Topic: The Hurt Locker

[LFC on tour]

Felt it was dragging by the end of the movie, but very good regardless,

[Stussy]

Great, great movie.

[CHOPPER]

Great, great movie.

It's a good film right enough but it's no full metal jacket though.

*ponders: maybe thats a bit unfair of me to compare it to that though*

[Stussy]

Its not trying to be Full Metal Jacket though.

[CHOPPER]

Nor will it ever be.

[TipTopKop]

Was looking forward to seeing this soon with all the recommendations going on, but the good Dr's comments above have somewhat cast a shadow on that, we'll see what it's like..

[hooded claw]

Kathryn Bigelow is first woman to win DGA award

The Hurt Locker director's victory at the Directors Guild of America awards puts her in pole position in the Oscar race

Kathryn Bigelow took a major step towards this year's best director Oscar when she scooped the top prize at the Directors Guild of America awards on Saturday. Bigelow became the first woman to win the DGA award in its 62-year history. No woman has ever won the Academy Award for best director.

Bigelow won for The Hurt Locker, a tense, ground-level account of a US bomb disposal team on the streets of Baghdad. "We all felt a really deep responsibility to tell this story with as much honesty as possible, given the courage of the men and women in the field," Bigelow said. She took the prize ahead of fellow nominees Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds), Lee Daniels (Precious), Jason Reitman (Up in the Air) and Golden Globe winner James Cameron (Avatar).

The director confessed that she was "stunned, honoured and proud" to have won. "This is the most incredible moment of my life," she added.

Until recently, Cameron had been regarded as the heavy favourite for this year's Academy Awards, following his win at last month's Golden Globes. But, thanks to her triumph at both the DGA and Producers Guild of America, Bigelow may now have nosed into pole position. Only six DGA victors have failed to go on to win an Oscar since 1948.

[Stussy]

Good for her, she was in full control of that movie and directed it superbly.

[hooded claw]

Good for her, she was in full control of that movie and directed it superbly.

It's one of those remarkable facts you don't pick up on until it's pointed out, that no woman has ever won the big director's Oscar. Couldn't agree more about her deserving it, though; it ran District 9 close as my favourite film of the last year and she doesn't put a foot wrong throughout.
I've not seen it at home though. Have you seen it on Blu? Worth it?

[Stussy]

I'd imagine its one for the collection for sure.

[hooded claw]

I'd imagine its one for the collection for sure.

I am spending far too much on Blu-Rays at the moment. Just one more, then, before the credit card gets sealed in concrete.

[Dr Cornwallis]

Bigelow can shove it up her smooth, hairless ass, it's fucking shite, no aliens in it.

[Yorkykopite]

Was exasperated by the end of this. There was a mismatch between the documentary-style cinematography (Ken Loach's DoP) and the highly stylised story. And for atmosphere and rawness it wasn't a patch on 'Generation Kill'. A bit chocolate box at times in fact. Generation Kill was full of trash talk too (which is becoming as cliched for US soldiers in Iraq war movies as spliffs were for their dads in Vietnam), but at least they tended to drop the quips in scenes of high tension. Right from the very first scene the heroes of 'The Hurt Locker' were incapable of confronting The End without a jest. The unintended and dramatically disastrous result was that they always appeared to be in control.

Jacques Kallis was very good in the lead role though.   

[Tommy_W]

I can't say I loved it. Was gripped by the first 20-30 minutes but then I thought it lost the plot in the middle somewhat. Actually found myself bored stiff by the whole sniper sequence. Picked up a bit again towards the end

[Seebab]

6 Academy Awards? Fully deserved?

I watched it last week. I thought it was quite good (7 to 8 out of 10 for me), but for it to win the most awards shows how poor 2009 was for films.

[Mouth]

6 Academy Awards? Fully deserved?

I watched it last week. I thought it was quite good (7 to 8 out of 10 for me), but for it to win the most awards shows how poor 2009 was for films.

For me it does, for what it was up against as well, even though I havent seen them all, it deserves it. I didnt know any of the hype when I watched it and it was a total surprise.

[Brian Blessed]

Thought it was great, but I agree. In another year it would have got nothing. None of the recent years, mind.

[royhendo]

Up should have won it. The categories are all fucked up.

This was good though - is it ironic for Bigalow to repeatedly dedicate the film to the soldiers when one of the central themes of the film is how war is addictive for some soldiers, because their home lives are hopeless, mundane and empty?

[eAyeAddio]

I am spending far too much on Blu-Rays at the moment.

Then why not rent them?

LoveFilm is excellent value for money -  give 'em a try!


http://www.lovefilm.com/welcome/home.html

Bob.

[firing squad]

I was very very dissapointed by this film

I thought I would be the only one here.

I really don't see what's all the fuss about this film. It's actually pretty stupid and filled with standard US war films cliches.

Some rewievs even said that it's Iraq's "Platoon". What a load of shit and what an insult to the "Platoon".  Only "links" with the "Platoon" are maybe a lead character who finds being in Iraq as "normal life" just like Sgt Barnes(Tom Berenger) and the scene where he and Sanborn are drinking whiskey and fighting(just like in Platoon).

Although I wouldn't consider it a great movie also but as far as war movies about Iraq are concerned,Brian De Palma's "Redacted" pissess all over this one.

There are hundreds of soldiers around but hey,these 3 guys are doing everything,not only destroying bombs but also watching all the windows,investigating on their own(hahaha) and also chasing terrorists in dark alleys.

Load of shite with the inevitable cringeworthy "I'm too old for this shit" line as well.

[Garstonite]

Then why not rent them?

LoveFilm is excellent value for money -  give 'em a try!


http://www.lovefilm.com/welcome/home.html

Bob.

But then they wouldn't enter your ever-growing collection would they? The one that's the envy of everybody that comes round to your gaff. The one that puts HMV to shame. The one that is alphabetized and you spend practically every penny of spare cash you have on just so it grows and grows to the point that your house sinks into the floor. The one that has the about 20-30 films on blu-ray and DVD. The one that puts The Wire, The Sopranos, Band Of Brothers and Six Feet Under on another shelf because they are the elite. Come on man. Get with the beat, will you?

[royhendo]

@ Roy the boy.

I don't think it was the intention for bomb diffusal to be seen as addictive as such, more that the experiences of the soldier distort and undermine traditional day-to-day existences. That's what I took from it.

They pretty much make the statement at the start though, don't they?

Anyway regardless, I enjoyed it. Not sure it was worthy of every award going mind, but still, enjoyed it.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Saw it the other day on PPV on Virgin in HD.

Spoiler

Was really looking forward to it, given the reviews and hysteria.

Average storyline at times. Decent effects. Had to try and make the British look stupid and bail them out (How the SAS who were on patrol and guard never noticed a load of goats and an enemy sniper sneaking up - but a rookie American barely able to stop shaking and shuddering while the SAS bods stood calmly around - did is anyones guess. After all I'm sure that the average rookie USGI is clearly going to be better than the creme of the British Armed Services. Not.)

[close]

Overall though, very average film, not much of a plot. 2/10.

[safhossain03]

How does an 'average film' warrant a 2/10?

[Stussy]

It deserved its awards. Great movie.

[Mouth]

Saw it the other day on PPV on Virgin in HD.

Spoiler

Was really looking forward to it, given the reviews and hysteria.

Average storyline at times. Decent effects. Had to try and make the British look stupid and bail them out (How the SAS who were on patrol and guard never noticed a load of goats and an enemy sniper sneaking up - but a rookie American barely able to stop shaking and shuddering while the SAS bods stood calmly around - did is anyones guess. After all I'm sure that the average rookie USGI is clearly going to be better than the creme of the British Armed Services. Not.)

[close]

Overall though, very average film, not much of a plot. 2/10.

Spoiler

I dont think they were meant to be SAS, I thought they were "private contractors" or rather mercs, who are running about all over the place over there, given the bit were he shoots the guy who is running away saying they were the same price dead or alive.

[close]

[firing squad]

Spoiler

I dont think they were meant to be SAS, I thought they were "private contractors" or rather mercs, who are running about all over the place over there, given the bit were he shoots the guy who is running away saying they were the same price dead or alive.

[close]

but his point still stands tho.

[Okkervil]

Its a good film no doubt, but far my favourite of the 10 nominations this year. Personally I felt the film fell apart in the last 20 minutes or so. Finnes and Pearce were wasted, and I found it repetative and lacking narrative and depth both in terms of a plot and character development. I also disliked the shakey camera syndrome, which was a shame as some of the normal and slow mo shots were supurb. On the plus side the tension and atmposhere this film creates is palpable and harrowing. Its a good film; a 7/10 job. But not the war classic some have held it up to be.

[Rusty Oysterburger]

Great movie and I don't mind it winning Best Picture, although I don't think it was the best film of the year. Don't think it deserved the screenplay nod either, not with Basterds and In the Loop also nominated.

I don't really get people who are calling this a bad movie and then pointing to minor nitpicks about military protocol or unrealistic depictions of certain characters, that hardly makes it a bad movie. It's still very well directed, acted, paced and shot (have you ever seen a cereal aisle in a supermarket look so tragic before?).

Bigelow never set out to make an ultra realistic study of war, it's mainly a brilliant character study about someone with a particular mindset (not necessarily even military) who has one of the most stressful jobs on the planet and probably suffers from severe emotional stress/trauma every day.

Besides these inaccuracies are included for dramatic effect and not because they couldn't be arsed doing their research. Having smaller teams, no back up during the sniper bit, chasing the bad guys down dark alleyways on their own etc. aren't what would happen in Iraq but it does make the film incredibly tense and a great cinematic experience which trumps forensic realism every time for me.

[Red Viper]

Gonna watch this tonight. Watching some of the Oscars last night made me realise that I haven't really watched any new films this year, so where better to start than the Best Picture winner.

[Sarge]

6 Academy Awards? Fully deserved?

I watched it last week. I thought it was quite good (7 to 8 out of 10 for me), but for it to win the most awards shows how poor 2009 was for films.

This.

[Ice Red]

Thought it was just alright. VERY overrated to say the least but not horrible.

But best picture??!! WTF

[CHOPPER]

Best of an average bunch winner in all honesty. A good film, but nothing I'll be looking back on in years to come.

[Redcap]

I've said it before, but I liked Inglourious Basterds, An Education and possibly Up and A Serious Man out of the nominated movies. But if it was the only movie that was going to beat Avatar, then I'm happy it won.

[BSBW]

Being an ignorant or lazy twat I didn't know there was already a thread on this so called master piece.  What I've now done is posted my thoughts below, they are from a thread I started before I knew this one existed and I have pasted them before I have read what has already been posted, I hope that makes sense.  I'm now quite looking forward to reading what every one else thinks, sad eh?

I know there is a seperate film thread, however, due to the amount of hype surrounding this "epic" I thought it should warrant it's own.

So, what did you think of it? I personally left the big picture screen totally disappointed and judging by my nosey parkered listening in to a number of other people so did they. Is it due to the fact that there is, quite rightly, a fairly high profile media attentive presence in Iraq and Afghanistan that people feel misguidedly drawn to supporting whatever pro allied footage is shown that it won so much accolade.

As a long time serving soldier I do, I can't help it, actually watch these kind of films with I suppose a kind of technical eye. I must admit I'm not too up to speed with the ins and outs of the latest ATO side of things although a number of friends are, but I was having a laugh at some of the goings on and freedom this rebel Sgt (I can't even remember his friggin name) had in an Area Of Operations, what a load of shit.

I'm afraid I cannot recommend this film. It is, in my opinion, an OK film. My favourite part was the proxy suicide bomber though. 

[BSBW]

(have you ever seen a cereal aisle in a supermarket look so tragic before?).

That was one of the parts of the film, along with the proxy suicide bomber, that I found quite disturbing, exciting, frustrating, thought provoking and realistic, weird eh?

Now I've seen the other dated posts on here are we in Australia so far behind the power curve on film release?  It was only released this week on the friggin big screen here, are you full time bootleggers or something?  I don't expect an accurate answer on that by the way!

[ollick]

Saw it the other day on PPV on Virgin in HD.

Spoiler

Was really looking forward to it, given the reviews and hysteria.

Average storyline at times. Decent effects. Had to try and make the British look stupid and bail them out (How the SAS who were on patrol and guard never noticed a load of goats and an enemy sniper sneaking up - but a rookie American barely able to stop shaking and shuddering while the SAS bods stood calmly around - did is anyones guess. After all I'm sure that the average rookie USGI is clearly going to be better than the creme of the British Armed Services. Not.)

[close]

Overall though, very average film, not much of a plot. 2/10.

Spoiler

I dont think they were meant to be SAS, I thought they were "private contractors" or rather mercs, who are running about all over the place over there, given the bit were he shoots the guy who is running away saying they were the same price dead or alive.

[close]

but his point still stands tho.

An utterly shit and pointless scene.

Spoiler

The credits have them down as contractors. And the film shows a US Colonel sanctioning the execution of an insurgent so they are hardly painted in a glorious light either.

[close]

[firing squad]

Spoiler

The credits have them down as contractors. And the film shows a US Colonel sanctioning the execution of an insurgent so they are hardly painted in a glorious light either.

[close]

that scene was to show how they're film is so "independent" and "brave".  Classic Hollywood armchair leftist "subversion".  They didn't miss on having a couple of pointless scenes where Sgt James plays with the little Iraqui boy to level it out tho.

[Chakan]

Watched it the other day .... was ok but to take the oscar? I don't think so.

[Brian Blessed]

Watched it the other day .... was ok but to take the oscar? I don't think so.

Another year, no. But this year it's biggest competition was Avatar, supposedly.