The Hurt Locker

[Serj22]

I don't disagree with any of your assessment of the movie. I don't know what the intent of the film was, but while it was amusing for a few hours, it isn't the kind of film that sticks with you.

That's what I'm saying. I watched it, and I don't necessarily ever feel like watching it again, nor will I remember anything from it especially.

 

[ragged]

OMG, what a waste of time. I shut it off 30 minutes in.

 

[GlocksRock]

I enjoyed the movie and thought it was very well made. The audio was fantastic as well, video was grainy but that was intentional, but otherwise good.

 

[chris357]

I enjoyed the movie and thought it was very well made. The audio was fantastic as well, video was grainy but that was intentional, but otherwise good.

obviously you have horrible taste in movies

 

[Serj22]

OMG, what a waste of time. I shut it off 30 minutes in.

Hooray! Your mind was unaffected.

 

[avnetguy]

Just saw that the Hurt Locker Bluray went on sale today so I came here to check on the peoples thoughts on the quality and was surprised at all the negative comments.

I thought this was a great movie, sure it's got it's "Hollywoodized" scenes but wasn't totally unrealistic. Yes the sniper scene was a bit over the top but not too bad imo, it was only 850 meters and they did show some missed shots. My guess is this movie appeals more to the adrenaline junkies than anyone else.

 

[j_garcia]

It just feels like an incomplete story to me. You get a peek at the character, but you don't REALLY learn anything of any significance about any of the characters. It is just a collection of moments that doesn't really gel together into something that felt like a story. That's not to say it was a bad movie, it just wasn't great.

 

[BillaVista]

Interesting trivia:

A friend of mine works for the co. that makes the suits. The first time he suits up, you can clearly see the logo on the suit.

But the time the guy dies in the suit, they had to remove the logo (and used a diff. helmet I think). Still made by the same co., but no branding allowed when the guy doed using the product!

 

[zhimbo]

It just feels like an incomplete story to me. You get a peek at the character, but you don't REALLY learn anything of any significance about any of the characters. It is just a collection of moments that doesn't really gel together into something that felt like a story. That's not to say it was a bad movie, it just wasn't great.

Well, it isn't meant to be a "story". It's day after day after day after day, grinding away, counting down...and I thought I learned a great deal about Jeremy Renner's character.

I think it succeeded at what it set out to do, very well. It certainly may not be to everyone's liking, but I thought it was one of best films of 2009, myself. (THE best film of 2009: Inglourious Basterds. Sez me. I didn't think so at the time, but it's grown on me having seen it again.)

 

[j_garcia]

Well, it isn't meant to be a "story". It's day after day after day after day, grinding away, counting down...and I thought I learned a great deal about Jeremy Renner's character.

I think it succeeded at what it set out to do, very well. It certainly may not be to everyone's liking, but I thought it was one of best films of 2009, myself. (THE best film of 2009: Inglourious Basterds. Sez me. I didn't think so at the time, but it's grown on me having seen it again.)

Inglorious Bastereds was MUCH better than this one, I agree, and was definitely one of the best from that year.

With this one, I don't really mean "story", because I understand what they were going for, but it really just felt like a bunch of shorts slapped together. What did the scene in the desert with the Barret have to do with the rest of the film? Absolutely nothing, but it was one of the more interesting scenes , and that's what I'm talking about. As if they wanted it to seem like they filmed live stuff and put together a documentary, but it didn't feel like that.

The lawsuit over this one is still ongoing because the director basically did just rip off various events from working with an OD team and they got no credit for it being about them.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Inglorious Bastereds was MUCH better than this one, I agree, and was definitely one of the best from that year.

With this one, I don't really mean "story", because I understand what they were going for, but it really just felt like a bunch of shorts slapped together. What did the scene in the desert with the Barret have to do with the rest of the film? Absolutely nothing, but it was one of the more interesting scenes , and that's what I'm talking about. As if they wanted it to seem like they filmed live stuff and put together a documentary, but it didn't feel like that.

The lawsuit over this one is still ongoing because the director basically did just rip off various events from working with an OD team and they got no credit for it being about them.

I finally watched this for the first time and I have to agree with the general consensus, that this was not deserving of the Best Picture Award. As for the technical awards - I can go along with those. And J, I agree with your assessment - it looks like a bunch of shorts spliced together. Finally, the film required too much suspension of disbelief. If they'd kept the scenes within the realm of plausibility, I would've enjoyed it much more. It was "good", not great.

 

[goodman]

"The Hurt Locker" got some ink because it was directed by one of James Cameron's ex-wives. It was disappointing. My favorite war flicks are "Apocalypse Now" and "Full Metal Jacket."