Hurt Locker?

Why does the Academy hate him?

 

I sat on a plane once next to some chick making a film about the Iraq war a few years ago, wonder if this was it. They were doing Sundance and all that shit too. who knows.

 

Truthfully there were a number of Foreign films that were better than the Hurt Locker and Inglorious Basterds, but the Oscars tend to look down on Foreign films.

Movies such as Love Exposure, Ddongpari, and the White Ribbon were all better than those two movies. I think Love Exposure is going to be counted as a 2010 movie, but it's a masterpiece, and it definitely deserves a best picture award.

 

I don't think they like the way he is outside of filmmaking. He's arrogant, and immature. His many testimonials of smoking pot and such. It's really stupid.

Pulp Fiction only won one award, and that was best Original screenplay. Forrest Gump won most of the awards, which is fine, it is a very good movie, but I think both Shawshank Redemption and Pulp Fiction are better. Which were also up for the award that year.

 

Shawshank Redemption....probably one of the best movies ever made IMO.....

I can't complain about Forrest Gump winning, it was a very good movie....Shawshank was better though.....

Here is the deal....nobody will remember The Hurt Locker 20 years from now, but I bet they remember Avatar....

and everyone seems to remember Saving Private Ryan...but the film that won that year?

Shakespeare in Love....no one gives a shit about that film, or remembers it....


Academy = FAIL

 

People can say this movie sucked all you want, but most wouldn't know how realistic it really was. I could only watch the first ten minutes so I can't comment on the rest. Anyone who has not done this in Iraq cannot comment on how "realistic" it is because they don't know any better than Mom and pops. I'm here to tell you the first 10 minutes of what I saw was as realistic recreation as your gonna get.....I've lived it.

 

I loved it.

 

It's just astounding Forrest Gump beat both Shawshank and Pulp Fiction.

Never understood that one. Especially because Gump was really in many ways a lesser version of both films:

Shawshank was a harrowing story set over a long period of time about one misfit guy who never really changes his inner nature, and in the end is rewarded in a pretty heart-warming way for his perseverance.

Pulp Fiction was a story with a rambling narrative featuring an oddball cast of characters in some pretty damned bizarre situations, with some tightly written quirky dialog.

You can pretty much take either of the above descriptions and insert "Forrest Gump" instead, but it did neither of these two that particularly well. The quirky dialog and characters weren't a fraction as memorable as Pulp Fiction, and misfit guy who eventually gets rewarded is far, far more sympathetic and interesting (which makes the eventual payoff so much better) in Shawshank.

I can see Pulp Fiction beating Shawshank, or vice versa. But to have both beaten by Forrest Fucking Gump? Jesus.

 

Avatar was a spectacular visual film that was groundbreaking for that reason, but the story/plot was dull and something we've seen before countless times. Just because people will remember Avatar and maybe not Hurt Locker doesn't really mean anything. I can remember Blade before I remember a lot of other vampire-centric movies, but that certainly doesn't make it better than them.

 

If you only saw the first ten minutes then you have no idea what we're talking about. The first ten minutes are realistic, but I would highly recommend watching the rest of the film so you can understand why some of us were unhappy with the film.

 

I'm not going to get into a who knows more contest with you, I'm just trying to show that whoever you know going through training wouldn't know a whole lot either. He's never been there and will never experience what it was like 3 years ago. Care to elaborate on how the whole movie was "a complete fabrication" and "not an ounce of truth to it"? Tell me you've walked 300m in a bomb suit in the middle of Baghdad and you don't have to answer. Otherwise, if it's not EOD specific, I'm not sure how you're qualified to say it's a complete fabrication.

 

Only about half the movie is actually about EOD, and I'd say half of that half could be considered even remotely "realistic". It's like they mixed EOD with a crazy cop movie where they have to cut the red wire or the blue wire.

The other half is just some random shit. The scene where they are out in the desert and they run into some private contractors was way off the storyline and made very little sense. There's also some other small discrepancies that take away from the movie.

Listen, I'm not taking away from your experience, but you didn't watch most of the movie, so I don't see how you can defend it. Yes, the guy I know who's in EOD wasn't over there, but his instructors were, and that's where my statement came from. Seriously, watch the whole thing and tell me what you think.

 

There's no debating that the filmmakers took certain liberties with the narrative - It's Hollywood and they're trying to get people to watch. But your comments are a complete fucking joke. You're talking out of your ass because you know somebody who got trained by somebody who didn't like it... Well, whoopdi-fucking-doo. It's not that hard to tell you really don't know jack-shit.

 

You're right, I haven't been over to Iraq, but I have trained with the US Army as a private contractor. I've worked with countless guys who have been, or are currently, over in Iraq. What's your background? Prior-service? I'm saying that the movie was an exaggeration, and apparently I'm not the only person who feels that way.

I'm not EOD, but I know someone who is. I don't see how that's talking out of my ass. I asked the guy what he thought of the movie and he said the tactics were inaccurate. His instructors said it was inaccurate too. If that's "talking out of my ass" then I guess that's your call.

 

I went to junior high with a girl who later married a guy who knows a guy who served in Iraq. So like you, I'm a super expert.

No, actually, like you, I know a guy over there (an ENG) and his opinion differs from your guy. Obviously it's not completely accurate. Ex. - Obviously EOD isn't going to go into an unsecured building that the infantry hasn't cleared first. But he's got enough common sense to realize it's a movie and stuff like that is to be expected. Even the screenwriter admits it. But there are still a lot of people who have served in Iraq who liked the movie and who claim it's in many ways accurate, especially compared to every other Iraq war movie ever made. I can deal with people not liking it, but your comments were just so utterly stupid I had to respond. Carry on.

 

My sister is dating Jeremy Renner's father so we all gathered at the State Theater in Modesto to watch the Oscars with 200+ people from the area. It was very exciting, cheering every time Jeremy was on screen and when the movie won each award. Oh and I liked the film. I actually loved all 10 films that were nominated.

 

Well after the hordes and hordes of 3d movies that are going to be coming out to try to replicate it's success I highly doubt Avatar will be remembered 20 years from now. I didn't think Avatar was even in the top 20 movies of 2009.

Saving Private Ryan is a brutally overrated film. Neither that nor Shakespeare in Love deserved the Oscar. List of Films in 1997 that were better than both of those The Big Lebowski, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Dark City, Pi, Rushmore, American History X and The Thin Red Line.

 

Entertaining movie overall, imo. Really enjoyed the scene when they were pinned down in the desert and had to basically rescue themselves.

Thought the ending was pretty lame, though.