just saw the Hurt Locker...

horrible movie. I have no idea why it was nominated for so many things.

totally unrealistic (a single 3-man EOD unit having to secure a perimeter for itself? fat chance.), and the pauses are too long. in a sniper sequence, it took about 5-8 minutes of just showing them cleaning blood off of .50 cal bullets (which wouldn't cause a jam...) and waiting for the guys to come out. they could have gone somewhere with the whole PMC thing, but they decided to make it a minor element of the story.


the whole plot was a little foggy to me and my dad as well; what is the point? that war is bad and IED's are difficult to defuse? i mean, comeon.



I don't know. maybe spending the entire movie noting the discrepancies between it and what would actually happen made it difficult to see the theme. but i still would give it maybe a 1/10. worst movie of the year.

Thanks for the review, I was interested in seeing this one.

Always best to get your information from a trusted source....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

Always best to get your information from a trusted source....

---

Yeah.

whatever; maybe i'm not some artsy-fartsy critic who takes totally hidden meanings out of stuff, but I do think I can represent the common intellectual; I don't give a damn about hidden meanings, I want a good movie.

Hidden meanings make a good movie. That's why There Will Be Blood is such an amazingly superb movie.

how so? they are hidden. I want to go to a movie, and come out saying "That was AWESOME!!!!......with a pretty good story." like Gladiator, or Troy. both great movies, both enjoyable to everyone.

I don't care about the themes or meanings in a movie or story, I just want a good story with some kickass action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

how so? they are hidden.

---

Exactly. If I wanted movies where the message was clearly spelled out for me, I'd watch Disney movies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

I want to go to a movie, and come out saying "That was AWESOME!!!!......with a pretty good story."

---

Me too. I just put more emphasis on the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

like Gladiator, or Troy. both great movies,

---

Gladiator is OK. But Troy makes a mockery of Homer's poem, verging on insult.

Quote:

---

both great movies, both enjoyable to everyone.

---

Interesting. I never knew my own taste in films was not my own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

I don't care about the themes or meanings in a movie or story. I just want a good story with some kickass action.

---

You're missing out then. You've just shut yourself of from most of artistic cinema. Besides, there are plenty of films which have great fighting scenes and amazing plots. Oldboy comes to mind, as does any film with Lupin III.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

whatever; maybe i'm not some artsy-fartsy critic who takes totally hidden meanings out of stuff, but I do think I can represent the common intellectual; I don't give a damn about hidden meanings, I want a good movie.

---

Que?

Out of interest Prussian Iron, did you see District 9? If so what did you think?

Intellectual? :dizzy2:

Okay, the temperature of the thread is rising :sweatdrop:, and while Subotan's criticism is correct, there is the other side of it as well...

As for myself, I do not watch he telly, and rarely a film. Mostly the oldies - generally pre-1980s. CGI and other special effects pay well, but too little focus is spent on the story, as Subo said. Before these times, special effects were special and rare. Making a film based on them was an absurdity. Sure, Industrial Light and Magic changed a great deal, along with earlier Hitchcock, but for the most part, films had to be moulded from other things. Such as a great story-play.

All that said, just as heinous as the 'story? what story - we have special [sic] effects!' side, you also have the small segment of wannabe-sophisticados - or whatever you call them (not you Subo, but such people do exist). I personally think Gladiator was rather shoddy too, but its emotional and most importantly, historical (Rome, Rome!), drama made it quite appealing to me, even if in reality it was a mediocre film. As for Troy, well - what Subotan said. Right. But let's not bash films simply because they fail to live up to our standards. This 'I am so sophisticated' stuff makes me queasy, even if it is mostly true (most films are crap - and only time can truly filter the best from the not-so).


Prussian Iron has his interest, and you and me, Subo, have ours. It is not always about how smart or sophisticated a person is - what sort of films we prefer does not have to correspond with our personality. Like anything in life, it is complicated. All people have different expectations about films. Some, such as me (and from what I understand, Subotan) want the film to have an underlying message (Cool Hand Luke, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest to name my favourites), a solid story, un-cliched and clipped dialogue. Perhaps a sort of a satire as well (Dr. Strangelove).

Yet there are others, such as my mother, who would rather have an emotional drama, or romance (how incidentally stereotypical). Or my father, whose choice would be a comedy to lighten up the mood. Or an action film, like PI said. My mother, well, she is a woman, what can I say. My father is a lawyer, and while he likes what he does, the stress is high, and he simply wants to have a laugh. He is not a shallow, superficial, and frivolous - but from some of his movie picks, one may deduce that.

Prussian Iron is a teenager who is interested in military history, TW, CoD - he prefers to see something with historical or military action.

We all have our expectations which we seek in television. Books satisfy most of my so-called 'intellectual' needs, and so I play games such as TW, EB, AoE, EE, Anno series, RoN, etc on the computer. Am I a mindless video-game addict? I hope not, but in comparison to my uncle, who plays only those indecipherable, abstract puzzle games, I am. Is PI what you are implying simply because he watches those films? No. Television is simply not his medium for that so-called sophistication. Just as computer games are not my medium for that same substance.

What??

I like seeing :daisy: get blown up as much as the next bloke, but I don't like movies in which that is the main focus, I much prefer something that makes me laugh or think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

What??

---

Tehehehee. You will never guess :2thumbsup:

If it doesn't feature fairy princesses and sparkly pony magic, I just can't get into it. And it had darn well better end with a wedding or I'm gettin' my money back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Okay, the temperature of the thread is rising :sweatdrop:, and while Subotan's criticism is correct, there is the other side of it as well...

As for myself, I do not watch he telly, and rarely a film. Mostly the oldies - generally pre-1980s. CGI and other special effects pay well, but too little focus is spent on the story, as Subo said. Before these times, special effects were special and rare. Making a film based on them was an absurdity. Sure, Industrial Light and Magic changed a great deal, along with earlier Hitchcock, but for the most part, films had to be moulded from other things. Such as a great story-play.

All that said, just as heinous as the 'story? what story - we have special [sic] effects!' side, you also have the small segment of wannabe-sophisticados - or whatever you call them (not you Subo, but such people do exist). I personally think Gladiator was rather shoddy too, but its emotional and most importantly, historical (Rome, Rome!), drama made it quite appealing to me, even if in reality it was a mediocre film. As for Troy, well - what Subotan said. Right. But let's not bash films simply because they fail to live up to our standards. This 'I am so sophisticated' stuff makes me queasy, even if it is mostly true (most films are crap - and only time can truly filter the best from the not-so).

---

Any chump with a Macbook and a camera can make "special effects" nowadays. That's why Die Hard 4 was as boring as Hell, despite having explosions in tunnels, fights on top of rooves etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Prussian Iron has his interest, and you and me, Subo, have ours. It is not always about how smart or sophisticated a person is - what sort of films we prefer does not have to correspond with our personality. Like anything in life, it is complicated. All people have different expectations about films. Some, such as me (and from what I understand, Subotan) want the film to have an underlying message (Cool Hand Luke, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest to name my favourites), a solid story, un-cliched and clipped dialogue. Perhaps a sort of a satire as well (Dr. Strangelove).

---

I have my taste, AP has his, and PI has his. Although Cool Hand Luke is good, and "How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb" is superb (Hmm, another Kubrick)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

I like seeing :daisy: get blown up as much as the next bloke, but I don't like movies in which that is the main focus, I much prefer something that makes me laugh or think.

---

This. If I wanted to watch a series of explosions for fun, I'd play video games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If it doesn't feature fairy princesses and sparkly pony magic, I just can't get into it. And it had darn well better end with a wedding or I'm gettin' my money back.

---

Sparkleeeeeeeee

Btw, how can you reconcile:

Quote:

---

totally unrealistic (a single 3-man EOD unit having to secure a perimeter for itself? fat chance.), and the pauses are too long. in a sniper sequence, it took about 5-8 minutes of just showing them cleaning blood off of .50 cal bullets (which wouldn't cause a jam...)

---

with

Quote:

---

like Gladiator, or Troy. both great movies, both enjoyable to everyone.

---

:dizzy2:

Maybe the movie is supposed to be about the half-psychotic, half-brave, half-suicidal people who volunteer to be on an EOD team. It is not kicking in doors and chasing bad guys, it is days of boredom spliced with moments of sheer terror and uncertanty.

I haven't seen the movie, but then again knowing what an EOD team does I would not exactly go into it expecting an action flick aka Collateral Damage. It is not a glorious job by any means.

What does EOD mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

What does EOD mean?

---

If you haven't googled it already: Explosives Ordnance Disposal [unit].

So just a bomb disposal unit? Why would you think that that would be an action movie?

this thread is so funny :P

Hurt Locker wasn't about the action but an adrenaline junkie and the pressure he puts on his squad mates. Also they weren't always alone, maybe the sniper sequence was a little off, but in most of the other sequences the friendly troops were hiding somewhere or dealing with another matter while the film focused on the three characters.

Also, I do believe blood can jam a clip, but it would need time to really dry up, and in the short amount of time it was sitting there I don't think it could have dried.

Fresh blood can obstruct the action of an M-16 or an M-4 because they are, quite frankly, pieces of crap, and the more things you have installed on the rail system the more likely a jam altogether.

The reason no one was ever around while they were disarming the bomb is because it is trained army doctrine that once a potential bomb is discovered that everyone but EOD move several hundred meters away and establish some sort of circular perimeter until EOD arrives. I think the minimum is 300, but 600-1000 is preferred. If an officer or NCO does not move his men far enough away and they get hurt in a blast he can be brought up on charges and/or lose command. The only exception to this rule is in the event of the spotting party being a convoy, in which case they GTFO and call it up.

This "move far away" thing is something that is taught to basic tranees who join the US Army and taught again at OCS, BNOC, and any MOS/Branch school that has the potential to see combat.

I'm really looking forward to this one. (It sounds like it's going to be a shoe-in for quite a few oscars, am I right in that estimation?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Fresh blood can obstruct the action of an M-16 or an M-4 because they are, quite frankly, pieces of crap, and the more things you have installed on the rail system the more likely a jam altogether.

The reason no one was ever around while they were disarming the bomb is because it is trained army doctrine that once a potential bomb is discovered that everyone but EOD move several hundred meters away and establish some sort of circular perimeter until EOD arrives. I think the minimum is 300, but 600-1000 is preferred. If an officer or NCO does not move his men far enough away and they get hurt in a blast he can be brought up on charges and/or lose command. The only exception to this rule is in the event of the spotting party being a convoy, in which case they GTFO and call it up.

This "move far away" thing is something that is taught to basic tranees who join the US Army and taught again at OCS, BNOC, and any MOS/Branch school that has the potential to see combat.

---

the blood was in a Barret .50 Cal mag. oh, and it went from somehere on his upper body, with his mags in pouches on his flak jacket towards the ground, to said mags, inside of them, and, somehow, through each bullet. and apparently water/spit and fingers clean it off. whatever, just doesn't make sense either way.


yes, but in several sequences there is no friendly forces creating a perimeter, and the EOD team itself is forced to clear a bomb factory. they would send infantry to do it, than EOD. and my dad, a captain in the Marines, who's been to Iraq/middle-east town 5 times, knows quite a bit about this stuff. i think he knows what he's talking about. none of us can even truly understand or gauge anything about any of that stuff like someone whos been there.

P.S: He actually did inform me of the entire convoy/troops moving to a distance like that in a rough circle as a perimiter.

P.S.S: he's going to OCS in virginia, where we are moving in may, so he's gonna be one of the guys there. he'll have some trouble keeping up with the young guys :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Que?

Out of interest Prussian Iron, did you see District 9? If so what did you think?

---

yes. it was a great movie, one of the best I'd seen in 2009. not much of a movie year admittedly though. nothing like '08 or '05-'06.

What came out in 08? and 05-06?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

the blood was in a Barret .50 Cal mag. oh, and it went from somehere on his upper body, with his mags in pouches on his flak jacket towards the ground, to said mags, inside of them, and, somehow, through each bullet. and apparently water/spit and fingers clean it off. whatever, just doesn't make sense either way.


yes, but in several sequences there is no friendly forces creating a perimeter, and the EOD team itself is forced to clear a bomb factory. they would send infantry to do it, than EOD. and my dad, a captain in the Marines, who's been to Iraq/middle-east town 5 times, knows quite a bit about this stuff. i think he knows what he's talking about. none of us can even truly understand or gauge anything about any of that stuff like someone whos been there.

P.S: He actually did inform me of the entire convoy/troops moving to a distance like that in a rough circle as a perimiter.

P.S.S: he's going to OCS in virginia, where we are moving in may, so he's gonna be one of the guys there. he'll have some trouble keeping up with the young guys :laugh4:




yes. it was a great movie, one of the best I'd seen in 2009. not much of a movie year admittedly though. nothing like '08 or '05-'06.

---

Well, in my own defense, I haven't seen the movie,m so I was just throwing out random stuff.

One of the reason I don't typically watch modern day war movies is because they frustrate me with their innacuracies and doctrine mistakes. I have seen several Iraq movies that were absolutely atrocious and made the Army look like buffoons, so I pretty much stopped watching them unless I hear that they were written bu someone who was in theater.

If your dad has been to Iraq multiple times I am assuming he is at least an NCO at this point. I wish him luck at OCS, as he will be getting smoked by punk-ass NCOs ranks below him and he will need a lot of self-restraint to keep from ripping their heads off. Had a few guys from my OCS who were former First Sgts break and bail because they got so frustrated. I'm sure he can handle it, but I hope he knows it is going to be irritating as hell. OCS was worse than basic training for me.

People who have specialized knowledge are always going on about how a movie is terrible because of how inaccurate it is. Obviously you can't enjoy it, but I guarantee you that every movie you like has something terribly inaccurate and you just don't know it because you don't have that piece of specialized knowledge.

Im starting to think of Braveheart when I watched it as a wee tot before I got into history...

Used to take a course called "Film and TV" in high school.
And now I can't watch movies without thinking "Oo effective camera angle" and "hmm.. lightings a bit off"

Good thing I'm slowly starting to forget all that and actually enjoying the films.