[Graphicism]

Yeah it was a terrific movie, the directing had a lot to do with it... Kathryn Bigelow - you don't see many female directors let alone ones directing war films, a first for the Oscars.

 

[mattcalf]

Can't wait to see this, actually might go by myself to see it now that Im on holidays.

 

[TheMarchingMule]

Eh, to me it was a pretty rushed and mediocre movie. No time to really understand or know the characters, and even in the tense scenes like the sniper duel, I wasn't at the edge of my seat, because it was obvious that the protagonists were going to win. (And speaking of that scene, what was up with that one part where the guy almost blindly shot at a herd of goats, and somehow managed to nail the prone guy that far away without hitting any of the goats?)

Unless it was intentional, as in showing that in war you never have the time to get to know anybody really well, I would still say that the movie had no real emotional weight to it, except for the ending. That I will admit was quite stark and depressing.

 

[mattcalf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMarchingMule /img/forum/go_quote.gif Eh, to me it was a pretty rushed and mediocre movie. No time to really understand or know the characters, and even in the tense scenes like the sniper duel, I wasn't at the edge of my seat, because it was obvious that the protagonists were going to win. (And speaking of that scene, what was up with that one part where the guy almost blindly shot at a herd of goats, and somehow managed to nail the prone guy that far away without hitting any of the goats?) Unless it was intentional, as in showing that in war you never have the time to get to know anybody really well, I would still say that the movie had no real emotional weight to it, except for the ending. That I will admit was quite stark and depressing.

I enjoyed the film, however, do strongly agree with many of your points.
I won't bore people by repeating alot of the sentiments presented already in this thread, however, I will share a part where I almost sh!t myself.

When James disarming the first shell of the 'hexabomb', I saw the reflection of his itouch in his helmet. I deadset could not believe the product placement. I thought it was so ridiculously subliminal but then I realised it was the reflection of the one of his arm. Still caught my attention immediately. Damn product placement works.

 

[Young Spade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMarchingMule /img/forum/go_quote.gif Eh, to me it was a pretty rushed and mediocre movie. No time to really understand or know the characters, and even in the tense scenes like the sniper duel, I wasn't at the edge of my seat, because it was obvious that the protagonists were going to win. (And speaking of that scene, what was up with that one part where the guy almost blindly shot at a herd of goats, and somehow managed to nail the prone guy that far away without hitting any of the goats?) Unless it was intentional, as in showing that in war you never have the time to get to know anybody really well, I would still say that the movie had no real emotional weight to it, except for the ending. That I will admit was quite stark and depressing.

I agree; I didn't feel any connect with the characters which is a must for me. I felt the sniper battle was kind of stupid; I don't know for sure if the gun will jam but it just didn't seem all that... tense. And yea him shooting randomly and hitting the guy in the face? They could have done that better.

Maybe I'm missing something. But honestly I didn't think The Blindside was good either; I actually HATED that movie because in my opinion it showed NO realism, no tension from the characters... to me it felt like a movie aimed at (and don't be offended), white people who have never seen any interracial conflict in their lives. I'm an 18 year old African American male who has a lot of white friends and am graduating in the top percentage of my class along with my other 10 or so non white peers.

That movie was a joke.

 

[gknix]

I felt that the movie portrayed a different side of atypical war movies by providing more intricate details of the mudane side of things we don't usually see. Most movies display their war movies by filling the screen with blood-wrought, head exploding, leg falling out type of deal. Yet, the Hurt Locker takes a complete different approach to things by revealing a more realistic view of war and it helps reveal the minute details of war to those viewers who have not been in actual combats etc. (that would be me).

This is my favorite part of all. I do and must agree with some comments above, however, that there is a definite character disconnect with the audience. There really was never a scene where you feel as if you're part of the movie, it was more of a sit back and watch approach which I personally do not prefer. I didn't feel too engaged either with the supposedly 'climatic/apex' scenes. Nonetheless, I think it did a fair job on an overall scale . The camera selection also needed work...there was WAY too much up/down/left/right shaking throughout the entire movie..it made me felt sick (literally) after watching it.

 

[Dzjudz]

I thought it was a pretty average movie with a not-so-great plot (random desert scene with cameo?). Rated it 5 or 6 on imdb I think.

 

[logwed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzjudz /img/forum/go_quote.gif I thought it was a pretty average movie with a not-so-great plot (random desert scene with cameo?). Rated it 5 or 6 on imdb I think.

There were some pretty gaping plot holes that are just totally unexplained... Sniper scene was bizarre, the non-dead Brits just disappeared, the first leader's death didn't really make sense to me (then again, I'm no explosives expert), and a few other things that were just plain random.