The Hurt Locker - another bullshit movie from hollywood

[Arkham Knight]

The Hurt Locker - another bullshit movie from hollywood

I think the director Kathryn Bigelow is a mentally sick person.

She is a woman that knows nothing about real violence, but she always want to make action movies, that at the end are nothing but bullshit.

Here she comes again, she showed the military men to be a bunch of assholes.

All the fighting scenes are well done of course, but when it comes to human behavoiour she doesn't knwo what else to do than showing everybody as an asshole doing bullshit.

I think she was a wild bitch when she turned 18, and was fucked really hard by some asshole redneck with no brains at all.

Now she sees every an outthere as an asshole and always shows the assholes as somebody cool, she is fucking crazy.

In this movie of her, she showed only bullshit, every situation was artificial, and all the characters are artificial too.

Unless you're a braindamged 3 yers old kid, you can't watch her movies, they are only full of shit.

[Arkham Knight]

The details and the lack of accuracy matter

I admit I didn't watch the whole thing. I had to turn it off after the guy---no body armor, but ACU pants that weren't being issued at the time, which would have gotten him killed----left the base with a gun to a civilian's head. As it happens, two of the guys in my squad did something like that just prior to us new guys arriving. They went to a party, they carried unauthorized weapons, and for most of the rest of the tour they were on extra duty and restriction. Then the insurgency exploded, and going outside the wire just became a laughable idea.

Where do I start, where do I start? The part where the officer stands next to a big huge brand-new looking, definitely FULL burlap sack in the street and nobody notices RIGHT AWAY? Did I mention this guy's EOD? And it's 2004 in Iraq, when everybody learned exactly what IED meant? The one-vehicle excursion out into the desert? The mercenaries, also in one vehicle? Jeez, does Fallujah, April 4th, 2004 ring any bells? Aside from which, leaving base---in one vehicle for the soldiers, if not for the mercs-----was strictly forbidden, simply because it was the best way to get yourself killed. The soldiers knew this, too. You had to have a convoy, you had to have a certain number of soldiers, certain numbers and types of weapons, and certain procedures. This wasn't drill and ceremony; this was stuff that would keep you alive. And any realistic soldier recognized that a lot of that stuff made sense.

And then there's the scene where they get trapped by snipers in a building eight hundred meters away, who can blow away a merc with a tough shot yet can't take out the lead character's buddy once he takes off his helmet. And for that matter, they DON'T take out the guy who's taking them out. If they can see well enough to hit the turret gunner in the jugular then they can take out the dude who just took off his Kevlar.

I had to turn it off. I'm going to guess it didn't get much better. The bottom line is, if you have to change the reality of the story that much to tell your story, there's something wrong with the story. That's the writer's fault, and sure it makes their job easy, but that's the job. This kind of laziness reminds me of way Stephen King uses telepathy in all his books because otherwise he'd have to actually explain certain things and write maybe three hundred more pages. You have to wonder why, if they want to write about the military so much, they make it so fake.

Some people don't grasp this idea. It's honesty. It's hard work. Artistically, I'd say there's different kinds of honesty. There's every I dotted, every T crossed accuracy. Then there's emotional honesty, where you follow the spirit of something rather than the letter of it. This is what movie makers use a lot, yet this movie has neither. If you can't get the details right, the basic facts of military life, then something's wrong with your story. It's not the military that's the problem; it's the fact that you can't get it right, that the story you want to tell can't be made to fit the framework you've chosen for it. A lot of civilians get the military wrong, thinking it's matter of picking which extreme to place the story at. But they miss all the gray areas in the middle, all the perfectly ordinary people in the military who do extraordinary things, and I think a lot of people flinch from that complexity. Even today, members of the military are either saints or villains to people, and this movie was an attempt to capitalize on a third role: that of suffering---or angry---survivor. Yet Renner's character was just a smug, arrogant bad boy, more of a Tom Cruise character than anything original.

Link - http://www.amazon.com/Hurt-Locker-Je...#R87H6ACCZG7MR

[Arkham Knight]

Steaming pile of incoherent BS

EDITED TO ABIDE BY AMAZON STANDARDS CONCERNING LANGUAGE AND INSULTS

Many years ago, practically in another life, I learned how to deactivate infernal devices. Back in the 1980s EOD training focused primarily on unexploded ordinance rather than IEDs, and the stuff the IRA and PLO was putting together back then was downright primitive in comparison to some of the newfangled stuff our guys are facing now. To put this in perspective, when I was at AIT cellphones hadn't even been invented yet.

Even back in primitive times, one of the most basic and fundamental rules you learn is to consider the MANY possible anti-handling devices you might encounter. Often, even a simple mil-spec device such as a landmine could have several anti-handling devices in place, and with an IED it could get downright devious. I'm not going to go into any detail here, but anti-handling devices are designed to kill anyone who discovers the device and attempts to render it safe. Any entry-level Combat Engineer knows you're not supposed to lift, roll, jostle, or shake a suspect device without a complete and detailed inspection. The genius in this film is dragging 50 pound shells out of the dirt by their wires and prying open the trunk of a car to expose the bomb inside. In real life, bad guys use tamper resistant bombs. Pull it out of the dirt? BOOM. Open a boobytrapped trunk, hood, or door? BOOM. Snip random wires? Holy collapsing circuit! BOOM. These were the first things you learned 25 years ago! Today, EOD school is three times as long and you are practically qualified for an electrical engineering degree when you are done. This idiot would have washed out halfway through the first phase. Risktaking is one thing, foolhardy bravado is another, but what this guy was doing guaranteed him a Darwin Award. It is glaringly obvious that no-one with any actual EOD experience was used as a consultant for this film.

Wanton stupidity abounds, and to make things worse it isn't even an entertaining movie. Unlikeable undeveloped characters, idiotic subplots that go nowhere, and no sense of reality. Oh, I loved the scene when they are working the Barnett 50 which is a precision sniper rifle and they're sighting it in like an artillery piece, cleaning blood off the rounds to prevent it from jamming, and completely forget that there is an entire belt of ammo in the turret gun . . . but I digress. Apparently, no-one who actually fired a gun was used to consult on this film either. Ending sucked too. Altogether, this was a dismal failure as a war movie. Of course, the soulless drones in Hollywood and the Press Corps all think it is movie of the year deserving of numerous high awards. This movie made me want to vomit. I want my two hours back, as well as the two bucks I spent on the rental fee. Full of suck.

Link - http://www.amazon.com/Hurt-Locker-Je...#R87H6ACCZG7MR

[Rolf]

It was meh, and is about as realistic as Star Wars, comments Rolf. But Rolf asks of thee, when are movies ever truly accurate and/or realistic?

[Trix Are For Kids]

In this thread a simple war movie was completely overanalyzed.

There's a reason it won so many awards, not because of it's realism, but because of the mass appeal.

[Darkhunter]

Hey Op, 2009 called and want their review back.

[AtrainV]

While I agree that the movie was completely overrated, I don't actually care about any of the reasons that Arkham Knight posted. As far as a very dramatic and stress-inducing movie, it was ridiculously good. Getting that feeling of pressure across was done very effectively. However, the acting was god-awful and story was very trite and hyper-sentimentalized to the extent that anything aside from the bomb scenes were just laughable.

[Siu3d]

I thought it was a pretty forgettable film. Definitely not Best Picture worthy, but whatever.

[Rocko]

The worst part of the movie is that the creators just turned out to be a bunch of greedy assholes who baited and sued downloaders for many times what the movie made at the box office.

[5.56 SS109]

The part with the "blood covered bullets" jamming the rifle was retarded.

[Rolf]

Originally Posted by 5.56 SS109

The part with the "blood covered bullets" jamming the rifle was retarded.

And the part about the three-man EOD team cruising around without any escort, adds Rolf.

[Dr. Awkward]

Wait wait wait. Are you saying a movie portrayed something unrealistically? You should tell someone about this.

[Rolf]

Originally Posted by Dr. Awkward

Wait wait wait. Are you saying a movie portrayed something unrealistically? You should tell someone about this.

Rolf tried telling George Lucas, but he kept hanging up on Rolf, cries Rolf.