The Hurt Locker...are you kidding me?

[Nik]

Is The Hurt Locker like Jarhead?

 

[brblx]

no. jarhead was good.

 

[0roo0roo]

The sniping section was pretty dumb. A non-sniper just grabs a Barret and hits a moving target half a mile a way. And the insurgent sniper apparently can't make the exact same shot he made a minute ago that killed the British guy who was in the exact same spot.

i remember that retarded bit where they were being flanked and the muppet marine isn't sure if he should shoot or not. then he pops him with one shot meaning he COULD see him pretty well.

but yes the exposed snipers was bad. popping up in the same spot as the guy who got shot..pretty retarded.

 

[Nik]

no. jarhead was good.

oh. I thought it was terrible...

 

[HybridSquirrel]

People like this movie? What a piece of garbage. It is pretty much this year's version of Crash, but not even as good as that trash.

I don't see why there is even hype about this? Because it is war? The movie was boring, and the plot was friggin terrible. It tried to be some kind of realistic drama that made you think, but the entire thing was completely ridiculous and no way believable.

Jeremy Renner was very average. The other two guys were much better but it didn't matter.

I kept thinking "ok, this is the point in the movie where something is actually going to happen" but it never did. The suspense was very weak. Spoiler: "Oh shit, they kidnapped the the guy in the alley. Oh, they shot him and got him back 15 seconds later."

Can someone explain what the appeal of this movie is? Don't give me some bullshit about emotion and war, because this movie did not portray anything deep. Same goes for "well you're the only one". I don't care if someone else liked it, because it sucked.

not quite at crash's level. its an insult to say that. but it was a good drama movie of the current war in the middle east. name another that displays that kind of suspense/drama from the current day? yeah didnt think so.

peace.

 

[BeauJangles]

no. jarhead was good.

Wait, Jarhead was good? Jarhead was disjointed and, while the ultimate message it delievered was rather powerful, the movie itself was slow, plodding, and confused. It never built an identity for itself and it never really developed any of the characters, things that The Hurt Locker did impeccably.

 

[BeauJangles]

I don't know how anyone took this movie seriously. I'm sorry, but a message about war isn't enough to carry a movie. movies are supposed to entertain and/or send a meaningful message. This failed to do either, just like crash, but people like it because they think they are unamerican if they dont. sad

Why can't you people talk about a movie without telling everyone else they're stupid for not sharing your opinion?

 

[slayer202]

not quite at crash's level. its an insult to say that. but it was a good drama movie of the current war in the middle east. name another that displays that kind of suspense/drama from the current day? yeah didnt think so.

peace.

Why do people talk like there have been hundreds of wide released movies that are about the current war...I don't know many off the top of my head, but I would probably bet that there have been better movies. There was no real suspense in this movie! The bomb difusing scenes might have been good if James wasn't completely unbelievable taking off his gear and acting like a tool. Same with the alley scene. It might have been cool if there was any chance it would have actually happened! This isn't usually a problem, considering its a movie, but if its a war movie trying to play to emotions its retarded! I feel like i'm taking crazy pills

Why can't you people talk about a movie without telling everyone else they're stupid for not sharing your opinion?

Because its impossible to understand what goes through some people's minds. The hype machine got moving with this movie and didn't stop. It was definitely not entertaining, and I don't think it sent much of a message. I didn't really like jarhead either but it was at least a little entertaining as a movie

 

[brblx]

Wait, Jarhead was good? Jarhead was disjointed and, while the ultimate message it delievered was rather powerful, the movie itself was slow, plodding, and confused. It never built an identity for itself and it never really developed any of the characters, things that The Hurt Locker did impeccably.

i think the crux of the issue is that anthony swofford was not a worthless dumbass who penned a load of fictional, nonsensical horseshit, despite having 'experience' (unlike that dipshit mark boal). and sam mendes has more directorial talent in his left testicle than katherine bigelow could ever hope to achieve.

jarhead was also 'not a war movie.' the book and the movie both were about the anticipation of a war that never really came. hurt locker was just about how soldiers are retarded adrenaline junkies incapable of making the simplest decisions (a view i don't particularly appreciate).

i think asking people which of these two movies was better will be my new litmus test for stupid.

edit- not that i think that anyone is a moron for not liking jarhead, but if you cite things like character development, writing, story, directing...just about anything, as making hurt locker a better movie, well, that's just fucking laughable. you like the shaky cams and the fake 'intensity,' so just admit that, and quit trying to dissect a big pile of dumb.

 

[DangerAardvark]

i think the crux of the issue is that anthony swofford was not a worthless dumbass who penned a load of fictional, nonsensical horseshit, despite having 'experience' (unlike that dipshit mark boal). and sam mendes has more directorial talent in his left testicle than katherine bigelow could ever hope to achieve.

jarhead was also 'not a war movie.' the book and the movie both were about the anticipation of a war that never really came. hurt locker was just about how soldiers are retarded adrenaline junkies incapable of making the simplest decisions (a view i don't particularly appreciate).

i think asking people which of these two movies was better will be my new litmus test for stupid.

edit- not that i think that anyone is a moron for not liking jarhead, but if you cite things like character development, writing, story, directing...just about anything, as making hurt locker a better movie, well, that's just fucking laughable. you like the shaky cams and the fake 'intensity,' so just admit that, and quit trying to dissect a big pile of dumb.

No it wasn't. It was about one character like that. The two other main characters were the exact opposite. That's like saying Pretty Woman was about how all prostitutes are girlfriends waiting to happen.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

i think the crux of the issue is that anthony swofford was not a worthless dumbass who penned a load of fictional, nonsensical horseshit, despite having 'experience' (unlike that dipshit mark boal). and sam mendes has more directorial talent in his left testicle than katherine bigelow could ever hope to achieve.

jarhead was also 'not a war movie.' the book and the movie both were about the anticipation of a war that never really came. hurt locker was just about how soldiers are retarded adrenaline junkies incapable of making the simplest decisions (a view i don't particularly appreciate).

i think asking people which of these two movies was better will be my new litmus test for stupid.

edit- not that i think that anyone is a moron for not liking jarhead, but if you cite things like character development, writing, story, directing...just about anything, as making hurt locker a better movie, well, that's just fucking laughable. you like the shaky cams and the fake 'intensity,' so just admit that, and quit trying to dissect a big pile of dumb.

 

[bigrash]

Just watched it. It sucked. But I hate mostly all war movies (except for Saving Private Ryan).

 

[zinfamous]

Wow, can't believe I missed this thread and the wonderful opportunity to blast the OP for being a brainless simpleton.

 

[zinfamous]

no. jarhead sucked.

fixed

 

[clamum]

I liked it quite a bit. Never knew there was a ton of hype about it since all I saw regarding it was a trailer for it when watching a show at the theater. Definitely will pick up the DVD.

 

[zinfamous]

these later replies have really clued me in to why this is popular.

it's an 'intellectual' movie for complete morons.

wtf does this even mean? It strikes me that those with such simple reviews as "it was terribad! it was boring as fuck!! It was poorly written!!" actually have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

I'm sorry that your film experience sounds limited to Transformers and some other stuff, but your definition of a good film doesn't seem to address the qualities one actually looks for in film.

For one thing, The Hurt Locker is incredibly well-written. You might consider the characters cliche, but I call them well-developed.

the concept of "war as addiction" is rather refreshing, and well-portrayed, I thought.

 

[zinfamous]

While I liked the movie in general, I know it certainly had its inaccuracies in terms of depicting the code of military conduct.

But I enjoyed it more than Avatar and think it more deserving than Avatar for certain awards.

I hear HBO's "Generation Kill" series is an ever depiction of such combat.

not sure what you meant by "ever," but if you mean lack of any action whatsoever, for 10? episodes, then yeah, you're right.

It had a few good moments, but I could never get into the characters or anything that was going on. In fact, it became quite depressing watching instance after instance of poor decisions, incompetence, and overall tomfoolery as these marines were portrayed (up through the officers, as well).

left a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[purbeast0]

this movie is nothing like Crash, what a stupid comparison.

I do agree though that it was WWWAAAYYY overrated, but I did like it. Nothing I would write home about or ever wanna watch again though.

 

[Modelworks]

this scene was dumb...the group was in the middle of nowhere, and suddenly bullets started flying every which way. and then we see it is one sniper? and then you can only see the building where the shots are coming from from a dune while everyone else is safe where they were just getting shot at? and then the bad guys fire one or two shots the rest of the time while the good guys shoot and miss for a few hours?

That scene should not have been included because it would not happen in combat, that was something someone without combat experience would come up with. If a sniper in a building is shooting at you , and the guy on your side tries to take him out and dies in the process , you DO NOT put two more targets in view to try to even the score. You stay under cover and wait for support and keep watching the perimeter so some goat herder doesn't just walk up without anyone noticing. A real soldier would have seen that movement before he could ever tell they were goats.

 

[zinfamous]

Wait, Jarhead was good? Jarhead was disjointed and, while the ultimate message it delievered was rather powerful, the movie itself was slow, plodding, and confused. It never built an identity for itself and it never really developed any of the characters, things that The Hurt Locker did impeccably.

yeah, not sure if you noticed, but much of jarhead was re-hashed from FMJ. hell, it's pretty obvious that they stole some of Gunnery Sgt Hartman's lines almost word-for-word.

..not that what we saw in FMJ was fully original (mostly ad-libbed by R Lee Ermy), but the depiction was brilliant, and for a film, quite original at the time.

Jarhead was a sad excuse for an adaptation of what many consider to be a rather brilliant memoir.

 

[zinfamous]

edit- not that i think that anyone is a moron for not liking jarhead, but if you cite things like character development, writing, story, directing...just about anything, as making hurt locker a better movie, well, that's just fucking laughable. you like the shaky cams and the fake 'intensity,' so just admit that, and quit trying to dissect a big pile of dumb.

Ah, so you know how I know you don't know wtf you're talking about?

 

[zinfamous]

No it wasn't. It was about one character like that. The two other main characters were the exact opposite. That's like saying Pretty Woman was about how all prostitutes are girlfriends waiting to happen.

I'm waiting for him to join the "Avatar is an insult to the US Military!!!!" morons.

This guy doesn't have much comprehension.

 

[datalink7]

Just saw the movie.

I didn't like the movie. Far to unrealistic. Perhaps the only poignant part was the cereal in the grocery store.

Infantry squad leaving a HMMWV running and hiding in a building? Unrealistic.

EOD guy sniping a moving target at 850 meters? Not happening.

EOD guy constantly walking around outside of a security perimeter in a bomb suit? Yeah, right.

Three EOD guys clearing a building? Ok...

Three EOD guys going off by themselves with no night vision and then splitting up and clearing three alley ways? Riiiiight...

Just about every scene was, as another post pointed out, unrealistic to distraction.

Of course, this is from someone who was actually there. Maybe if you haven't lived through it you can "get" more of the message and not be totally annoyed at how silly and stupid the scenes were

 

[speg]

Just watched it for the first time.

While not a poorly done film, nothing really jumped out at me. Certainly not "best picture", I don't think I would even put it in the nominations.

 

[foghorn67]

My only issue is the lack of realism. EOD's or the like don't operate like that.

Other then that, it was pretty good. It's all about tension during the scenes, and I thought they did a great job of that.

Okay, one more issue. They made the British SAS (Or whatever they were) look like newb's.

-edit--Normally I give a free pass on realism. What I mean is, I try and put myself as not being a military buff. This film probably struck a ton of people that don't know much about the military as being realistic.
But I couldn't give this one a free pass, because one of my ex-roommates was EOD, and hearing his experience was too much of a factor.