, not having seen all the best picture nominees, is still absolutely Inglourious Basterds.

2. oooooh cocksleeve...fascinating insult.

3. my opinion on the "Global War On Terrorism" is that we should have committed to Afghanistan first and foremost. as for the rest of my position, i feel that whatever the US and its allies believe is the best way to fight terrorism is up to them, not to me. I am smart enough to know that covert war, intelligence, infiltration, and everything that comes along with the types of units that are as we speak in constant motion in the GWOT are far beyond me being able to tell them what should be done.

or do you think that without having access to all the intelligence information, people like you and me should just be screaming to bomb every country that might have a terrorist in it?

4. My opinion on Operation Iraqi Freedom, is that it has been a disaster on a human and financial level for our country...i am hoping that eventually Iraq can run itself, and maybe in the long run, some of the terrible costs will be defrayed by a country that in 10 years is stable, and at peace and at successful. That is a hope. Reality is different.

5. as for Operation Enduring Freedom, i think that should have been priority 1 from the get go, as i have said here in the past, but since you have only arrived here, and your sole contribution to the forum has been ranting about the Hurt Locker, you would not know that.

Had more forces been committed to Afghanistan in 2001-2002 instead of messing around with stupid political considerations, and getting sidetracked with Iraq we certainly would be better off.


But thanks for your derailing the thread into another treatise on the Iraq situation...may i direct you to the politics forum, where that is discussed ad nauseum?

I am sure you will find many folks there to scream and yell at about Iraq who will return fire to your hearts content.

i will not discuss the war any further in this thread...if you wish to discuss Hurt Locker do so. I will not be drawn into a debate about Iraq and Afghanistan with someone who clearly is gagging for some kind of fight about that topic.
Name me ONE movie that questioned a war while Americans were still deployed.

that's funny...cause Bigelow and Boal said specifically that this movie was not political at all. In fact, they went out of their way to make it that way. Don't take my word for it...ask them...their interviews are all over the place.

and as for naming you one movie that questioned a war while americans were still deployed, you obviously aren't the brightest bulb around, are you?

Ever hear of these Iraq war films, that came out before the Hurt Locker?

The BAttle For Haditha (2007)
Home Of The Brave (2006)
In The Valley Of Elah (2007)
The Messenger (2009)
Redacted (2007)
Stop-Loss (2008)


oh...and by the way...didn't you say that this film wasn't about war anyway? So technically it could not question a war, since it was not about war, right?

thanks for playing, Mr. Angry


bed time for me...i will continue arguing with you tomorrow, when you are less agitated.