Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/23/2010 11:54:34 AM EDT



...was not overly impressed.





All but one of the characters (Sanborn) were significantly psychologically defective... is that reflective of the proportion of defective people serving in Iraq?





And would three guys REALLY go off in the middle of the night to hunt down a POSSIBLE hiding spot for a POSSIBLE suicide bomber in the dark without telling anyone else... and then all three split up to go down different alleys!???





It did however make a good example of how surrounded/confused/unable-to-tell-good-guy-from-bad-guy the situations can be there. I guess a year of that every day can drive anyone a bit, "off".





The part when they were pinned down in the middle of the desert by those snipers was pretty good too.





But on the whole, I thought it was a bit insulting to make all but one of the characters there so obviously being guided by their flaws and either borderline incompetent, borderline psychotic or borderline corrupt.





Were the characters there pretty much the way 80-90% of the troops in Iraq really are? Because that's the way it came across to me.





FWIW.
 
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 11:55:58 AM EDT
[#1]
IMO movie shouldnt have gotten 6 oscars
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 11:57:16 AM EDT
[#2]
Pretty much my take on it also

I am not and have never been .mil but I found most of the cowboy shit the main character pulled unrealistic and not something that would be borne lightly in real life.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 11:59:32 AM EDT
[#3]
I thought it was gripping.  But, everyone has their own opinion.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:00:50 PM EDT
[#4]


The 850 yard shot with the Barrett 50 on the running target was pure Hollywood...

Now, if Hollis P. Wood was there, I could believe that...

Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:01:12 PM EDT
[#5]
The sniper scene is the most ridiculous part. I was laughing out loud at the stupidity of the writing.



I agree, very weak movie for an Oscar best picture.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:01:15 PM EDT
[#6]
I thought it was terrible.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:03:21 PM EDT
[#7]
Old news now but lots of .mil guys and even EOD guys weighed in on the original thread saying that the movie was totally unrealistic.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:04:08 PM EDT
[#8]
I smelled bullshit from the first trailer I saw of that movie years ago.
Completely ignored the movie based on what I'd heard friends say about it: like every single character is insane/deranged.
When it won the Oscar I knew it my BS meter was calibrated correctly.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:04:18 PM EDT
[#9]
I liked it.  

FWIW, the number of oscars a film wins has zero bearing in real life whether the movie was any good or not, good is relative to the individual viewer.  I've enjoyed far worse, and walked out on ones that were more highly acclaimed.  
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:04:43 PM EDT
[#10]
is that reflective of the proportion of defective people serving in Iraq?


It is Hollywood.  You should know the answer to this, unless you say prayers to Michael Moore and Al Gore.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:06:12 PM EDT
[#11]
It was a pretty good movie with some herp derp parts.  It's a MOVIE.  Not a documentary.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:06:38 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
The sniper scene is the most ridiculous part. I was laughing out loud at the stupidity of the writing.


And that's the point that I turned it off!  After that, my wife and I both looked at each other with a WTF look...
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:08:19 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
IMO movie shouldnt have gotten 6 oscars


Yep. I mean, I was entertained but, that's about it.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:10:24 PM EDT
[#14]
Steaming pile of seemingly stream of consciousness shit...if i could give it more than two thumbs down I would

The only thing that restrained me from finding the director and pissing on their door was the use of the Barret...only redeeming factor in the whole fucking thing.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:11:44 PM EDT
[#15]
I swear you people should only be watching documentaries.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:11:54 PM EDT
[#16]
I thought it was pretty entertaining.  Definitely not a documentary.

Upon a second viewing, I really started to notice some of the limitations of the film, most likely due to budget.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:11:59 PM EDT
[#17]
.....  HOLLYWOOD



Just to point you in the right direction and why the movie was not factually correct
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:12:18 PM EDT
[#18]
it bored me
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:13:24 PM EDT
[#19]





Quoted:



The sniper scene is the most ridiculous part. I was laughing out loud at the stupidity of the writing.





I agree, very weak movie for an Oscar best picture.



Yeah the running kill shot was absurd - just as absurd as being sniped at (with deadly accuracy) by an AK from 1000 yds.





But I thought the actual character interaction between James and Sanborn in that scene was the best part of the whole movie.
 
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:15:46 PM EDT
[#20]



Quoted:


I swear you people should only be watching documentaries.


Nothing wrong with that...









 
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:15:52 PM EDT
[#21]



Quoted:


I swear you people should only be watching documentaries.


Compared to the last war movie to be Oscar-quality, Saving Private Ryan, the characters in SPR were vastly better and more believable than The Hurt Locker.
 
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:17:19 PM EDT
[#22]
Fuck the Hurt Locker.  the English Dept wanted to show that as an "Iraq film"
I simply presented other more informed options.

PLEASE check out
Combat Diaries Lima Company
http://www.aetv.com/listings/episode_details.do?episodeid=163325

ANY of these vids will give you a good idea

And I hope RustedAce swings by to comment as well....
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:27:49 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:

Quoted:
I swear you people should only be watching documentaries.

Nothing wrong with that...



 


Nothing at all.

But expecting a STORY to be 100% accurate, to represent an equal cross-section of the military, to make war look noble, for Americans to always be the good guys, etc. is just silly. It's a story, being told by someone who's never been there (or has only spent a little time there.) Expecting it to be Saving Private Ryan every time you walk into the theater is silly.

The Hurt Locker explored the main character's obsession with being a bomb tech, and his inability to have any sort of a meaningful relationship to anyone or anything outside of the war zone. It explored the stress and circumstance of fighting in Iraq. Is it a 100% accurate portrayal of the way things are? No, because it isn't a documentary. It's a story, and should be taken for what it is.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:35:53 PM EDT
[#24]



Quoted:



Quoted:




Quoted:

I swear you people should only be watching documentaries.


Nothing wrong with that...







 




Nothing at all.



But expecting a STORY to be 100% accurate, to represent an equal cross-section of the military, to make war look noble, for Americans to always be the good guys, etc. is just silly. It's a story, being told by someone who's never been there (or has only spent a little time there.) Expecting it to be Saving Private Ryan every time you walk into the theater is silly.



The Hurt Locker explored the main character's obsession with being a bomb tech, and his inability to have any sort of a meaningful relationship to anyone or anything outside of the war zone. It explored the stress and circumstance of fighting in Iraq. Is it a 100% accurate portrayal of the way things are? No, because it isn't a documentary. It's a story, and should be taken for what it is.


Agreed. Sometimes it's best not to take things so seriously.



Then again I'll pick out flaws while watching documentaries, so what do I know.



 
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:37:41 PM EDT
[#25]
I must admit that I let far too many WOWs from other people build the movie up for a pretty fatal drop in my opinion. I'll never watch it again. I was bored.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:41:31 PM EDT
[#26]
it was pretty meh to me also
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:45:40 PM EDT
[#27]



Was I expecting a documentary?  No.





Was I expecting, yet another, recent war movie depicting American soldiers as mostly defective, mostly psychotic or mostly corrupt? Gee, there's only about a dozen other Iraq War movies released in recent years (not to mention the dozens of Vietnam War movies since the '70s) that do that... gee - how original this one was.
 
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:47:40 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
But expecting a STORY to be 100% accurate, to represent an equal cross-section of the military, to make war look noble, for Americans to always be the good guys, etc. is just silly. It's a story, being told by someone who's never been there (or has only spent a little time there.) Expecting it to be Saving Private Ryan every time you walk into the theater is silly.

The Hurt Locker explored the main character's obsession with being a bomb tech, and his inability to have any sort of a meaningful relationship to anyone or anything outside of the war zone. It explored the stress and circumstance of fighting in Iraq. Is it a 100% accurate portrayal of the way things are? No, because it isn't a documentary. It's a story, and should be taken for what it is.


That's all well and good from a literary (cinematic?) point of view.
What really chaps my ass, however, is when dumbfucks who have never even been in the service, let alone in Iraq, start talking about how "realistic a portrayal" the movie is, and how "It's exactly what goes on over there."

It enters popular opinion, and the Oscar just validates it.
"Apocalypse Now" has almost nothing to do with Vietnam (yes I know, Conrad, Heart of Darkness). But ask somebody on the street to name a Vietnam movie, and I'll bet the first title they can think up is "Apocalypse Now" So the Vietnam conflict, in popular opinion, is summed up by a surreal fever-dream of a movie where Brando decapitates people.

The same damn thing is going to happen with the GWOT. Inaccurate portrayals get lauded, and people start to believe crazy shit. It's disrespectful and dishonest to produce movies like that.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:48:08 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:

Quoted:
I swear you people should only be watching documentaries.

Nothing wrong with that...



 


Nothing at all.

But expecting a STORY to be 100% accurate, to represent an equal cross-section of the military, to make war look noble, for Americans to always be the good guys, etc. is just silly. It's a story, being told by someone who's never been there (or has only spent a little time there.) Expecting it to be Saving Private Ryan every time you walk into the theater is silly.

The Hurt Locker explored the main character's obsession with being a bomb tech, and his inability to have any sort of a meaningful relationship to anyone or anything outside of the war zone. It explored the stress and circumstance of fighting in Iraq. Is it a 100% accurate portrayal of the way things are? No, because it isn't a documentary. It's a story, and should be taken for what it is.


Sorry but I expected more from a movie (yes I understand those were actors and they followed a script) based on a war that is currently being fought and a movie that had so much Oscar hype.  I grasped the whole dysfunctional side of James and the others.  I just feel like a movie of that type should make more effort at being realistic in it's other facets.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:51:23 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
What really chaps my ass, however, is when dumbfucks who have never even been in the service, let alone in Iraq, start talking about how "realistic a portrayal" the movie is, and how "It's exactly what goes on over there."

It enters popular opinion, and the Oscar just validates it.
"Apocalypse Now" has almost nothing to do with Vietnam (yes I know, Conrad, Heart of Darkness). But ask somebody on the street to name a Vietnam movie, and I'll bet the first title they can think up is "Apocalypse Now" So the Vietnam conflict, in popular opinion, is summed up by a surreal fever-dream of a movie where Brando decapitates people.

The same damn thing is going to happen with the GWOT. Inaccurate portrayals get lauded, and people start to believe crazy shit. It's disrespectful and dishonest to produce movies like that.


Seems to me, your problem isn't with movies, it's with stupid people.
Join the club.

(And for the record, I love "Apocalypse Now".)
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:55:07 PM EDT
[#31]
You do know that it is a work of fiction right? Not a documentary. Not suppose to be biographical.  



It was done on a shoe string budget, because no studio actually purchased the movie until it was completed.



There is a thing called "artistic license" that directors have to take sometimes.  



Obviously we wouldn't want someone to do a "this is how EOD works" movie during the middle of a war that would give the enemy all kinds of intel they could use to kill.



The female director did nothing, but praise the troops in her Oscar speeches and the films intent to be A-Political should be celebrated in an era when Hollywood is far-left.



Link Posted: 7/23/2010 12:59:07 PM EDT
[#32]




Quoted:



Quoted:

But expecting a STORY to be 100% accurate, to represent an equal cross-section of the military, to make war look noble, for Americans to always be the good guys, etc. is just silly. It's a story, being told by someone who's never been there (or has only spent a little time there.) Expecting it to be Saving Private Ryan every time you walk into the theater is silly.



The Hurt Locker explored the main character's obsession with being a bomb tech, and his inability to have any sort of a meaningful relationship to anyone or anything outside of the war zone. It explored the stress and circumstance of fighting in Iraq. Is it a 100% accurate portrayal of the way things are? No, because it isn't a documentary. It's a story, and should be taken for what it is.




That's all well and good from a literary (cinematic?) point of view.

What really chaps my ass, however, is when dumbfucks who have never even been in the service, let alone in Iraq, start talking about how "realistic a portrayal" the movie is, and how "It's exactly what goes on over there."



It enters popular opinion, and the Oscar just validates it.

"Apocalypse Now" has almost nothing to do with Vietnam (yes I know, Conrad, Heart of Darkness). But ask somebody on the street to name a Vietnam movie, and I'll bet the first title they can think up is "Apocalypse Now" So the Vietnam conflict, in popular opinion, is summed up by a surreal fever-dream of a movie where Brando decapitates people.



The same damn thing is going to happen with the GWOT. Inaccurate portrayals get lauded, and people start to believe crazy shit. It's disrespectful and dishonest to produce movies like that.


Look at "Sands of Iwo Jima" and tell me that accurately portrays Iwo Jima or the Marines in WWII.  



Just the way Hollywood is when they make a movie.  It's not a documentary.  It shouldn't be, because in the end it has to capture people's interests and tell a story not just document facts and procedures.



If you want a good documentary go see "Restrepo."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DjqR6OucBc

Link Posted: 7/23/2010 1:02:53 PM EDT
[#33]




Quoted:



Was I expecting a documentary? No.



Was I expecting, yet another, recent war movie depicting American soldiers as mostly defective, mostly psychotic or mostly corrupt? Gee, there's only about a dozen other Iraq War movies released in recent years (not to mention the dozens of Vietnam War movies since the '70s) that do that... gee - how original this one was.





How were they corrupt in Hurt Locker?



How were they defective? They disarmed nearly every IED.



How were they psychotic? I believe they were suppose to be shown to have guts.  People here are easily offended. If you want to see it as an anti-Troops movie than so be it, but the stars, author of the script (who was an imbed reporter), and director have never send anything negative about the soldiers. I don't see it as a hit piece.  Might not be your favorite movie, but it's not a hit piece.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 1:03:12 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Sorry but I expected more from a movie (yes I understand those were actors and they followed a script) based on a war that is currently being fought and a movie that had so much Oscar hype.  I grasped the whole dysfunctional side of James and the others.  I just feel like a movie of that type should make more effort at being realistic in it's other facets.


Don't forget that you can probably tell the difference between an M-16A2 and and M-4. What proportion of moviegoers and critics and producers and actors do you think can do that?
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 1:04:45 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:

Quoted:

Was I expecting a documentary? No.

Was I expecting, yet another, recent war movie depicting American soldiers as mostly defective, mostly psychotic or mostly corrupt? Gee, there's only about a dozen other Iraq War movies released in recent years (not to mention the dozens of Vietnam War movies since the '70s) that do that... gee - how original this one was.


How were they corrupt in Hurt Locker?

How were they defective? They disarmed nearly every IED.

How were they psychotic? I believe they were suppose to be shown to have guts.  People here are easily offended. If you want to see it as an anti-Troops movie than so be it, but the stars, author of the script (who was an imbed reporter), and director have never send anything negative about the soldiers. I don't see it as a hit piece.  Might not be your favorite movie, but it's not a hit piece.


I couldn't find anything in that movie painting troops in a negative light. Seems to me the OP went in looking to be offended.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 1:05:58 PM EDT
[#36]




Bottomline - it was WAY over-hyped.



It was... 3/5 stars for me. Nothing for me to recommend that's for sure.



I just thought, from what I heard, that it was SO good and was a good story that was fair to our folks serving in Iraq that it was just a big 'blah' after seeing it.




Link Posted: 7/23/2010 1:07:08 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry but I expected more from a movie (yes I understand those were actors and they followed a script) based on a war that is currently being fought and a movie that had so much Oscar hype.  I grasped the whole dysfunctional side of James and the others.  I just feel like a movie of that type should make more effort at being realistic in it's other facets.


Don't forget that you can probably tell the difference between an M-16A2 and and M-4. What proportion of moviegoers and critics and producers and actors do you think can do that?


After I posted I decided my feelings about the movie probably say more about my expectations than they do about the movie.  
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 1:10:40 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:

Quoted:
I swear you people should only be watching documentaries.

Nothing wrong with that...



 


Nothing at all.

But expecting a STORY to be 100% accurate, to represent an equal cross-section of the military, to make war look noble, for Americans to always be the good guys, etc. is just silly. It's a story, being told by someone who's never been there (or has only spent a little time there.) Expecting it to be Saving Private Ryan every time you walk into the theater is silly.

The Hurt Locker explored the main character's obsession with being a bomb tech, and his inability to have any sort of a meaningful relationship to anyone or anything outside of the war zone. It explored the stress and circumstance of fighting in Iraq. Is it a 100% accurate portrayal of the way things are? No, because it isn't a documentary. It's a story, and should be taken for what it is.


Spot on, and I happened to like it!
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 1:14:34 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:


Bottomline - it was WAY over-hyped.

It was... 3/5 stars for me. Nothing for me to recommend that's for sure.

I just thought, from what I heard, that it was SO good and was a good story that was fair to our folks serving in Iraq that it was just a big 'blah' after seeing it.



Yeah, the hype killed it for me too. It was a good movie, and Jeremy Renner was fantastic, and the bomb scenes were cool, but thats about it.

Then again, I'm great at realizing 'the main character isn't going to die, the bomb ain't going off' and fucking the entire experience up.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 1:16:24 PM EDT
[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Was I expecting a documentary? No.
Was I expecting, yet another, recent war movie depicting American soldiers as mostly defective, mostly psychotic or mostly corrupt? Gee, there's only about a dozen other Iraq War movies released in recent years (not to mention the dozens of Vietnam War movies since the '70s) that do that... gee - how original this one was.





How were they corrupt in Hurt Locker?
How were they defective? They disarmed nearly every IED.
How were they psychotic? I believe they were suppose to be shown to have guts.  People here are easily offended. If you want to see it as an anti-Troops movie than so be it, but the stars, author of the script (who was an imbed reporter), and director have never send anything negative about the soldiers. I don't see it as a hit piece.  Might not be your favorite movie, but it's not a hit piece.





James was borderline-psychotic - as everyone agrees. He made most difficult situations they faced even harder and put himself and his buddies at grave risk for NOTHING (e.g. going after the supposed bomber in the dark, then ordering they all split up)
Colonel Cambridge (well-named) was an incompetent tweedy navel-picker. He had no credibility and his incompetence not only got himself killed, it exacerbated Eldrich's mental anguish.
Eldrich was psychologically damaged and racked (almost paralyzed at times) with guilt throughout the whole movie.
Colonel Reed came off as a corrupt jerk (who pretty much ordered the execution of a wounded insurgent they caught instead of getting him medical care).
The character played by Ralph Fienes didn't live long enough to be of any consequence, but his last major concern was whether he'd get paid the "500,000 quin" for his captives.
Oh yeah, Beckham was normal too.
I didn't say it was a "hit piece", I just wondered if it came even REMOTELY close to portraying most of our troops as being borderline-defective.
 
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 1:18:38 PM EDT
[#41]



Quoted:





Quoted:

The sniper scene is the most ridiculous part. I was laughing out loud at the stupidity of the writing.



I agree, very weak movie for an Oscar best picture.


Yeah the running kill shot was absurd - just as absurd as being sniped at (with deadly accuracy) by an AK from 1000 yds.



But I thought the actual character interaction between James and Sanborn in that scene was the best part of the whole movie.
 


Or the Brit SF guys standing around being shot at while the EOD guys with no sniper training come to the rescue on the 50.



"Wipe the blood off! It's jamming the boolets!"



 
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 1:19:04 PM EDT
[#42]
Not overly impressed. me neither.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 1:20:30 PM EDT
[#43]
What a pile of shit.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 1:25:44 PM EDT
[#44]
Meh, I fell asleep.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 1:30:51 PM EDT
[#45]
Glad I'm not the only one that thought it sucked a bag of dicks. Me and the wife got done watching and both looked at each other like WTF?
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 1:31:26 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
It was a pretty good movie with some herp derp parts.  It's a MOVIE.  Not a documentary.



THIS!!! its not true shit people, damn. its entertainment. ONLY. +


you will be wating along freaking time if you expect hollywood to come out with anything that is near the truth. Hollywood makes movies to make money and entertain people. documentarys come from a different set of folks. and the hurt locker was never meant to be a Doc. why cant you guys tell the difference?
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 1:37:15 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:

Quoted:
I swear you people should only be watching documentaries.

Compared to the last war movie to be Oscar-quality, Saving Private Ryan, the characters in SPR were vastly better and more believable than The Hurt Locker.




 


but again, was made to entertain, even though it was based on true incidents, it was made to entertain.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 1:38:29 PM EDT
[#48]
I'm still amazed by the scene in the movie trailer where the guy does a curl with 6 155mm artillery rounds. I struggle with curling a 50 pound weight, and this fucker does it in full EOD gear. I never watched the movie.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 1:44:52 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
It was a pretty good movie with some herp derp parts.  It's a MOVIE.  Not a documentary.



THIS!!! its not true shit people, damn. its entertainment. ONLY. +


you will be wating along freaking time if you expect hollywood to come out with anything that is near the truth. Hollywood makes movies to make money and entertain people. documentarys come from a different set of folks. and the hurt locker was never meant to be a Doc. why cant you guys tell the difference?


to 90% of the people in the US, they can't tell the difference.
That is all they know about what Iraq (and the soldiers who fought there) was like.
If you are going to base a movie in a historical setting, you should do your best to represent it accurately even within the confines of a fictional story.
Link Posted: 7/23/2010 1:46:44 PM EDT
[#50]
And most people will believe that is how life in the military /deployed is. I saw the trailer and knew it was full of bs and have never bothered to watch it.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top