Daniela
13Mar12
^ ? _ ?
God that shaky cam crap annoyed me in the first half of this film. But overall it's worth a watch and actually had a really interesting EDing (I was wondering how the quote would tie in . . . )
Pretty immersive and deep, but not a classic in my sight. Jeremy Renner also did a great job.
Obviously, I had heard of 'The Hurt Locker', and on several occasions I have scheduled time in to watch the film then missed it for one reasons or another. Finally sat down to watch it last night - more fool me for missing this excellent, sublime, film that deals with not only political war issues and related topics, but masterfully charts the varying psychological states of the American soliders involved. Brilliant!
Don't listen to the people who get caught up in the technical issues. This is first and foremost an Bigelow action film (you know the lady who did NEAR DARK and POINT BREAK?), set in a war that creates many thrilling set pieces. Jeremy Renner is probably the Steve McQueen of our generation.
Never got what all the fuss was about. Decent enough film but so many better war films then this.
Filmmaking is competent, though the shaky camera technique is played out...the acting is good...but the values the film represents are abhorrent. It's a vile propaganda piece offering no critical treatment of the horror of war, just the horror of trying to disarm bombs in the desert. The US Army looks just at all times. Iraqis are treated like props, but that's OK I guess since "they all look the same" (says Sanborn)
Friend who's never been in the military but obsesses over it: "How can you not like this film? It's as real as it gets." Friend who's in the Marines and lost two members of his company today in Afghanistan: "That film is totally unrealistic. For one thing, you can't get drunk over here." Case closed.
Correction: two members of his company were wounded. He and another friend were also wounded about a week later.
For me, the actual film has been eclipsed by the hype that has surrounded it. Therefore, I didn't find it as intense as I would have had I not read into the hype. But, saying that, it was still a suspenseful film with some very intense performances. While I don't think it is completely mind blowing I certainly don't think it deserves all the bad press it has been getting.
I missed the depth. It plays on the macho / hero theme just like any other war film, except that it wasn't a normal soldier we follow this time. The interesting, and gripping, part - namely their mental breakdown into PTSD - comes too late to give the film a special angle. The one thing I liked about the whole film was the ending.
A war-theme template film, and this time is set in Bagdad, Iraq. However, as a predictable template which the plot never goes anywhere, the impact of this war is studied from young American point of view. Watching one-sided movie like this, it really depends on whose side you are on: they are a bunch of hero or a bunch of typical who harass the local.
One of the most gripping and intense action/war films made recently and fully deserved for the Best Picture and Best Director awards (sorry James Cameron but this beats Avatar on all aspects). Jeremy Renner makes a tour-de-force performance and he makes this film a fascinating watch to him do one of the most dangerous jobs in the armed forces. Quite simply one of the best films of the decade!
A film about communication and solitude. In order to backup this theme, the director visually insists on some elements like the spacesuit and the 2001: a Space Odyssey ambiance. I also liked the desert scene with a great Ralph Fiennes. Was it really the best American movie two years ago ? A DVD zone Wham Bam thank you Ma'am.
A bunch of suspenseful scenes tied together that are meaningless, contrived, unrealistic (i only say this because people kept saying it was) and just overall boring. A film that says nothing, that does nothing, that more or less is nothing. Sure, it's more interesting than say, Avatar, but that's not saying much considering how bad Avatar is. We all know Basterds deserved the oscar :3
All of the bomb defusing is great, but the connective tissue is just OK (and there is one part that is completely ridiculous).
It's not that great, absolutely. And I fucking hate the abuse of camera movements; the camera in this movie can't take a little break. Ohhhh! First picture directed by a woman that wins an Oscar, Uhhhh!!... So what? Oscars have the simpathy of a tiny piece of mouse-shit. But that's just another humble opinion...
Explicit and gratuitous anxiety, which is the role of advertising in consumer culture.
In your face Avatar...!!! Thank goodness Avatar did not won best picture.... But I did not like it 100% though...
If you can disregard the lack of technical realism and the fact that a loose cannon cowboy type would never end up commanding a bomb disposal unit you're in for a hell of a ride. More or less a series of perilous adventures as opposed to an actual story but powerful stuff nonetheless. I wouldn't say it deserved Best Picture but it definitely earned the nomination with its no stance approach.