Just saw the film. Pretty much as great as everyone's saying. Surprised it doesn't have its thread yet.

After Up, probably the second legitimate BP nominee contender this summer. I'd even say it's stronger than Up because it is 1) not animated and 2) "important".


Metacritic: 94/100 (16 100s)
RT: 98% and 8.4/10 average (COTC: 86% and 7.4/10 average)

Reviews are terrific, the box-office gross is okay ($12-13 million looks to be the finish unless DVD release is in 2010) and the time's right for the film.



So what categories does it have a chance at?


Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Editing
Best Original Screenplay
Best Cinematography?
Best Sound?


I'm thinking that five of those will probably happen...

Picture and Director, I'm pretty confident in.

Probaly 1 more, in tech. 2 tops. Editing?

Renner really should get into the race...

He was kinda a mess, especially during the last bits (the jaunt off the base was silly).

That's a screenplay flaw, though, isn't it? I thought his work was very good.

Editing is a lock. And a sound nomination, probably.

The screenplay was flawed.

But a better actor could have probably pulled it off. Instead, it just looked silly

Kathryn Bigelow said at a Q&A that they shot a million feet of film, and had to get two editors to put it all together. If nothing else, The Hurt Locker should really get a nomination for that. Theoretically, more would be wonderful, but I'm not holding my breath.

Overrated. Audiences walked out yawning and scratching their heads...

I'd admit for a film about blowing up shit that could blow you up, it's surprisingly boring outside the action sequences.

American troops don't seem very taken with it either. Just browse the user comments at Metacritic and you can find comments like these..

I should begin by saying that I have never in my 41 years been so excited to see a film. You see, I am a recently retired 89D (that's EOD, or Explosive Ordnance Disposal) Master Sergeant. The last 16 of my 22 years in the Army were spent in EOD, including two full tours in Iraq and a short stint in Afghanistan. As it happens, I was an E-7 section chief in Baghdad in 2004 (this is the same position and rank as the main character in the movie). So, again as it happens, it seemed to me like Hollywood made a movie about...me (and my soldiers). I'd never felt so honored by and excited about a film. That is, until I saw it. From the very beginning, it was very unfortunately clear that Ms. Bigelow was attempting to recreate what I'll call "the Iraq experience", but tragically, without a good faith effort of consulting those who have actually HAD that experience. THAT, my civilian friends, is why the servicemembers here are (I think, to a man) appalled and angered by this film. It isn't that it is mildly inaccurate in the military-specific details...it is that the film as a whole is little more than sheer fantasy. While that in itself is not a bad thing, it becomes VERY obnoxious when the fanciful characters and events are worshipped as worthwhile or profound by folks who simply don't know any better. Why this is so frustrating is because this movie has gotten much attention for its focus on "the experiences of the individual soldier". Ironically enough, what you saw in this film bore absolutely no resemblance to either my wartime experiences or my military experiences as a whole, and I do not think that I am alone with this perspective. All that said, I enjoyed the acting, and the scenery was quite good. Not enough, though, to salvage this flawed and borderline insulting interpretation of a war that is in desperate need of some real lucidity. - 89D 40

I think that the reason so many of the servicepeople are upset at the lack of realism in this film is not because of the technical inaccuracies (we don't care much about that stuff), it is because it completely fails to capture what it is like in Iraq (or in any war). Lack of attention to detail is one thing, completely constructing reality is another. This director did the latter, and seems to have fooled a lot of people with it. Really people...this film DOESN'T show what war is like, nor what soldiers are like. Don't be fooled...please. - Carl C
[i]
I am still deployed and this is truly the worst war movie I have ever watched. Without even acknolwedging how far from the truth the tactics are and lack of security in every scene, EOD is falsely portrayed as some sort of special forces unit. I have sat on many IED's and regardless of the fact that units are not allowed to travel outside of a 3 vehicle or 4 vehicle security concept, EOD is not comprised of 3 enlisted defusing bombs. The robot is always extensively used and more importantly EOD personnel are never foolish enough to handle ready to go large ordnance to diffuse it. Every time we found an IED from 155 shells to mortar rounds, they were always blown in place. The few times an IED was taken was when it was fully dismembered by a disrupting detonation. I watched a little over half of this movie before turning it off as it was too painful and ridiculous to watch. - Andrew
[/i]

There are always a few people from the armed forces that have problems with these types of movies because it didn't match their experience. But guess what? It isn't based on THEIR experience.

History buffs and ex-military are always the worst with films. Unless it's John Wayne's The Green Beret, who gives a fuck?

Picture
Director
Supporting Actor, Anthony Mackie
Editing
Cinematography
Sound
Sound Editing

that's pretty ambitious. Do you think its failure at the box office will have any effect?

Who cares what them soldiers who fought in Iraq say about their experience? It's not important anyways because KJ knows better:

Do you not read?

I wouldn't call it a failure. Its budget was $11 million. It'll probably make $13-14 million domestically or so. That's okay considering the DVD sales that will come and all. Frost/Nixon, now THAT was a failure.

I should have said preceived failure. I mean, Lions for Lambs made more money, granted on 3x the budget.

That also had Tom freaking Cruise and Meryl Streep. This had...a Ralph Feinnes cameo?

Heh. Your review is missing. I'm looking forward to reading it... someday.

SPOILER ALERT!

just kidding,

I do not plan on seeing it until DVD.

Loyal, you should hide the spoiler nonetheless.

It's why I hate doctor shows. The big drama of the week is a fax machine breaking, not a serial killer giving his heart to a seven year-old if they let him off. That said, while I loved the film, the intention of the director was "to make a movie about a day in the life of the IEDs." And as bradley pointed out, many people have been quick to call this incredibly realistic.

I still believe The Hurt Locker is one of the smartest action movies to grace screens in awhile, but it is also a movie made by civilians, for civilians.