OT - The Hurt Locker

[Targan]

Just watched The Hurt Locker the other day (its only just been released here). I liked it. I felt bad for the non-insane members of the EOD team in the film, their clearly unhinged team leader was obviously regularly putting them all at risk with his cowboy antics. I thought the British and other international mercenaries/bounty hunters that the team met were pretty funny.

Anyone else seen this film? Thoughts?

[WonderGoon]

I've not seen it, as yet. Still waiting on Netflix to deliver it.

Regards,
Goon

[headquarters]

A really good film imho.
Works as an action movie and a more mature warmovie etc .

Awesome theme - and the EOD work is pretty nerveracking as well as heartbreaking.

Yep.

Definently a fav in the genre so far .(Still waiting to see "the PAcific " though -if it comes close to "Band of Brothers" I will enslave myself to HBO for joy.)

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Targan

Anyone else seen this film? Thoughts?

SPOILERS AHEAD.

Just watched it. Not bad, IMHO. A bit disjointed, though. Seemed like a series of loosely related vignettes tied together by the "theme" of EOD. The bit with the SAS or Brit PMCs had nothing to do with EOD. Thought it was weird the insurgent sniper got the Brit but couldn't hit the Americans even though they were in the exact same place.

Lots of tense bits, though. Very suspenseful. Just sort of incoherent. Felt bad for the main guy's family.

Interesting film, overall.

[Webstral]

I watched The Hurt Locker over the weekend. The film resonated with me very intensely. I understand why some feel the story is a collection of vignettes. For me, the vignettes are the story; they reflect the contents of a tour. For me, nothing happened the way that it does for the characters, but the vignettes capture the essence of what goes on. There is an Apocalypse Now aspect to the film that I appreciate as being perfectly applicable. We had a guy who came straight from Afghanistan to our unit, then to Iraq. He tried civilian life and just couldn't hang. Last I knew, he'd found another Guard unit to take him back to Afghanistan. There but for the grace of God...

Unfortunately, my wife has just watched it, too. All sorts of bad juju has just been dredged up. I'm going to be living with her anger over my deployment and unfavorable comparisons with my pre-Iraq self until death do us part. I'm beginning to feel like no man should marry until he's forty and has endured all of the manhood experiences he needs to endure (and, preferably, has already made his fortune). If my wife hadn't known me before Iraq, I wouldn't have to hear about all of the things I used to be but am not anymore or all the things I am today but didn't used to be.

Webstral

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The bit with the SAS or Brit PMCs had nothing to do with EOD.

Absolutely the worst part of the movie in my opinion.

I liked it otherwise though.

[Webstral]

I can't say whether the encounter with the British contractors fits in a literary sense. I'm too close to the subject. I can say that the piece makes perfect sense to me in the context of showing the war in Iraq. The contractors are everywhere. We're all on the same side, but the relationship isn't formalized--or at least it didn't used to be. The scene shows the ambiguity of the whole business. EOD doing its business in the desert somewhere might have strayed across contractors, or EOD might not have strayed across a group of contractors. I interpret this scene as showing the chaos and fog of war in the particular circumstances of Iraq with the types of players one might encounter. Again, I'm too close to the subject to offer an objective opinion. To me, the bit with the Brits was real--in essence, if not in the particulars.

Webstral

[Dog 6]

I got it on dvd, It's ok, but not great imo

[HorseSoldier]

I really like it -- visually brilliant, felt more authentic than most Hollywood stabs at military films, and EOD guys doing the Long Walk and such is a great subject for drama (especially in the current conflict). Main drawback was the Hollywood sort of moments to it, like the resolution of the encounter with the contractors and the impromptu personnel recovery mission.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I can't say whether the encounter with the British contractors fits in a literary sense. I'm too close to the subject. I can say that the piece makes perfect sense to me in the context of showing the war in Iraq. The contractors are everywhere. We're all on the same side, but the relationship isn't formalized--or at least it didn't used to be. The scene shows the ambiguity of the whole business. EOD doing its business in the desert somewhere might have strayed across contractors, or EOD might not have strayed across a group of contractors. I interpret this scene as showing the chaos and fog of war in the particular circumstances of Iraq with the types of players one might encounter. Again, I'm too close to the subject to offer an objective opinion. To me, the bit with the Brits was real--in essence, if not in the particulars.

Webstral

I meant in a cinematic sense... as in it was poorly written and carried through.

[HorseSoldier]

Yeah, without delving too deeply into the events depicted and spoilers and such, I'd agree that there are better ways they could have approached the vignette involving the contractors.

[pmulcahy11b]

I haven't seen it yet (it's sold out in every store I go into -- I may have to order it from Amazon), but it seems that for every glowing review I hear, there is an equal and opposite bad review. I guess I'll just have to decide for myself.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I haven't seen it yet (it's sold out in every store I go into -- I may have to order it from Amazon), but it seems that for every glowing review I hear, there is an equal and opposite bad review. I guess I'll just have to decide for myself.

And here's another of the negatives, Paul.

I understand what the director was going for, the emotion and desire at the end of the movie, but I just couldn't enjoy the movie.

Like Web, maybe I'm just too close to it, but a couple of premises in the movie, I just couldn't accept and they ended up ruining it for me. Two major aspects of the movie/story just do not happen, and much like the Vets as PCs thread, I just couldn't suspend my disbelief. Once everything has been spoiled, I'll say what those two things are, but suffice it say now, it derives from the Army's former recruiting slogan, "An Army of One" in my opinion. ::burp-ghhh:: I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Paul, my advice is to rent the movie. Don't waste the money on it.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Eddie

Paul, my advice is to rent the movie. Don't waste the money on it.

Hmmm...maybe better yet, wait for it to come to cable?

[Eddie]

Personally, yeah.

If you understand the concept of "I only felt alive in combat, I'm stifling anywhere other than where or when I'm doing my job, I will do almost anything to keep that feeling," then you get the gist of the movie. Everything else is just Iraq specific and most of it is pretty erroneous in it's presentation.

That said, it is nice visually, but not worth the cost of a $20 DVD, IMO.

YMMV, though.

[Raellus]

IMO, the film is highly overated. I could understand a best actor Oscar, or best original screenplay (barely), but best picture? Nuh-uh.

There are a couple of really good bits, but a lot of it is overdone. As a character study, I think it falls short. The protagonist is a mysterious figure and remains so until the end of the film. You don't really ever get to know him very well and you learn next to nothing about his supporting crew. I think Eddie summed it up really well.

SPOILER AHEAD:

The bit at the end where they take off after the bomber and one of the trio gets captured... pure Hollywood. And I don't mean that as a compliment. The bit with the British PMCs was suspenseful but not very realistic.

[Darksheer]

in all honesty the movie was pure fantasy
90% of the stuff the main char did would have gotten him thrown in jail and discharged, not to mention he probably would have been beaten senceless for putting his team at risk for his stupidity.

I found the film entertaining and good for laughs but dont for a second think it was any way realistic

my 2 cents

PS i have worked with EOD alot in my career and they are nothing like this bunch

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Darksheer

in all honesty the movie was pure fantasy

Of course.

Movies =/= real life

Just saying...

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Of course.

Movies =/= real life

Just saying...

But some strive for more realism and accuracy than others.

Just saying...

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Eddie

But some strive for more realism and accuracy than others.

Just saying...

I just mean it kind of ties in with the other thread - about people having trouble accepting the game vs realism and accuracy. In both cases I just think you need to remind yourself that the entertainment models the real world - not define it.

[Mahatatain]

Sorry, dredging an old thread up from the past as I've just gotten round to watching this film!

As others have mentioned the scene with the British PMCs also struck me as a little odd. The sniper who shot several of the PMCs seemed to then cease fire for quite a long time while the US soldiers cleaned up the rounds for the Barrett. There was a significant amount of time where one or two soldiers were visible to the sniper (he had just killed Ralph Fiennes character in the same position) but he didn't fire for some reason - even having him firing and missing would have made more sense to me.

Another thing that struck me as odd was how on their own the EOD team were driving around Bagdad. Do US EOD teams actually drive around on their own? Three men in a single vehicle seemed very exposed to me so I wondered whether it was actually realistic or not!

[Sanjuro]

There was a significant amount of time where one or two soldiers were visible to the sniper (he had just killed Ralph Fiennes character in the same position) but he didn't fire for some reason

Perhaps he relocated after the successful shot?

[Cdnwolf]

Another thing that struck me as wrong was most of the IED were remote controlled and the guy holding the remote is just going to sit there and watch as the guy tries to disarm his bomb. I would be pushing the button the moment he came within 10 feet.

[pmulcahy11b]

I did watch it, finally -- but most people don't like to watch war movies and suchlike with me because I delight in pointing out the mistakes -- don't what's wrong with them -- don't they want to know the facts?

[Mahatatain]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

Perhaps he relocated after the successful shot?

From what happened next I don't think that was the case. I was certainly sitting there thinking that one of the American soldiers was going to get shot or at least shot at but nothing happened until they'd cleaned the blood of the Barrett rounds and were able to engage the sniper again.

I might be wrong though.

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

Another thing that struck me as wrong was most of the IED were remote controlled and the guy holding the remote is just going to sit there and watch as the guy tries to disarm his bomb. I would be pushing the button the moment he came within 10 feet.

I know what you mean, though with a couple of the IED's there reasons. The very first one, where Guy Pearce's character was killed, the man with the phone was seen trying to get back to the site where he could see what was going on. My assumption was that it took him a while so he couldn't see what was happening for a while. It was odd though because he could have hung back a lot further at the boundary line the other US troops had set up and detonated it from there.

The other IED that was never detonated for some reason was the multi connected set of shells that were very neatly laid out in a pattern for the picture they used to promote the film. I think that what was going on there was that the man who was supposed to set it off bottled it and ran away.

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I did watch it, finally -- but most people don't like to watch war movies and suchlike with me because I delight in pointing out the mistakes -- don't what's wrong with them -- don't they want to know the facts?

I'm also bad for picking holes in films - what others did you spot in this one?

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Mahatatain

The very first one, where Guy Pearce's character was killed...

Wait, Guy gets slotted!!??

[simonmark6]

Yup, finally he pays for not being in The Sullivans.

[Targan]

The actor who plays the main character in The Hurt Locker is also the archer guy in The Avengers isn't he?

[Stackmouse]

I wish they hadn't made this one. I think EOD/IEDD business doesn't need any promoting, at least not high fantasy stuff like this. The procedures made little if any sense. I guess it is a kick ass military action movie for those who have no idea about how military in general or EOD works.

For me it sucked, the disbelief was not suspended... but then again, the EOD is my current field and I tend to view it in a bit different light than most.

[Medic]

Originally Posted by Stackmouse

I wish they hadn't made this one. I think EOD/IEDD business doesn't need any promoting, at least not high fantasy stuff like this. The procedures made little if any sense. I guess it is a kick ass military action movie for those who have no idea about how military in general or EOD works.

For me it sucked, the disbelief was not suspended... but then again, the EOD is my current field and I tend to view it in a bit different light than most.

For me, medical stuff in movies and tv-series is pretty much the same thing - I hate it, when the producers have taken artistic freedoms about my line of work.

As for the movie, it was relatively entertaining, but I can remember watching it and counting moments where the protagonists would have been killed in real life. Can't remember the actual count, but it was pretty high...