Just watched The Hurt Locker.

[Green Lantern]

I feel the exact same way. I think I must be GL's long lost sister. Or his evil twin.

KL is the Guy Gardner to my Hal Jordan. Wait, nobody is going to know what the hell that means.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Watched it on blu-ray last night. I hate to be the contrarian here, but I was disappointed. I am trying to analyze why it didn't work for me. First of all, there didn't seem to be much of a plot. Just a series of somewhat random experiences. Each scene with an IED was intense, but there were only two possible outcomes: the bomb goes off or it doesn't. I found it to be simplistic and repetitive.

I also thought many of the scenes seemed contrived. Just the manner in which the areas were secured (not secured), the protocol for dealing with the IED's, the number of times it was just three of them driving around, etc. just didn't seem realistic. It seems like many of the poor strategic moves and the questionable tactics were put in just to create some suspense. After watching the movie I read some of the reviews on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887912/usercomments) and my suspicions were confirmed. The Iraq vets seem to universally hate the movie.

Good movie, but I certainly wouldn't call it great. As for 2009 movies, I thought Inglorious Basterds was much better in terms of plot, dialogue, and suspense. Not a more realistic movie, but a better movie.

[venkman]

I also watched this last night. It was an ok movie. Despite the moments of suspense, I found it overall to be boring and largely pointless. Maybe my expectations were too high from reading the rave reviews here.

[CardiacCoug]

Watched it on blu-ray last night. I hate to be the contrarian here, but I was disappointed. I am trying to analyze why it didn't work for me. First of all, there didn't seem to be much of a plot. Just a series of somewhat random experiences. Each scene with an IED was intense, but there were only two possible outcomes: the bomb goes off or it doesn't. I found it to be simplistic and repetitive.

I also thought many of the scenes seemed contrived. Just the manner in which the areas were secured (not secured), the protocol for dealing with the IED's, the number of times it was just three of them driving around, etc. just didn't seem realistic. It seems like many of the poor strategic moves and the questionable tactics were put in just to create some suspense. After watching the movie I read some of the reviews on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887912/usercomments) and my suspicions were confirmed. The Iraq vets seem to universally hate the movie.

Good movie, but I certainly wouldn't call it great. As for 2009 movies, I thought Inglorious Basterds was much better in terms of plot, dialogue, and suspense. Not a more realistic movie, but a better movie.

I agree with this. For me, it was one of those movies that was above average but disappointed me because it was over-hyped.

I need to see Inglorious Basterds still.

[MarkGrace]

After watching the movie I read some of the reviews on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887912/usercomments) and my suspicions were confirmed. The Iraq vets seem to universally hate the movie.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I think approaching any subject matter from the angle of how realistic it is can be problematic. The fact of the matter is that not much of what occurs in a movie is a reflection of how things proceed in real life. Most doctors I know hate medical dramas. Most attorneys I know hate legal dramas. The criticism is always the same: that's just not what [insert profession] is really like. It's like my dad constantly bitching about the Rocky movies because of his poor boxing technique.

To me, at some point you get have to let go of the technicalities and appreciate movies/tv show/whatever for what it is. Without doing that, I don't know how you can really enjoy anything. I guess our ignorance saves us.

[LA Ute]

KL is the Guy Gardner to my Hal Jordan. Wait, nobody is going to know what the hell that means.

I do.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I think approaching any subject matter from the angle of how realistic it is can be problematic. The fact of the matter is that not much of what occurs in a movie is a reflection of how things proceed in real life. Most doctors I know hate medical dramas. Most attorneys I know hate legal dramas. The criticism is always the same: that's just not what [insert profession] is really like. It's like my dad constantly bitching about the Rocky movies because of his poor boxing technique.

To me, at some point you get have to let go of the technicalities and appreciate movies/tv show/whatever for what it is. Without doing that, I don't know how you can really enjoy anything. I guess our ignorance saves us.

I agree, sort of. Please note that I praised Inglorious Basterds in my review. Since IB presents an alternate telling of WWII history, I certainly wouldn't call it realistic. It would be pointless to judge it on that basis. And it is not your typical war movie as there are almost no combat scenes. It was carried by the plot, the script, and the acting. (Colonel Landa is my favorite movie character of the last several years - terrific writing and acting).

The Hurt Locker is a different kind of movie. Ostensibly, it is the definitive Iraq war movie. The tension and story line result from the sequence of action and combat scenes, primarily defusing IEDs. That is the plot. In such a case, the highly non-realistic elements can be jarring.

For example,

(MILD SPOILERS AHEAD)

1) When they attach the little trailer to the back of the robot at the beginning of the movie, I thought to myself "That is odd - They have a million dollar robot but the trailer looks like a Deseret Industries reject." Sure enough....

2) There is no way that three (four actually) soldiers would investigate a bomb-making site like the one they found with the dead body. You would have a massive force there in minutes to secure the site.

3) I simply can't believe that the military would allow bomb techs to repeatedly take the type of risks shown in the movie without consequences.

Each of these sequences used gimmicks to heighten the drama. By the end of the movie it seemed manipulative.

Predictability was a problem too. Just before they investigated the tanker explosion, I put the movie on pause and made a prediction to my son what was going to happen next. Bingo. And the second that the psychologist got in the humvee, it was obvious what was going to happen next. (How does a guy get to be a colonel being that stupid?).

[Guest]

just didn't seem realistic.

On the subject of realism, have you seen the trailer for "Restrepo"? The filmmakers spent an entire year with a single platoon in Afghanistan's Korengal Valley. They don't spend any time with officers, so it's straight from platoon man's point of view. Looks very intense. I'm looking forward to seeing it in wider release this year - it premiered at Sundance (best documentary).

Trailer (language).

[YOUTUBE]-DjqR6OucBc[/YOUTUBE]

[Jeff Lebowski]

On the subject of realism, have you seen the trailer for "Restrepo"? The filmmakers spent an entire year with a single platoon in Afghanistan's Korengal Valley. They don't spend any time with officers, so it's straight from platoon man's point of view. Looks very intense. I'm looking forward to seeing it in wider release this year - it premiered at Sundance (best documentary).

Trailer (language).

I love documentaries. Looks great.

[YOhio]

I put the movie on pause and made a prediction to my son what was going to happen next.

My wife gets so mad when I do that.

[RobinFinderson]

I agree, sort of. Please note that I praised Inglorious Basterds in my review. Since IB presents an alternate telling of WWII history, I certainly wouldn't call it realistic. It would be pointless to judge it on that basis. And it is not your typical war movie as there are almost no combat scenes. It was carried by the plot, the script, and the acting. (Colonel Landa is my favorite movie character of the last several years - terrific writing and acting).

The Hurt Locker is a different kind of movie. Ostensibly, it is the definitive Iraq war movie. The tension and story line result from the sequence of action and combat scenes, primarily defusing IEDs. That is the plot. In such a case, the highly non-realistic elements can be jarring.

For example,

(MILD SPOILERS AHEAD)

1) When they attach the little trailer to the back of the robot at the beginning of the movie, I thought to myself "That is odd - They have a million dollar robot but the trailer looks like a Deseret Industries reject." Sure enough....

2) There is no way that three (four actually) soldiers would investigate a bomb-making site like the one they found with the dead body. You would have a massive force there in minutes to secure the site.

3) I simply can't believe that the military would allow bomb techs to repeatedly take the type of risks shown in the movie without consequences.

Each of these sequences used gimmicks to heighten the drama. By the end of the movie it seemed manipulative.

Predictability was a problem too. Just before they investigated the tanker explosion, I put the movie on pause and made a prediction to my son what was going to happen next. Bingo. And the second that the psychologist got in the humvee, it was obvious what was going to happen next. (How does a guy get to be a colonel being that stupid?).

I don't get this whole realism argument re: Hurt Locker. Most of the complaints focus on actions taken by the lead character, who is supposed to be a renegade. Is his behavior erratic and out of line with military protocol? Yes! And his unit members are terrified by this. In other words the film addresses this lack of realism. It is the central mystery of the story -- what motivates this cowboy?

As for nitpicks like the makeshift cart on the back of the million dollar robot, stories from Iraq were full of examples of soldiers welding scrap metal to their unarmored humvees because the army and government were taking too long to get the soldiers what they need. Where the rubber meets the road, I would be willing to bet there are many examples of this kind of jury-rigging.

[Jeff Lebowski]

As for nitpicks like the makeshift cart on the back of the million dollar robot, stories from Iraq were full of examples of soldiers welding scrap metal to their unarmored humvees because the army and government were taking too long to get the soldiers what they need. Where the rubber meets the road, I would be willing to bet there are many examples of this kind of jury-rigging.

That's funny. Any tech squad with an ounce of ingenuity and self-respect would have rigged a solution in two minutes. Personally, I would have scrounged up a couple of plastic shopping bags from the trash on the side of the road, put the C4 in the bag, and put the bag handles in the jaws of the robot. Presto.

But I suppose that wouldn't have made for a very interesting intro sequence. And we would have missed the great shots of the dust jumping off the wrecked car from the shock wave (that looked great in blu-ray, btw).

I don't get this whole realism argument re: Hurt Locker. Most of the complaints focus on actions taken by the lead character, who is supposed to be a renegade. Is his behavior erratic and out of line with military protocol? Yes! And his unit members are terrified by this. In other words the film addresses this lack of realism. It is the central mystery of the story -- what motivates this cowboy?

He certainly is the most fascinating part of the movie. And I love renegade commanders. Barnes in Platoon. Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now. But I think a better writer could have found ways to create that tension without forcing us to suspend disbelief at every turn.

Yeah, I am nitpicking. But I am explaining why I found it to be a good movie, but not a great movie. Definitely worth watching.

[MarkGrace]

I finally got around to watching this last night. Pretty awesome, and among the best of '09 that I saw.

That said, most seemed to be of the opinion that Inglorious and this were far superior to Up In the Air, and that it would be a totally tragedy if UPTA took home best picture. Personally, I would mind any of the three winning, and I don't think any given one was vastly superior to the other two.

[MarkGrace]

Please note that I praised Inglorious Basterds in my review. Since IB presents an alternate telling of WWII history, I certainly wouldn't call it realistic. It would be pointless to judge it on that basis. And it is not your typical war movie as there are almost no combat scenes. It was carried by the plot, the script, and the acting. (Colonel Landa is my favorite movie character of the last several years - terrific writing and acting).

The Hurt Locker is a different kind of movie. Ostensibly, it is the definitive Iraq war movie. The tension and story line result from the sequence of action and combat scenes, primarily defusing IEDs. That is the plot. In such a case, the highly non-realistic elements can be jarring.

I did see above that you liked IB, but as you note, there is a clear distinction between what these movies are portraying themselves to be. I'm not referring to an IB style movie -- those are clearly intended to be taken out of reality. But even in movies purporting to be "realistic," I just don't understand the need for everything to be like real life. The reason films/tv shows aren't made to be exactly like real life is because for the most part real life is just not that interesting. Even The Wire, which so many praised for its real portrayal of life, had its moments that that felt tv-ish.

This isn't a comment about your opinion of The Hurt Locker so much as just a general observation about an approach to film. I really just don't see how you can enjoy anything if this is the angle you take, because I don't know that any movie or tv show is a truly faithful portrayal of its subject matter.

Predictability was a problem too. Just before they investigated the tanker explosion, I put the movie on pause and made a prediction to my son what was going to happen next. Bingo. And the second that the psychologist got in the humvee, it was obvious what was going to happen next. (How does a guy get to be a colonel being that stupid?).

This is something else I've been thinking about, and again as a general idea. Is it a movie's job to be unpredictable? Is a movie bad on its face simply because it's predictable?

I often finding myself using this as a criticism of movies I don't like as well, so I can definitely relate. But how many movies are completely unpredictable? I think even in movies I like I could pause it and some point and tell someone else what is about to happen (and yeah, I think pretty much anyone who saw THL saw this one coming well before it happened). And there are definitely times when forced unpredictability ends up being less gratifying than just sticking with the predicable storyline.

So what is the difference between good and bad predictability? I suppose it's all how you felt about the execution and the movie in general.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Good thoughts, MG. Thanks.

I did see above that you liked IB, but as you note, there is a clear distinction between what these movies are portraying themselves to be. I'm not referring to an IB style movie -- those are clearly intended to be taken out of reality. But even in movies purporting to be "realistic," I just don't understand the need for everything to be like real life. The reason films/tv shows aren't made to be exactly like real life is because for the most part real life is just not that interesting. Even The Wire, which so many praised for its real portrayal of life, had its moments that that felt tv-ish.

This isn't a comment about your opinion of The Hurt Locker so much as just a general observation about an approach to film. I really just don't see how you can enjoy anything if this is the angle you take, because I don't know that any movie or tv show is a truly faithful portrayal of its subject matter.

Not disagreeing with you at all, but I would like to comment on the bolded part. One movie/series where this happened (IMO) was Band of Brothers. I read the book recently after watching the series for the second time. Not only are all of the historical facts dead on, but I was surprised to learn that much of the dialogue from the movie was pulled straight from the book. Which, of course, was based on interviews with the surviving soldiers.

This is something else I've been thinking about, and again as a general idea. Is it a movie's job to be unpredictable? Is a movie bad on its face simply because it's predictable?

I often finding myself using this as a criticism of movies I don't like as well, so I can definitely relate. But how many movies are completely unpredictable? I think even in movies I like I could pause it and some point and tell someone else what is about to happen (and yeah, I think pretty much anyone who saw THL saw this one coming well before it happened). And there are definitely times when forced unpredictability ends up being less gratifying than just sticking with the predicable storyline.

So what is the difference between good and bad predictability? I suppose it's all how you felt about the execution and the movie in general.

Good question.

One of the things I loved about The Wire was that I honestly had no idea where things were going to go next. In that case, the unpredictability was great.