A question about "The Hurt Locker"

[HuntrRose]

I mean, don't get me wrong- there were a few really gripping scenes, but 5 Oscars? REALLY?!? I'm sorry, but to give it Best Picture puts it up there with Saving Private Ryan, and it isn't even in the same galaxy as that film. (For the record, SPR absolutely shattered me. It took me an hour, 4 cups of coffee and a half a pack of cigarettes after the movie was over before I was able to compose myself enough to just drive home from the theater. Schindler's List is the only other film that comes to mind that had that type of affect on me.)
They're technically in different categories. SPR is an action-based WWII film, whilst Hurt Locker is a drama-based 2GW film. Remove the war bits, one's an action film and one's a drama film. You may have been looking for an action film, but this is more of a drama film.

So, do you really think this was better than Up, A Serious Man, Inglourious Basterds, and District 9? Why?
Well, to put bluntly HOW it won, remember this: It's the first SOLID 2nd Gulf War film that's been made and released to general audiences. Jarhead was sub-par and about the 1st Gulf War, and Generation Kill is HBO series, so it's not really a film. This war is a part of our culture at this point, like how Vietnam is part of my parent's late-teens, and how WWII is part of the Greatest Generation's culture. To see a film that neither advocates nor encourages war is rare, so I guess Hurt Locker won because it was in the right place at the right time.

Responses in bold. Sorry if they sound deriding, I do NOT mean that.

Not at all! thanks for the thoughts: actually, come to think about it, you're probably very accurate in regards to the war-action as opposed to war-drama observation. That said, I think it's not unreasonable of me to say that the advertising campaign kind of set me up for that.

It's the things it tells without actually saying out loud that makes it a great movie.

See, that's the sort of thing I'm interested in, but examples would be appreciated, because I must've missed them the first time through.

Well, see it again. And ask yourself what makes him do all the crazy shit he does. What makes him have trouble talking to his wife? Why does he have trouble buying cereal? Why does he go back?

 

[Premonition]

For me The Hurt Locker was a pretty average film that at least deserved to be nominated for something. Maybe even get an oscar out of it that isn't directing or best film. I mean, the camerawork was sloppy, the action was all over the place, the acting had its moments and the director knew what she was doing. But it is not a great movie.

To me this is all a crock. Firstly: the director has boobs, secondly: the lady is the EX OF JAMES CAMERON, DIRECTOR OF THE ANTI-OSCAR MOVIE. Thirdly: that lady also directed a movie that could be considered the opposite of Avatar.

 

[TankCopter]

I'm with you on that one. I've seen all of the movies on the list, and the two favourites (Avatar and The Hurt Locker) were the ones I liked the least. Avatar had me looking at my watch, hoping it was nearly over so I could go home, and The Hurt Locker just completely disinterested me. Maybe it's because I'm over people harping on about the Iraq conflict and yet ultimately doing nothing, maybe it's because I'm Australian and I don't have as a strong a connection to the conflict as the Academy, or maybe I just have poor taste, but I didn't think it was deserving of all those awards.

I mean, it was a solid film, but I honestly don't understand what is so astounding about it that it deserved the 5 Oscars apart from allowing the academy to garner some interest because the director is the ex of the other movie that is likely to win. Which was also average. Inglourious Basterds was more fun to watch, Up was also a lot more fun and much more affecting to me, and District 9 was better at taking a stab at political issues while still being enjoyable.

 

[Chameliondude]

My sentiments exactly, i think i was most wierded out by the little squad of british mercinaries bit where those are the only ones you see and they are kidnapping people and shit, i swear they are actually doing pretty much the same thing as the americans, you know, keeping the peace and such.

 

[Lem0nade Inlay]

I enjoyed District 9 more. Same with Up I guess, I mean this movie was awesome, I'll give you that. But I was kind of bored in a lot of scenes, I just don't really like war movies, to the horror of most of my friends.

But one things for sure, thank God it beat Avatar!

 

[Klepa]

To me, the movie was OK, I especially liked the scene in the supermarket. On the flipside, the Bomb-in-a-Kid scene was Oscar bait.

However, I'm not american, so the movie couldn't possibly speak to me at a level it did to Americans, who have friends and relatives fighting, and possibly dying in the war. I understand why it got so much praise as it did, but for people in other countries, it was just another movie about Yanks and their wars.

 

[EchetusXe]

It was better than recent winners Chicago and Crash. It was also better than fellow nominees Avatar, The Blind Side (by far), District 9, and Inglourious Basterds. Up and Up in the Air were stronger films. I didn't see An Education, Precious, or A Serious Man.

I loved the cinematography, but if it wasn't about the Iraq War then it wouldn't have won much at all.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

The Wire (best show that's ever graced television).

You're joking right? One word: Firefly.

Time to branch out from standard issue geek culture. The Wire is in another league entirely.

 

[10BIT]

to give it Best Picture puts it up there with Saving Private Ryan

Actually, it puts it above Saving Private Ryan since that movie didn't get get a 'Best Picture' oscar. Now, for extra rage points, find out which movie did and you'll realise why oscars mean nothing nowadays.

 

[Arcanz]

Why is everyone so biased against this film. It's like this forum have become anti all popular things. Everywhere on these forums I see new threads about something popular and how much it sucks. Yes I know many of them do actually suck, but sometimes I think many of you just jump on the wagon and bash anything because a majority likes it.

It's the things it tells without actually saying out loud that makes it a great movie.

See, that's the sort of thing I'm interested in, but examples would be appreciated, because I must've missed them the first time through.

When you see him defuse the carbomb is one of those moments. You get an insight of how the soldiers feel, how nervous they are. How they are on unfamiliar ground, and the smallest details in their surroundings can cause their deaths. How can they know that the guy with the camera is not the one holding a trigger, or the one on the other roof. Some says that this film is drawn out and progresses slowly, I think it really shows how the soldiers feel, how times passes by so slow when they are in these situations. One of the greatest scenes in my opinion is the one with the sniper, where they need to be focused all the time even in almost hellish conditions. You can see the less trained soldier almost freaking out, while the others who are more trained know that they can't loose focus as it's a life or death situation. It really shows how human they and we all are.
Saying that you have to be American to get this film is bull. Almost every country, atleast in Europe, has soldiers down there. But this film is not only about Americans or the fight going on right now, I feel that this film really show how it is in every war. The supermarket scene also show you how different it is for a soldier to come home, how it's not always easy to come back after such an experience and be expected to work normally like everyone else and adapt.

 

[psycoturkey]

No, it doesn't put it up against Saving Private Ryan, because those two movies did not come out the same year.

 

[Sneaky-Pie]

I agree. It was a very mediocre film that should not have won the awards that it did.

Also, am I the only one who is getting really sick of war films? Anyone?

 

[Anah'ya]

Why is everyone so biased against this film. It's like this forum have become anti all popular things. Everywhere on these forums I see new threads about something popular and how much it sucks. Yes I know many of them do actually suck, but sometimes I think many of you just jump on the wagon and bash anything because a majority likes it.

I'm getting exceedingly tired of people saying that.

Folks, you need to realize that popular things do not quietly pass by those that do not share the same taste as the people that make it popular to begin with. Sorry that you like the Hurt Locker, but it wasn't as good in the eyes of others and you'll just have to deal with it. Etc.

And back OT: To say it excels because it gives you an insight in how the soldiers live and breath is... a weak argument. There are more potent first person accounts of these in book formats that would have done a better job as a movie. And even Generation Kill did good on that--without the long, drawn out sequences that made Hurt Locker so unbearably dull.
... and the British PMC scene keeps annoying me.

IMO Hurt Locker did nothing to deserve that much praise. It was just the timing. Timing is everything.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

The Wire (best show that's ever graced television).

You're joking right? One word: Firefly.

Time to branch out from standard issue geek culture. The Wire is in another league entirely.

Skillful edit there. Just to defuse this situation before it gets out of hand I shall say one word: subjective.

 

[maturin]

Many have remarked that it was a lackluster Oscars season. But now that you mention it, I found Saving Private Ryan pretty average as well, as soon as the landing scenes were over.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

I shall quote from elsewhere.

The Hurt Locker. Shite. Don't waste your time or money on it.

No character background, no character building, acts of utter stupidity from start to finish and no reason at all why the enemy in black in the building in the distance just stopped shooting and waited for them to clean all their ammo and reload. There shouldn't have been any alcohol there. They certainly shouldn't have been staggering drunkenly around the camp. Noone's that calm with a shattered femur. You can't run in that armour. There seemed to be noone even nearly in charge. The two officers were a token useless plonker and a token fat-guy-with-moustache cloned straight out of a scene in the second half of Full Metal Jacket. You don't use steel tools for bomb disposal. Steel conducts.

It was like reading fifty random pages from the whole Batman canon.

Partly that, and partly that I may have seen too many war movies. The penultimate scene? Captain Willard did that better with 56 words of voiceover. The Plump colonel with the moustache was straight out of Full Metal Jacket. Been there, seen that. Maybe it would have been much better as a mini-series. Das Boot works best at half an hour per week, very well over five hours and hardly at all crammed into two, and Stalingrad was too rushed to be good. Maybe The Hurt Locker could have been good if it had been six hours long, with enough time to have each character's story. I suspect it would have just been a longer string of standard scenes, though.

I know why the enemy in the hut stopped shooting. They'd run out of Token Brits to kill. If they'd kept shooting they'd have had to suddenly forget how or hit an American, and they're not allowed to do that because the three main bods had to live long enough for the scheduled utter stupidity and for two of them to disappear, one on a helicopter and one ... erm ... into thin air?

... pretty formulaic.

UTTERLY formulaic.

(For the record, SPR absolutely shattered me. It took me an hour, 4 cups of coffee and a half a pack of cigarettes after the movie was over before I was able to compose myself enough to just drive home from the theater. Schindler's List is the only other film that comes to mind that had that type of affect on me.)

Good choices for that. That's part of why ... or a symptom of some of the reasons why ... they're on the list of "films you must see".

I didn't enjoy it, I found it rather dull and drawn out. I really don't want to see 30 seconds of a guy walking towards a car. So you're not alone.

I checked my watch to see how close to over it was.

Its a terrible film.

The cinamatography was decent tho, the scene shot from top down where he pulls on one wire to expose about 10 bombs is clever.

They did do a fairly good job of filming it and getting the number of possible hiding places and number of people actually watching and the lack of any idea about who was doing what across ... but I spent a lot of time asking "Now WTF are you doing?"

I mean what the hell was with the British PMC guys? Was that moment just added to show the superiority of american troops?

Yes.

Well, see it again. And ask yourself what makes him do all the crazy shit he does. What makes him have trouble talking to his wife? Why does he have trouble buying cereal? Why does he go back?

If you think it takes two viewings to figure that stuff out, you were probably utterly baffled by Inception and surprised when the fat guy got eaten in Jurassic Park. Sorry if that's a spoiler for anyone.

The Hurt Locker took stock scene scripts and lined them up. Each one played out so true to its archetype that the opening sequences of The Simpsons are more varied and interesting. Thinking back now, I reckon I would, actually, have had at least as good a time watching the opening sequences of every episode ever made, and a better time if they had just had the blackboard and sofa scenes and nothing else, because there'd be a reason to wait and see.

Actually, it puts it above Saving Private Ryan since that movie didn't get get a 'Best Picture' oscar. Now, for extra rage points, find out which movie did and you'll realise why oscars mean nothing nowadays.

*google*google*google* Shakespeare in Love?

... You get an insight of how the soldiers feel, how nervous they are. How they are on unfamiliar ground, and the smallest details in their surroundings can cause their deaths. How can they know that the guy with the camera is not the one holding a trigger, or the one on the other roof.

As stated above, the cinematography was pretty good.

One of the greatest scenes in my opinion is the one with the sniper

As stated above, that scene was a load of bollocks. Maybe they filmed it differently and mixed it all around in the editing and hoped nobody would notice, but I noticed.

The supermarket scene also show you how different it is for a soldier to come home, how it's not always easy to come back after such an experience and be expected to work normally like everyone else and adapt.

As stated above, imo the dead-inside monotone voiceover at the start of Apocalypse Now does a far better job of portraying that in less time with a few words and no relevant footage. The end of All Quiet On The Western Front also does it very well, possibly better.

Spoiler: Spoilers for All Quiet On The Western Front

It's mostly the diary of a young German soldier in WWI, stuck in the trenches of the Western Front. Throughout the diary, he and his {comrades / friends} get better and better at being soldiers stuck in the trenches of the Western Front and when it all goes quiet for a while he starts to wonder how they're going to cope when the war's over and they're back in civilian life with no experience of how to live it but lots of experience of the trenches and war.

The last page is an entry from someone else:

He was found dead of a single bullet wound to the head on a day that saw so little action the report simply said: "All quiet on the Western Front."

In other words ... he couldn't face it.