Oscars/academy awards

the first line of the movie is "war is a drug," the main character is a war junkie, and yeah it shows the struggles of being in the military

so maybe you feel sympathy for the soldiers, but it certainly doesnt help the military's cause or make people want to enlist. to clarify, i think the movie is obviously anti war, but it appreciates what soldiers go through

and ive heard that it's not what iraq is like at all, and that its actually a horrible depiction of what the war is like
 
The point of the movie is not to be a documentary on Iraq. It is supposed to be a character study (a not super amazing one in my opinion). I think it is pretty hard to make a pro-war movie...I mean, is anyone actually pro war? What does that even mean? I think one of the strengths of the film was how apolitical it managed to be in dealing with such a politicized topic.
 
A rip off of sergio leone, thats a load of bullshit. It may have been influenced by some sergio leone's films but it is nowhere near a ripoff. I also thought the acting was very good in general. i also don't get your comment on not liking the movie if your not familiar with sergio leone, tell me how that matters at all.
 
read the 1-star reviews. who are the people that gave it one star?

http://www.amazon.com/Hurt-Locker-Jeremy-Renner/product-reviews/B00275EGWY/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar

flash_video_placeholder.png


when did you marine friends do their tours? and if we were discussing a vietnam movie your dads opinion would be worthy. the tension of war may be there for him, but he is missing a lot of the technicalities that hurt locker screwed up on. and thats what the vets don't like.

the drunken party does not happen over there. those are the inaccuracies the vets don't like. if you're going to make a movie about iraq, try and make it completely accurate out of respect for the soldiers. not add in scenes where the EOD guys suddenly become proficient at hitting a runner and decide to go on their own vendetta after the oil truck bombing or going out by themselves to defuse bombs without escorts. that stuff does not happen! so stop trying to sensationalize and hollywoodize the war so you can fill seats in a movie theater because that shit is insulting.

 
Wow, has anyone in the army ever seen a movie? You didn't hear Boston cops complaining about the Departed. For fucks sake I didn't complain about There Will Be Blood because there are some technical inaccuracies about oil production. The movie is not about an average EOD crew. It is about one guy who is fucking crazy and the movie makes it clear that he is not a normal guy. Its a movie, not a documentary.

That being said if some of the technical inaccuracies bother veterans they are entitled to their opinion but when you start comparing a movie to reality they are never going to agree.
 
Wow, no suprise here, a bunch of NS kids acting like they know everything because they can hide behind a screen.

Don't make comments if you haven't seen the nominated movies..duh..how could you know ___ is the best if you didn't see the other ones.

Oscars are given to good movies. Doesn't matter if the movie didn't actually portray war in the 'correct' way. If you watched Hurt Locker and you thought the party scene or anything in it didn't seem somewhat realistic, well congrats that you know a lot about the military. Avatar took place on Pandora or some shit, District 9 had fucking aliens living in Africa.

Hurt Locker was better than a movie like that is expected to be. It had a pretty cool 'war is drug' concept and the acting and stuff was decent but come on, that story was pretty fucking stagnant and lame. Some parts were so cliche, "this is a box of things that could have killed me." Standout part of this movie was he goes home and comes back, the scene in the cereal isle and then him back in Iraq was dope. Though the quote in the beginning should have been taking out btw. Like I read it, got it, then had a movie prove it like it was something that could be argued against. Felt like the movie moved exactly to my pre-concieved notions of war.

A Serious Man was easily best movie of 2009. I'm guessing you guys missed it cause no one mentioned it yet. Story/pacing was amazing, acting was through the roof, so many cool fucking scenes and shots, amazing story, extremely deep, powerful biblical themes, captured the essence of a time and culture, very Kafka-esque.

 
except the hurt locker is supposed to be real... thats a big part of the reason why its been raved about so much. the shaky camera and a bunch of other shit are employed to make it seem like a documentary... like its in combat and it's not a movie. it went for realism and came up flat
 
shooting an unprecedented level of visual orgasm entirely in front of a green screen is, believe it or not, revolutionary. avatar is going to change hollywood forever. the return of the king got 12 oscars, mostly for technical stuff, and it got best picture and director. you cant tell me that seeing 250,000 orcs get run over by like 20,000 horses in that giant battle scene didnt help peter jackson get best director. LOTR had ridiculously good special effects, the best of its time, but even that was just a really really good digital picture. avatar's technology is completely different, creating extremely realistic pictures, indistinguishable from what is reality. imo, that, and what it's about to do to hollywood, deserves an oscar
 
it seems like everyone is missing the point. go read some reviews off of rottentomatoes. it got a 97% fresh, which means its fucking really really well reviewed (in comparison, shutter island has like a 60% or something). almost every single good review of it talks about how realistic it is and how it captures the war perfectly, which is why it is such a highly acclaimed film. too bad it's not realistic, therefore its not that good
 
FINALLY someone with some sense on this site. Easily shoulda won best picture but it just doesnt have a big enough audience and wasnt a big enough money maker
 
HEY I posted this already! Haha but seriously I'm astonished people haven't even mentioned this movie. I was absurdly pissed off at the movie for a good 2 days after watching it because of the ending. When I started to break apart the movie and really analyze it I realized its genius.
 
There is a different between emotional realism and physical realism. You cant expect a film to be physically realistic- even documentaries are lies to some extent just because of the nature of film. The shaky camerawork is not intended to say "hey this is what actually happened!" but instead is a device to make things feel real on an emotional level. No film is realistic in the sense that you are looking for-- thats called being nit-picky. You don't analyze a film by saying that it goes for realism but has factual inaccuracies because you are comparing apples to oranges.
 
Could you explain A Serious Man to me? I felt like it was a sort of joke on the book of job, but the jokes were not accessible to someone like me who is so removed from jewish culture. How do you approach the film without a knowledge of jewish culture, thus being "in" on the jokes?
 
all i'm saying is if you're going to make profit off an on going war then give credit where its due.

and there are movies that have worked where veterans can agree, so your argument about movies,reality, and veterans agreeing sucks.

 
Are you atheist or muslim or something? Because it's something like 1/3 of the world is christian and they all use pretty much the same book. It's not just jews that read the old testament...

Either way, you don't need to know a thing about the story of Job to understand the movie.
 
Haha, I dont really identify as any of those but I have read the old testament. The book of job aspect of the film was actually the part that I thought made sense and I would argue you do need to know a bit about the book of job to understand the film. I was referring to jewish culture, which is a very specific culture that the film is based around and, since I am not a part of, I don't get a lot of the jokes. Did you miss the fact that the film has a lot of jewish humor? I am just trying to figure out whether or not I like the film and I am trying to see why other people think it is so great. People in this thread has said it is "genius" and "kafka-esque" and I am trying to figure out what makes it either of those things.
 
A rehashing of Pocahontas and Dances With Wolves with blue people and floating mountains is a landmark phenomena huh?

Well then, I am going to rehash Cinderella with Godfather and pink people and floating rivers and see if I can win then and make a landmark phenomena.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top