|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 7, 2010 22:35:30 GMT -5
Is it just me or was The Hurt Locker painful to watch? This film was hyped incessantly as the best and most accurate depiction of the war in Iraq, but after seeing the previews and reading a couple bad reviews I was skeptical of this low-budget movie's quality. When it swept the Academy Awards by winning an incredible six Oscars (Best picture, director, sound editing, sound mixing, writing) out of nine nominations, I thought holy crap, I must have been wrong about this movie. Well, I rented it the other day and it was worse than I could have imagined for an award-winning film. I'm not going to get into the rambo-style of defusing bombs, uniforms, patches, cowboy antics, military language, etc., etc. right now. My main problem was with the crazy and utterly predictable plot. I knew a few minutes into the film that the cowboy ( Renner ) was going to cause a lot of trouble in his elite unit, then bond with the professional Black soldier when he got the scared specialist killed or wounded at some point. I also knew the naive chaplain-colonel was going to volunteer for a sight-seeing mission and get himself blown to pieces doing something stupid like befriending the enemy. How in the heck did this movie beat the other nominees for best picture, director and writing? Inquiring and veteran minds want to know. Well, maybe just me. PS. Ugh! Sorry I gave away part of the plot to anyone who wanted to see this Hollywar film, but you would have deduced it quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Wade Dillon on Apr 7, 2010 23:28:57 GMT -5
I happened to love the film. I was on the edge of my seat the entire way. Then again, I have not immersed myself with modern military information and history. I prefer the 19th century.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 8, 2010 15:01:55 GMT -5
Well, I guess I'm one of the few. In my humble opinion films with a formula plot generally arn't very good unless they are based on a biography or the plot is offset by some great acting or other feature. I didn't see this in Hurt Locker although there were some fun moments, good photography, nice Jordan sets and such at times. I havn't been immersed in the modern military in almost twenty years, but recognize when a movie isn't either. The soldiers in this film were wearing the new distinctive ACU uniforms years before they were even issued to them. How's that for accurate history?
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Apr 8, 2010 17:22:08 GMT -5
Inquiring and veteran minds want to know. Well, maybe just me. RangerRod, As a veteran myself, I always look at military-themed movies with a critical eye, especially those occurring in modern times. I mean, who can you get that wrong, with so many veterans out there to advise you? Still, I'll give it a watch, and give you my two cents worth.... Mark
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 9, 2010 3:34:30 GMT -5
RangerRod, As a veteran myself, I always look at military-themed movies with a critical eye, especially those occurring in modern times. I mean, who can you get that wrong, with so many veterans out there to advise you? Still, I'll give it a watch, and give you my two cents worth.... Mark Thanks. There are obviously a lot of great films that have little anachronisms, mistakes and continuity problems, but they usually are not B-movies that are promoted as faithful and an end-all representation of a particular film genre. I don't have a problem with people adoring deeply flawed movies and I love several myself. I guess my real problems with the The Hurt Locker is the way it was first released in 2008, dragged into 2009, then nominated for nine Academy Awards. The voters seem to have ignored its simple buddy plot, many flaws, lack of a good catalyst and absence of any real Iraqi/ Muslim culture. In my view the Blind Side director was blindsided and robbed by a possible conspiracy to award the 1st lady director with an Oscar, when THL really was not worthy. I don't think it was totally her fault as she did the best she could with a problem screenplay and low-budget. I doubt US veterans will ever embrace this movie and especially those that served in Iraq, but they could prove me wrong in time. Who woulda thunk that weird Apocalypse Now would come to represent the Vietnam experience? *Spelling correction
|
|
|
Post by Wade Dillon on Apr 9, 2010 13:54:12 GMT -5
I watched the film with my brother, who deploys for Iraq in September, and he didn't care for it either. So much so, he fell asleep during it. So, I guess it can be a hit or miss.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 9, 2010 18:11:15 GMT -5
Well, I'm not surprised Wade. Hopefully he will have it easier than previous deployments with better equipment (ACUs, frag vests, vehicle armor, etc) and training. The IEDs have gotten bigger and more complicated in Iraq (not the Hollywood examples of Hurt Locker) over the years, but so have the methods of locating the devices and safely disposing of them. I think EOD usually just cuts the primer cord or destroys the device from a good distance, but I may be wrong. I was the victim of a small explosion once and was thrown 35 - 40 feet. I don't think an IED is something anyone wants to be close to unless they absolutely have to put on that bulky suit.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Apr 10, 2010 18:23:55 GMT -5
Sloan, I just saw the movie at my local multiplex, and am a bit divided on it. Overall, I liked it pretty well, the uniform details and other flaws notwithstanding. HOWEVER, I didn't think it was Best Picture material, so we agree there, and we agree also on the political motivations to giving the award to a female director. I'd bet money that if it had been directed by a man, the movie would've been overlooked by the Academy. On the plus side, I think we should be grateful that a major film about the military came out recently that DID NOT have some cynical, military-bashing message. This one seemed to focus on the particular adrenaline junkie type of individual like the James character, without being too judgmental. I sort of liked the hand-held camera, and sometimes grainy look of the film, which was most likely done to resemble a documentary. Not being an EOD tech, I can't speak to Bomb Disposal methods on this one, except to say that word of James' reckless style of working would surely have filtered up the chain, and would've caused some major nuts to have come down on his head. But that being said, if there was a movie about EOD's using robots for 2 hours, no one would have been in the least bit interested.
There were some things in the movie that made me cringe and say "yeah, right." Like when the black sgt picked up the 50 cal sniper rifle, and after a couple of shots became quite expert at it, to the point of making a 1-shot kill on a moving "hadji" at about 3/4 mile range. And when the Team Leader "James" character wanted to go off into the black of night hunting bad guys with just two other guys, WITHOUT NVG's..... Oh, and like you, when the camera panned back in the HUMVEE interior and you could see the nice-guy shrink officer standing out there by himself, I just counted down to myself "3...2...1" and then, sure enough "BOOM." Mark
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 11, 2010 20:09:52 GMT -5
I have suspected for a few years that other forces beyond the merit of the films was influencing the secretive Academy nomination and award process. It seems to me that U.S. military movies come out almost as often as inspiring sports films, but you're correct that The Hurt Locker didn't have the bashing slant of recent depictions of the Middle East Wars. SSgt or SFC James' traumatic blast exposure (which I have), PSTD or adrenaline rush withdrawals didn't seem real with the cereal and family stuff, but it wasn't a big deal. The talk of letting enemy soldiers bleed to death, fragging James and hitting superiors seemed out of place in a supposedly elite combat unit, but maybe the army has changed a lot since I was discharged.
As I said before, the photography and sets were great. The gritty camera work was probably the best feature of the movie and this authenticity should've been contagious with other aspects of the film. I wasn't an EOD either, but I did take a bomb recognition course with the National Guard and had a pal who served with EOD during early stages of the war in Iraq. High explosives do all kinds of interesting things and I can't help but think that writers could have come up with a better plot using real events. EOD advisors from the war and more army cooperation would have vastly improved the quality of this movie and made it worthy of its Oscars.
The Barrett Rifle, Beckham revenge and night revenge scenes may have been exciting to some, but I think they were a little stupid too. I thought these scenes should have been used for better Iraqi character developement or EOD just blowing stuff up. They could have taken some cues from Jamie Foxx's movie, The Kingdom. I didn't know what was going to happen in that explosive movie until....
[glow=yellow,2,300]" BOOM!!! " [/glow] something blew up. That's the way war movies should be. ;D
|
|