- #1
dacruick
- 1,042
- 1
I personally thought the movie was quite one dimensional. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was decent for what it was, but not award winning. Just want to hear your opinions
That is a very sweeping (and inaccurate) characterization. The movie got mixed reviews from the people that actually do the job, but the bomb experts say that the movie got a lot right, too. On the "wrong" side is the notion that some cowboy mentality on their behalf is tolerated, since it would endanger the entire unit. Another is the reliance on hands-on disabling of bombs. They do as much as they can remotely, to avoid casualties.THL is the most inacurate film ever conceived.
That is a very sweeping (and inaccurate) characterization. The movie got mixed reviews from the people that actually do the job, but the bomb experts say that the movie got a lot right, too. On the "wrong" side is the notion that some cowboy mentality on their behalf is tolerated, since it would endanger the entire unit. Another is the reliance on hands-on disabling of bombs. They do as much as they can remotely, to avoid casualties.
Besides, it is a movie. Movies are made to tell stories. If you made a reality movie about some very dangerous occupation, like firefighting, it would be deadly-dull because their lives are not non-stop action. That wouldn't sell too many tickets. If you demand accuracy in your movies, don't cheerlead too hard for Harry Potter, LOTR, Avatar, Titanic, etc.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_the_hurt_locker;_ylt=AtM5bH8EjLwc8Mvnq6gn5Nas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFiYm90ZjMzBHBvcwM1NQRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3dvcmxkBHNsawNyZWFsaHVydGxvY2s- [Broken]
That is a very sweeping (and inaccurate) characterization. The movie got mixed reviews from the people that actually do the job, but the bomb experts say that the movie got a lot right, too. On the "wrong" side is the notion that some cowboy mentality on their behalf is tolerated, since it would endanger the entire unit. Another is the reliance on hands-on disabling of bombs. They do as much as they can remotely, to avoid casualties.
In theaters it made half the money that avatar made on its opening day. I don't use that as criteria for success, but it has to be some sort of indication.
They wanted to support an American symbol, and unfortunately that symbol is war, somewhat outlined in the national anthem and so on. The fact is that they didn't develop characters well, and through that don't create a connection of sympathy/empathy with the viewer. That's my issue with giving awards to movies that are so clearly lacking in some aspects. Any thoughts? Agree? Disagree?
The problem with critics is they live on another planet. Somewhere far away from Earth. Probably there no one had fallen asleep during Hurt Locker.
I saw enemy at the gates two days ago. Fantastic film.
Watching Inglorious Basterds for the first time was infuriating because the movie departed from real history so drastically. My first impression was "Geez, is this ever stupid!", which evolved to, "This was a pretty cool scene, even if the overall movie had to be one of the stupidest every created." I'm still bugged by taking real historical figures and having them take completely fictitious actions.
With Enemy at the Gates, the problem is how the movie completely butchered a great World War II novel (War of the Rats). The book was so good that I felt offended by the movie. They changed so much that I felt it was an exaggeration to say the movie was even based on the book. The only things in common was that they picked the character names from the novel and they made the characters snipers, just like the book featured snipers.
Asking who "deserves" Oscars is an exercise in futility
I tend to view entertainment as entertainment, and I am not very concerned by the historical accuracy, realism, and other such factors.
If main character first tells me that going through the middle is the most stupid/dangerous thing to do, and then for no particular reason goes through the middle instead of trying to walk round, I am not watching further.
I am not entertained by movies which assume I am a complete idiot and I don't see obvious stupidity of the plot. I expect the story to be consistent with the world it is put in. Doesn't mean world has to be a real one, but it has to be logical.
If main character first tells me that going through the middle is the most stupid/dangerous thing to do, and then for no particular reason goes through the middle instead of trying to walk round, I am not watching further.
I don't go there to analyze the script for logic flaws. I go to enjoy and relax.
If you were young, you'd understand that doing the dangerous thing was mandatory to understanding the essence of life (and only an old person would call it a stupid thing to do).
Do you know how awesome is sometimes to do the most dangerous thing ?
That's because you're old! Old, I tell you!
If you were young, you'd understand that doing the dangerous thing was mandatory to understanding the essence of life (and only an old person would call it a stupid thing to do).
It wasn't until I was near 40 years old that I took up white-water kayaking. The two best rivers in the area are class 4 and 5 ...
My teacher was a teen-age girl. She was training for the US team, hoping that kayaking would be accepted as an event in the upcoming Olympics. She was brutal. She damned near drowned me until I learned how to Eskimo-roll from upstream AND downstream in heavy current. It's no fun riding upside-down in heavy rapids with boulders whizzing by (hopefully "by") your head.You are cool, man.
See "Surrogates" - it's the first Bruce Willis action-flick that I really enjoyed. Good plot, lots of twists (logically consistent twists), along with the obligatory Willis action scenes.
Yes, another good movie. Newman, Kennedy, and Martin were all top-notch in their roles.I didn't seen Surrogates yet. I liked "The Siege" and "12 monkeys".
You said earlier that you loved "Shawshank Redemption". What about "Cool Hand Luke" ? Did it appealed to you ?