Apparently "The Hurt Locker" has detail issues.

BWAA-HAA-HAAAAA! So very right. Too many times directors and writers sacrifice reality for drama in order to overcome a poorly directed or written action scene.

In doing so, they alienate and become a laughing stock of the ones that are their subject matter. They are looked at as sell-outs. Ask any real soldier, FF, police officer who has watched the over glamorized and over dramaicized scene involving said roles. CSI anyone? Ask any real CSI about the show, and see if they crack a smile.

But on the flip side, reality is not that exciting. In real life, bullets don't go in slow motion, spark off the dirt, or blow up every car they hit. This is the way movies put "butts in the seats", by fooling the audience into thinking they are experiencing what really happens.
 
My opinion, if 'The Hurt Locker' helps people sympathize for the poor bastards putting themselves in harms way over there day after day, then it's done something right.
I felt for them.

It is a movie after all, not a documentary.

MAH
 
The Hurt Locker was 80% good.

The bloody bullets scene went on too long... and I agree that no soldier would recklessly put his brothers in harms way repeatedly. They tried to say he really cares about his brothers by giving juice to the sniper and staying thirsty himself... but that long-ass scene was drawn out just for that? Even I got thirsty waiting for something to happen.

I also felt the drinking/punching scene jumped the shark when he starts riding his sergeant like a bronco... That whole "men testing each other" thing has been done so much... it would be easy to make a youtube video compilation of that.

Finally... the end... if you don't want to be with someone don't get 'em knocked up. Sure he's a bad-ass bomb guy with a death-wish... and for sake of the movie let's glamorize him as the hero/anti-hero... but the shots of him taking care of business back home as if that's so shallow and disgraceful sure wouldn't have set up his courage for a new tour so well if there had been a dramatic scene with the wife about him repeatedly abandoning the family he started.

Whatever... it was still a good movie. I liked it enough that I bought it... just for some of the scenes, but I doubt I'll watch the movie beginning to end again.

As far as it being real or not? Pff... almost no production is... because as Doc says... reality isn't that interesting.



I highly recommend everybody see Adaptation for an excellent explanation of reality in filmmaking... that will hit you smack in the face (stated directly by a film guy in the movie)... and again after the movie ends. It's pretty damn smart and addresses this debate really well... and on top of that... with all the Nicolas Cage rips... I think that between that and Raising Arizona... it's proof enough that he's got something in him... we just don't see it often enough.

Sorry for the rambling...
 
Please keep in mind, I am a part of doing the very thing I despise in film. I have a lot of fun doing it, but sometimes the directorial staff try to go way above the line of realism, while trying to portray realism.

Which is why I try to "temper" the directors I work with (when it calls for it) when I TA a production, in order to give some idea of realism.
 
MattinSTL said:
The bloody bullets scene went on too long... .....They tried to say he really cares about his brothers by giving juice to the sniper and staying thirsty himself... but that long-ass scene was drawn out just for that? Even I got thirsty waiting for something to happen.
Click to expand...

I thought that scene was great. The tension was palpable, and I don't think it went too long. I think there was a lot more going on in that timespan that just drinking juice boxes. I believe the scene served the purpose of delving into the character development.

I saw that article yesterday. Didn't realize how much they had those three guys fighting the whole war until it was explained to me. How 'bout that scene where they find the cache of bombs and bomb making equipment? First of all...just the three guys checking out that spot? Then James says, "cancel the det" and they just leave the scene like nothing happened. Or am I missing something?

Great film IMO, but I guess you can pick anything apart if you try.
 
Deepfocus88 said:
Great film IMO, but I guess you can pick anything apart if you try.
Click to expand...

It served its purpose in that I was 1) entertained and 2) had some sort of emotional response.

I suppose it's a little easier to pick apart a film like The Hurt Locker, which has some historical foundation to be compared to, than something like Avatar which takes place a long time from now somewhere really far away :D
 
You haven't seen the fifty pages of geekery on a site-that-shall-not-be-named arguing about the mass-efficiency of the starship drive used to get from Earth to Pandora...

...I found Hurt Locker effective as storytelling. Even while watching it I knew damn well that this is not how EOD/Army personnel operate, but it didn't ruin the film for me (which is odd because I'm usually a fanatic for technical accuracy...)
 
While I understand (and sort of agree with) why the Pentagon yanked support for Hurt Locker, I do find it funny that they yanked support due to it not being realistic, yet were all to happy to lend F-22's and Osprey's for the making of Transformers.

I know, it's apples and oranges and not a fair comparison, but there is a certain irony there. :happy:
 
I've dealt with DoD (Dept. of the Air Force/Dept. of the Navy) on a number of shows. They're just-plain squirrely.
 
Creative license is nothing new. Patton, Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down, etc. all have 'detail issues' so the filmmakers could tell the story they wanted, how they wanted w/in the confines of the medium.
 
Best 'detail issue' ever: the M4 Sherman Tanks painted with swatiskas as Afrika Korps armor in The Big Red One.

Just painful.
 
Mike Harvey said:
While I understand (and sort of agree with) why the Pentagon yanked support for Hurt Locker, I do find it funny that they yanked support due to it not being realistic, yet were all to happy to lend F-22's and Osprey's for the making of Transformers.

I know, it's apples and oranges and not a fair comparison, but there is a certain irony there. :happy:
Click to expand...


Nobody expected Transformers to be realistic. Nor Avatar. I think the issue is that a lot of people expected Hurt Locker to be realistic -- I did. After learning how unrealsitic it was, it really ruined the movie for me.
 
eleison said:
Nobody expected Transformers to be realistic. Nor Avatar. I think the issue is that a lot of people expected Hurt Locker to be realistic -- I did. After learning how unrealsitic it was, it really ruined the movie for me.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know. And if I remember right, the DoD pulled support after they started changing the script that DoD had approved, but didn't bother to get new approval. big No No.

Like I said, it's apples and oranges and not a fair comaprison. I just think it's kinda funny.
 
Not that I'm trying to defend the film, but if you watch it with the Audio Commentary on they point out a lot of the differences in what the shot and how it would really work in real life.
 
And now the Producer is being sued.

LINK

Master Sergeant Jeffrey S. Sarver believes screenwriter Mark Boal based "virtually all of the situations" in the film on events involving him and claims he coined the phrase "the hurt locker,"
Click to expand...
That last part is hilarious! I don't know about you guys but he better be about 100 years old. The term "Hurt Locker" has been around for a LONG time.

MAH
 
In my opinion the weakest link in the whole damn movie was the title... very few people grasped any depth or intrigue with that title... I heard the title was originally going to be Bomb Buddies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top