The Hurt Locker is the worst movie of the year.

The movie sucked because it tries to be cool by making a bunch of stuff up.

M1Hunter66

[QUOTE="M1Hunter66"]

It looked bad before I watched it, but since so many said it was so good, I gave in. I watched it. It sucked. Totally way too unrealistic. Of course, this is just my opinion. I still want to know why so many think it is so good.

If you saw the movie, and thought it was good, please tell me why.

I have no interest in seeing it. I think the people who like it are those who have no conception of what the military is like.

EDIT: those who think it's realistic. I'm sure it's still entertaining, but I'm not a fan of corny war films and that's what this looks like. But, my opinion doesn't really count since I haven't actually since it, I guess.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="M1Hunter66"]And which soldiers would you be talking about? I have yet to meet on soldier, anywhere, that thought this movie was realistic or good. I understand that you can't have a 100% realistic movie. I understand that the uniforms are never going to be 100% correct and all that. But to have entire scene's that are outright implausible is almost offensive to the military community.

M1Hunter66

My brother thought it was good. He did two tours in Iraq.
My childhood friend thought it was good. He just got back from Afghanistan.
Two buddies from college both thought it was good. They've both done their time in Iraq.

[QUOTE="M1Hunter66"]

The movie sucked because it tries to be cool by making a bunch of stuff up.

spazzx625

I really want to hear this answer also. Probably Star wars.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="M1Hunter66"]

The movie sucked because it tries to be cool by making a bunch of stuff up.

kidsmelly

I really want to hear this answer also. Probably Star wars.

[QUOTE="M1Hunter66"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

My brother thought it was good. He did two tours in Iraq.
My childhood friend thought it was good. He just got back from Afghanistan.
Two buddies from college both thought it was good. They've both done their time in Iraq.

SaintLeonidas

Not to be his defender, but I distinctly remember this guy posting here over a year ago, and he stopped when he went to Iraq.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="M1Hunter66"] Either your making that up or none of those guys have combat MOS's. I did 14 months in Iraq and am about to go to Afghanistan. My left ear is 90% def from IED's. I have yet to meet another soldier, who has been there, say it was good. The movie sucked because it tries to be cool by making a bunch of stuff up.

xXBuffJeffXx

Not to be his defender, but I distinctly remember this guy posting here over a year ago, and he stopped when he went to Iraq.

Who cares if it wasnt realistic? It's a film not a documentary. It had great suspense, and interesting characters among other things. I wouldn't call it the best film of 2009 by far but it was still quite good.

Who cares if it wasnt realistic? It's a film not a documentary. It had great suspense, and interesting characters among other things. I wouldn't call it the best film of 2009 by far but it was still quite good.

Film-Guy

[QUOTE="Film-Guy"]

Who cares if it wasnt realistic? It's a film not a documentary. It had great suspense, and interesting characters among other things. I wouldn't call it the best film of 2009 by far but it was still quite good.

SaintLeonidas

I did indeed, very good film. Shame Abbie Cornish wasn't nominated. Also the cinematography was absolutley beautiful. Paul schneider was great too, he really gave his character more depth.

[QUOTE="kidsmelly"]

[QUOTE="M1Hunter66"] You would think with the war still going on they would at least TRY to make it a little realistic.M1Hunter66

Why?

If you goto the IMDB forums for this movie, you'll see that there are lots of topics about soliders who didn't like the movie because of how many things they didn't include. Stuff about them not doing certain steps in those bomb defusal scenes, etc. The film may or may not have been catered towards the civillian population, but that shouldn't make it the worst movie of the year.

The problems I had personally with the movie, had nothing to really do with the combat or bomb defusal, but rather with the main character. I was hoping they wouldn't have that type of protagonist in a movie like this, but I was wrong. I hate the whole 'What's he doing?', "I don't need the vest!" type attitude. I feel like we've seen that personality in so many movies already, it felt completely unorignal, and almost ruined the entire film for me. But aside from that, the movie was pretty good.

If you goto the IMDB forums for this movie, you'll see that there are lots of topics about soliders who didn't like the movie because of how many things they didn't include. Stuff about them not doing certain steps in those bomb defusal scenes, etc. The film may or may not have been catered towards the civillian population, but that shouldn't make it the worst movie of the year.

The problems I had personally with the movie, had nothing to really do with the combat or bomb defusal, but rather with the main character. I was hoping they wouldn't have that type of protagonist in a movie like this, but I was wrong. I hate the whole 'What's he doing?', "I don't need the vest!" type attitude. I feel like we've seen that personality in so many movies already, it felt completely unorignal, and almost ruined the entire film for me. But aside from that, the movie was pretty good.

TheGrayEye

I think Jeremy renner made the character more interesting though. Also making him that kind of character was the point of the film. What other kind of character could he be?

I think Blackhawk Down and Platoon are the two most realistic. The first because they included guys that were actually there to provide insight, and the second because the director himself was actually there and it loosly based on his own experiences.

Yes, ive been there. No, Star Wars is not realistic, its entirely fiction. No, Iam not trolling. The reason why I didn't make this known at the beginning is because I wanted to know why people like this movie so much despite its many many flaws. I didn't want to come on here and have half my post be personal information and the other half about the movie. I didn't want to use my experiance to try to credit myself.

TC is right, it is unrealistic. While its no comparison to something like Die Hard and Policing, it doesn't represent the situation in Iraq perfectly.


Good movie in my opinion though.

[QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] Okay, now I think you're trolling. All the sudden you have been to Iraq? If so cool...but to through that in now, and to even claim that he must be making that stuff up is ridiculous. By you saying the film is trying to be cool just completely shows you know nothing about what it was trying to do and you really did not understand half its message. It seems like the action and story were the only things you could understand/follow and because they were not realistic enough for you it was the only criticism you could think of and it ruined the film in your eyes. I have no problem with people not liking the film, but you have to have some sort of credible argument as to why and calling it unrealistic is definitely not one.

SaintLeonidas

Not to be his defender, but I distinctly remember this guy posting here over a year ago, and he stopped when he went to Iraq.

It looked bad before I watched it, but since so many said it was so good, I gave in. I watched it. It sucked. Totally way too unrealistic. Of course, this is just my opinion. I still want to know why so many think it is so good.

If you saw the movie, and thought it was good, please tell me why.

M1Hunter66

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]

If you goto the IMDB forums for this movie, you'll see that there are lots of topics about soliders who didn't like the movie because of how many things they didn't include. Stuff about them not doing certain steps in those bomb defusal scenes, etc. The film may or may not have been catered towards the civillian population, but that shouldn't make it the worst movie of the year.

The problems I had personally with the movie, had nothing to really do with the combat or bomb defusal, but rather with the main character. I was hoping they wouldn't have that type of protagonist in a movie like this, but I was wrong. I hate the whole 'What's he doing?', "I don't need the vest!" type attitude. I feel like we've seen that personality in so many movies already, it felt completely unorignal, and almost ruined the entire film for me. But aside from that, the movie was pretty good.

Film-Guy

I think Jeremy renner made the character more interesting though. Also making him that kind of character was the point of the film. What other kind of character could he be?

Ironically, I did think Renner did a good job with what he had. But I'm sure there are other types of personalities that they could have been taken and applied to the message. What that is exactly, I don't know, but if I had the time to think about it more (like the screenwriter should), I know I could have come up with something more original than that. Though I did like the somewhat original depth the character eventually displayed at the end of the movie (combined with the message), but it was too late.

It wasn't the WORST movie of the year...but it wasn't as good as i had expected..and i was expecting a realistic portrayal of the war...

[QUOTE="Film-Guy"]

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]

If you goto the IMDB forums for this movie, you'll see that there are lots of topics about soliders who didn't like the movie because of how many things they didn't include. Stuff about them not doing certain steps in those bomb defusal scenes, etc. The film may or may not have been catered towards the civillian population, but that shouldn't make it the worst movie of the year.

The problems I had personally with the movie, had nothing to really do with the combat or bomb defusal, but rather with the main character. I was hoping they wouldn't have that type of protagonist in a movie like this, but I was wrong. I hate the whole 'What's he doing?', "I don't need the vest!" type attitude. I feel like we've seen that personality in so many movies already, it felt completely unorignal, and almost ruined the entire film for me. But aside from that, the movie was pretty good.

TheGrayEye

I think Jeremy renner made the character more interesting though. Also making him that kind of character was the point of the film. What other kind of character could he be?

Ironically, I did think Renner did a good job with what he had. But I'm sure there are other types of personalities that they could have been taken and applied to the message. What that is exactly, I don't know, but if I had the time to think about it more (like the screenwriter should), I know I could have come up with something more original than that. Though I did like the somewhat original depth the character eventually displayed at the end of the movie (combined with the message), but it was too late.

[QUOTE="TheGrayEye"]

[QUOTE="Film-Guy"]

I think Jeremy renner made the character more interesting though. Also making him that kind of character was the point of the film. What other kind of character could he be?

SaintLeonidas

Ironically, I did think Renner did a good job with what he had. But I'm sure there are other types of personalities that they could have been taken and applied to the message. What that is exactly, I don't know, but if I had the time to think about it more (like the screenwriter should), I know I could have come up with something more original than that. Though I did like the somewhat original depth the character eventually displayed at the end of the movie (combined with the message), but it was too late.

I guess so. I'm just tired of seeing that type of character, atleast in movies that are as serious as this. It honestly ruined the film for me, I wish it didn't but it was hard to think about anything else, except for how incredibly annoying that felt.

I'm also not to sure Renner should be nominated for this role/character. It's been awhile since I've seen 28 weeks later, but I'm pretty sure he played the role very similar to his sniper character- though I could definately be wrong on that one, but that's what I'm seeing in my head right now. Though it was a solid performance either way, just maybe not nomination good.

Watching Renner reminded me of the same thing as well. Hummm........terrorist zombies?M1Hunter66

Definately... maybe we have discovered the truth behind this movie. It's a prequel to 28 weeks later, infact the orignal title for this film just so happens to have been "2 1/2 years ealier"...

You shouldn't waste your time on films that don't interest you. I don't even watch anything because someone tells me it's good.

is it so unrealistic that someone doesn't care if they live or die?

It wasn't a bad movie, just incredibly overrated. The story is weak and the situations increasingly ridiculous. However, it does immerse you into a sense of place quite well and there are a lot of little details that suggest the dangers faced.

Odds are, it's going to win best picture. I enjoyed it, not my favortie from last year but I do not mind if it wins.Coka_Cola241

I would rather it win over Avatar. I think we all know it comes down to Avatar and Hurt locker, though A Serious Man is clearly the best film of the ones nominated.

I'm a Wizard and I feel that us Wizard types get a bad rep from the Harry Potter franchise, we aren't all European teenagers that fight dark wizards; not to mention the spells they use are totally made up. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince was the worst movie of the year, completely unrealistic and borderline offensive to us Wizard types.

TC and haters I have one word for you. Fiction. Look it up, study it's meaning, apply it's meaning to The Hurt Locker, nod your head, and be quiet becuase you're complaints are ridiculous.

I'm a Wizard and I feel that us Wizard types get a bad rep from the Harry Potter franchise, we aren't all European teenagers that fight dark wizards; not to mention the spells they use are totally made up. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince was the worst movie of the year, completely unrealistic and borderline offensive to us Wizard types.

TC and haters I have one word for you. Fiction. Look it up, study it's meaning, apply it's meaning to The Hurt Locker, nod your head, and be quiet becuase you're complaints are ridiculous.

Im_single

I think Blackhawk Down and Platoon are the two most realistic. The first because they included guys that were actually there to provide insight, and the second because the director himself was actually there and it loosly based on his own experiences.

M1Hunter66

It was fantastic. I thought it was very realistic.

The Jonas Brother's documentary Jonas Bros: A 3D concert experience was super Realistic.

A war movie about a real war needs to have some element of realism.M1Hunter66

It looked bad before I watched it, but since so many said it was so good, I gave in. I watched it. It sucked. Totally way too unrealistic. Of course, this is just my opinion. I still want to know why so many think it is so good.

If you saw the movie, and thought it was good, please tell me why.

M1Hunter66

Gimme a sec I'm gonna call David Lynch and tell him off for making unrealistic films.

If I wanted to watch something realistic, it would be a documentary.

It wasn't a bad movie, just incredibly overrated. The story is weak and the situations increasingly ridiculous. However, it does immerse you into a sense of place quite well and there are a lot of little details that suggest the dangers faced.

biggest_loser

A Serious Man is clearly the best film of the ones nominated.

Film-Guy

Gross. What do you love so much about A Serious Man?

[QUOTE="Film-Guy"]

A Serious Man is clearly the best film of the ones nominated.

WolfattheDoor34

Gross. What do you love so much about A Serious Man?

I loved how dark and bleak the humor was. Larry, and Sy abelman were great characters and I loved how it was kinda like a retelling of the book of job. It is everything that I love about the Coen Brothers. Fantastic dialogue, great characters and humor. Probably my favorite Coen brothers film next to Barton fink. The only dark comedy in 2009 that I liked as much was Bad Lieutenant: Port of call new orleans. Nicholas Cage should have been nominated, he was brilliant. May I ask what you didnt like about a Serious Man?