Hurt Locker: Did it deserve 6 Oscars?

[dacruick]

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 wanna hear your opinions

 

[cronxeh]

No. It sucked, and you know it. But people want to support the military, want to shine the light on their sacrifice and that is honorable. They just picked the wrong film to go with. If it was Taking Chance you would be arguing that its a liberal Hollywood style slant against the war.

 

[MotoH]

THL is the most inacurate film ever conceived. 1 gun going into 2004 Iraq? LOL a 3 man wrecking ball those guys were.

As long as Avatards are angry, I am happy.

 

[turbo]

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]

 

[DanP]

As I said, no. It was boring.

 

[waht]

It's just another movie fresh from the assembly line, while real pioneering work goes unrewarded.

 

[BobG]

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]

I agree. The goal was to squeeze the lifestyle of an entire year into a 2-hour movie. While it amplifies events beyond what would be real, it at least depicts the reality of how life over there feels.

 

[MotoH]

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.

Apparently blood can jam an M81a1, the SAS suck at life, 1 HMMWV driving in the middle of the sandbox with no CAS, driving through Fallujah/Ramadi wherever they were with no support. Having anything less than a squad leave the base is not allowed, let alone three guys in a HMMWV.

The bad outweighs the good tenfold. Of course it is for entertainment, and I enjoyed the explosions and the firefights, but the story was so horribly bad it was hard to watch.

 

[Brian_C]

I didn't think it was any more "inaccurate" than a thousand other war movies. Everyone praised the realism of Saving Private Ryan, but I think it took longer than 30 minutes to capture Omaha Beach on D-Day.

 

[MotoH]

Although I would like to add, that almost every person who has came back from theatre has said that the cereal isle at the end of the movie is the most accurate part of the film.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Not really.

I actually enjoyed it, mostly for the depiction of life there, the inclusion of refugees, the attention to scenery details, like the garbage, and the heat. That was all really good, I thought, and interesting.

I don't know which awards were won, but suspect that it probably won mostly for its portrayal of the Apollonian/Dionysian dialectic-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian_and_Dionysian
Although this story was updated, topical, and was very clever in using a situation in that the roles of both were reliant upon and risked by the qualities of the other, it was predictable (I bored the friends I watched it with by roughly predicting most of the rest of the movie as soon as the boy was introduced), and I didn’t think the characterisations were that great.

I can't speak about accuracy, but as far as bomb disposal stories, I’ve heard this was ok, the television series, Danger UXB-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVAZmF2d8es&feature=related

 

[dacruick]

This was the movie's impression on me. The first 45 minutes were fairly entertaining and I thought they were developing the characters well. But then the last 45 minutes were EXACTLY the same. How can a movie comprise of 20-30% suspense. How many times can we wait for that guy in the suit to walk all the way to the bomb. Then how many more times can we wait until he actually diffuses it. Then they switched it up with a mind blowing sniper standoff with more fun filled...well...standing off. Now don't get me wrong, it was an alright movie I guess I'm just a little surprised about its success. 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. I think that what cronxeh said was on the mark. 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?

 

[BobG]

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.

What a movie makes on opening day tends to depend on how big the company that produced the film is and how much they market the film before release.

If you go by Hurt Locker's initial release (before a distribution company even agreed to pick up the movie), you're being way overly generous about Hurt Locker's success. It pulled in $145,000 its first weekend, but it was also only released in 4 theaters in New York and Los Angeles. Avatar pulled in $77 million across the entire nation its first weekend.

 

[DanP]

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?

I wouldn't say that they wanted to support the "symbol of war". They used the "symbol of war on terror" to great success to harvest support from academy as a "great movie". It seems that it payed off.

The issue with the movie is that it was plain boring. 2h and 10 mins for a movie which would have been much better at 100min maximum.

Academy Awards are probably as full of politics as anything else. So yeah, they probably lack in many aspects.

Who cares,in the end ? In the streets, Avatar won by KO. This is what counts. Movie critics
can say whatever they want, spell out fantasies about how shallow Avatar is and how "profound" Hurt Locker is, but in the end, a difference of 100x in sales means only one thing. Avatar delivered to ppl.

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.

 

[dacruick]

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.

You know what I think you're right. With some sound editing, I think that I could watch the movie more enjoyably at 2x speed....nice.

 

[DanP]

Btw, if anyone wants to see some good movies about war, my personal recommendations would be "Das boot", "Stalingrad" and "Enemy at the gates". Last is a good illustration of how a game of cat and mouse should be pictured IMO.

 

[dacruick]

I saw enemy at the gates two days ago. Fantastic film.

 

[BobG]

I saw enemy at the gates two days ago. Fantastic film.

It's kind of funny how preconceived notions affect how a person perceives the movie.

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.

 

[DanP]

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.

I tend to view entertainment as entertainment, and Im not very concerned by the historical accuracy, realism, and other such factors.

If I want "realism" I watch a documentary, although most of those are also liberal in what information they choose to present, and how.

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.

I didnt read the novel, so I cant comment. I enjoyed the movie. However I can relate to your feelings here. For example Lynch's Dune was for me a movie which completely butchered the book. I didn't liked it at all. With one exception, the music in the movie was inspired IMO.

 

[dacruick]

I've never read the book, I was just always fascinated with snipers and I was fairly young when I first saw the movie.

And BobG, I find that preconceived notions affect movies for me in an opposite manner. A lot of times when I go in with low expectation because I think it's going to suck, it comes out alright because it turned out better than I thought. And vice versa with movies I think are going to be great. But where I find your point very relevant is with respect to foods. If you say to yourself that you dont like a food, and don't "taste it objectively" as stupid as that sounds, you tend to dislike it.

 

[turbo]

Asking who "deserves" Oscars is an exercise in futility, anyway. Case in point: Kathy Bates won "best actress in a leading role" (both the Oscar and the Golden Globe) for her role in "Misery". Her performance was horrible. She was really chewing the scenery, and all her mannerisms and facial expressions (though appropriate in a play, perhaps, so people can see what you're doing) were WAY overboard for film. Rob Reiner directed and he either failed to failed to show her the rushes so she could tone it down, or failed to control her. No matter. Bates was popular on Broadway, and the Academy probably figured it was her big break-through in film. I wish I could say her performance was forgettable. Sadly, it was not. It was world-class hamming-unforgettably BAD, and still she took top actress awards.

This is Steven King's home state, and when his movies opened here, I tried to get out to see them in theaters. "Misery" was just that. A couple of hours I'll never get back.

 

[dacruick]

Asking who "deserves" Oscars is an exercise in futility

I'm not trying to get a petition here to revoke an Oscar. The question is supposed to cause people to put themselves in the shoes of someone deciding whether or not to award an oscar to the movie. its a personal interest you could say, not to fuel some secret evil anti hurt locker scheme.

 

[Borek]

I tend to view entertainment as entertainment, and Im not very concerned by the historical accuracy, realism, and other such factors.

I have not seen Hurt Locker, so I am not referring to the movie, but to the movies in general.

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.

 

[BobG]

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.

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).

I can sympathize with you though. I hate young people, too. I like to yell at them to get the hell out of my yard. I liked Gran Torino, excpet I wouldn't have helped that punk that tried to steal his car. I'd have thrown my tools at the kid's head!

 

[DanP]

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.

Entertainment scripts do not assume you are an idiot. Yeah, if you go in with the preconceived idea that the movie "assumes" you as an idiot, you will probably feel that. I don't go there to analyze the script for logic flaws. I go to enjoy and relax.

But to each his own.

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.

Do you know how awesome is sometimes to do the most dangerous thing ? The only
motivation one needs to do dangerous things is intrinsic and not everything in life has to be motivated and reasoned to 3rd parties. Ill go the middle instead of trying to walk around just because I want so. Dangerous ? Who cares. Maybe I need my adrenaline "fix". Maybe I just want to see the look on other ppl face when I do it. Priceless , Id say. Or maybe I'm just bored. But the motivation is intrinsic.

Try an extreme sport.