hurt locker
- Thread starter x-loc
- Start date
I liked it more then D9 and I knew Up had no chance of winning. They more or less should have said it's going to be either Avatar or Hurt Locker and just nominated those two only. None of the other ones had a chance.
The Oscars are just an excuse for Hollywood to kiss its own ass once a year though so I really don't care much either way. I'm just glad that piece of crap Avatar got snuffed lol.
The Oscars are just an excuse for Hollywood to kiss its own ass once a year though so I really don't care much either way. I'm just glad that piece of crap Avatar got snuffed lol.
Good movie. I'd buy it for my collection... if I collected movies. But I don't.
Shaky camera didn't bother me none- its a war movie. It makes perfect sense. You're at war, your nerves and mind are shaky 90 percent of the time. That type of cinematography seems very fitting. A movie about a bomb technician at war filmed all smoothly seems like its a bit boring. Live action scenes in general, when they're viewed from a more personal perspective- to me at least- seem more exciting with shaky camera angles.
To take points away from this film for a "lack of story/plot" is something I don't understand. If you want a war movie that attaches you emotionally to the characters, go watch Saving Private Ryan again. It's been done before, and I think that's why the Hurt Locker was such a good film. It works outside the typical Hollywood formula for what makes a war movie. To be a good soldier means having to be detached from your emotions in a majority of situations. You don't go through hell and back and live to tell the tale because you're constantly thinking about your feelings. I feel like the director and cast portrayed that aspect very well. The conversation they had in the truck toward the end, when Sands asked James how he "does it"... and James replies "I guess I just don't think about it"... That's really the way you need to watch this movie. Don't think too far into it. If you do that then you're missing what makes it a good film. Situational drama, some detail into the guy's job, day to day life as a soldier in Iraq.
Hollywood usually makes war movies that cater to Hollywood. In this instance I think maybe Hollywood made a war movie that catered to war. Well, maybe just bomb technicians. Of course some of the shit they do is a bit far fetched (drinking in the barracks, kidnapping an Iraqi guy to drive you somefuckin'where into what I'm guessing was Baghdad to find the family of some random boy- only to walk however many kilometers back to the f.o.b and be let through the gate without any real questions asked from superiors), but those scenes seemed like they were meant to bond you with the characters in a rather... mediocre way. That particular scene made me think they were going to track down some cell of terrorist bomb makers, which never happened.
I think a big reason people felt cheated by this movie was because there's no real ending to the story. The story was on a continuum. Things were happening before cameras showed up, and things continued to happen after they left. The movie was about going through the shit, not necessarily how they got into the shit or how everybody's lives worked out after all the shit was over.
Shaky camera didn't bother me none- its a war movie. It makes perfect sense. You're at war, your nerves and mind are shaky 90 percent of the time. That type of cinematography seems very fitting. A movie about a bomb technician at war filmed all smoothly seems like its a bit boring. Live action scenes in general, when they're viewed from a more personal perspective- to me at least- seem more exciting with shaky camera angles.
To take points away from this film for a "lack of story/plot" is something I don't understand. If you want a war movie that attaches you emotionally to the characters, go watch Saving Private Ryan again. It's been done before, and I think that's why the Hurt Locker was such a good film. It works outside the typical Hollywood formula for what makes a war movie. To be a good soldier means having to be detached from your emotions in a majority of situations. You don't go through hell and back and live to tell the tale because you're constantly thinking about your feelings. I feel like the director and cast portrayed that aspect very well. The conversation they had in the truck toward the end, when Sands asked James how he "does it"... and James replies "I guess I just don't think about it"... That's really the way you need to watch this movie. Don't think too far into it. If you do that then you're missing what makes it a good film. Situational drama, some detail into the guy's job, day to day life as a soldier in Iraq.
Hollywood usually makes war movies that cater to Hollywood. In this instance I think maybe Hollywood made a war movie that catered to war. Well, maybe just bomb technicians. Of course some of the shit they do is a bit far fetched (drinking in the barracks, kidnapping an Iraqi guy to drive you somefuckin'where into what I'm guessing was Baghdad to find the family of some random boy- only to walk however many kilometers back to the f.o.b and be let through the gate without any real questions asked from superiors), but those scenes seemed like they were meant to bond you with the characters in a rather... mediocre way. That particular scene made me think they were going to track down some cell of terrorist bomb makers, which never happened.
I think a big reason people felt cheated by this movie was because there's no real ending to the story. The story was on a continuum. Things were happening before cameras showed up, and things continued to happen after they left. The movie was about going through the shit, not necessarily how they got into the shit or how everybody's lives worked out after all the shit was over.