just saw the Hurt Locker...

[Megas Methuselah]

What??

[Aemilius Paulus]

What??

Tehehehee. You will never guess

[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.

[Subotan]

Okay, the temperature of the thread is rising , 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.

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)

I like seeing 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.

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:

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

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

[Major Robert Dump]

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.

[Subotan]

What does EOD mean?

[Sigurd]

What does EOD mean?

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