The Hurt Locker, RE the plot

bryaner

Must agree with the OP

Manic Moran

Personally I thought the whole point of the film was to show the supposed futility of their job. Another IED another day and yet no discerning resolution to look forward to

Eh? The resultion -is- the disarming of the bomb. Face it, how many jobs truly give you a sense of completion? Cop goes out, arrest someone, no end to crime, he's back out again tomorrow. IT tech fixes a printer, he knows a scanner'll likely go down tomorrow. Banker reviews a loan application, hands out cash, then has another application on his desk.

If you enjoy your job, you'll keep doing it for the job, not just because of the desired outcome.

NTM

sprinkles

Manic Moran wrote: »

Eh? The resultion -is- the disarming of the bomb. Face it, how many jobs truly give you a sense of completion? Cop goes out, arrest someone, no end to crime, he's back out again tomorrow. IT tech fixes a printer, he knows a scanner'll likely go down tomorrow. Banker reviews a loan application, hands out cash, then has another application on his desk.

If you enjoy your job, you'll keep doing it for the job, not just because of the desired outcome.


NTM

Perhaps, but that is taking each individual bomb or incident in isolation. I was referring to an overall resolution. My point was that it's a never ending stream of dangerous situations (be it IED disposal or not) with no obvious end in sight, at least that is how it was portrayed.

EDIT: I see your point about the IT guy etc but in a similar fashion if there was a movie made about the futility of being an IT repair guy then I would say the same. I still maintain that the movie deals with the frustration and futility of a never-ending fight

Sir Gallagher

adrian522 wrote: »

I have to say I think the movie is way over rated, not because there is a no 'story' but more because I find it very difficulty to identify with any of the characters in it or to sympathise with them.

That whole scene where he thought the boy selling the dvd's had died so he goes charging around the city looking for someone to kill was just cringe worthy.

Maybe I just missed the point of the movie but I didn't feel like it really had anything to say.

I'm also sick of people getting slated for not liking this movie, as in people saying well 'what do want a love story with a happy ending' .

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I for one don't buy into the hype around this movie.

+1

I feel the exact way, just felt completely underwhelmed by the whole thing, cue somebody coming in saying "Oh well you're supposed to feel underwhelmed that's what the director meant" or some other overanalitical nonsense.

The more i think about this movie the more it annoys me, the point where they were in the desert and they came across Ralph Feinnes and his crew i thought, oh cool there's Ralph Feinnes and a group of mercenaries i like where this is going then

they all get shot

and it's back to the three lads who at that stage i really care nothing about.

missingtime

Manic Moran wrote: »

The level of individualism was ridiculous. Not just at the soldier level, but at the point of the whole mission. For example, EOD does not go tootling around the battlefield on its own in a HMMWV. They're a protected asset (The Army spent lots of money training them!) and will have, at a minimum, three other HMMWVs with a dozen riflemen keeping an eye on them. For that matter, nobody goes tootling around on their own in a HMMWV, not even Special Forces. Those dozen riflemen absolutely will not let EOD go wandering around a few alleyways on their own, and, frankly, if an E-6 told an E-5 and an E-4 to split up and go down roads completely isolated, the E-5 would tell the E-6 to go pound sand.
Similarly, the off-base excursion is beyond belief. Now, such stupidity is not without precedent. There is one junior soldier currently in Taliban custody who apparently decided to go off-base. This is an example as to why that sort of thing doesn't happen often. But getting off-base, and getting back on again are two entirely different matters. Does anyone really think that if a team leader walks up to the front gate of BIAP in civvies after an excursion downtown that he won't be immediately relieved of his position?

To sum up:
Tactically, the movie is atrocious, and you will not find any military reviewers giving them points for accuracy. Psychologically, it's pretty much on. But I think they could have gotten 95% of the effect of the movie without making the conduct of the Iraq war look like an Ealing farce.

NTM

This is why I did not like the movie and I think its seriously overrated.

senordingdong

I loved it because if you detach minor details like how many Humvees there should have been etc... and just focus on the characters individual situations.

Renner is so good at his job because he has no regard for his own life, and then at the end you see him unable to adjust to his 'real' life. And goes straight back to the battlefield.

There are loads of other exmaples but that's the one that sticks out most.

fat liar

I agree the story line is a bit empty.

senordingdong

I guess the characters themselves were the plot.

BostonB

I thought it was terrible. Theres nothing original in it, and the combat scenes and characters are so unrealistic, I was expecting the A team to roll up. Ok, "Soldiering is 99% boredom and 1% sheer terror" and that its hard to adjust to real life or normality we know already. It has been done to death, this film adds nothing new. I'll give it some credit in that it does create moments of tension and atmosphere a few times.

I heard great things about this movie and I was bitterly disappointed. If you've not seen many war movies, and know nothing about the subject at all, then you might enjoy it.

I think it based not on a book but on the experience of a reporter. From that we can surmise, he didn't understand what was going on, or the people, or bother to find out either. So he reverted to stock characters. We get the crazy guy, the straight up guy, the noob. He didn't see or find out what actually went on, so just made up what he thought happened, or what he thought would entertain. Hence the unrealistic combat scenes. What he did experience was that it was loud, noisy and scary. Which is the only thing that works in this flick. Other than its a shallow Hollywood Action Flick.

BostonB

Incidentally, since it was mentioned. IMO saving Private Ryan has some great scenes. But over all its a very unrealistic movie aswell. Very Hollywood. But its a good yarn, and thus a good movie. Good characters too.

BostonB

The futility of war isn't enough to hang a movie on, its been done to often, and better. Neither is the fact that 99% of someone experience is routine and boring. Its just not very interesting or entertaining. There has to be something else, character development, or as a contrast to something else.

Sir Gallagher

I still can't believe this movie is favourite to land an oscar absolutely shocking.

senordingdong

BostonB wrote: »

I think it based not on a book but on the experience of a reporter. From that we can surmise, he didn't understand what was going on, or the people, or bother to find out either.

Well there ya are, that's a good point of the film imo.
Half of the time, I'll bet the soldiers don't know what's going on.

They're not part of the bigger picture, the war or the victory....or whatever.
They;re just a few dudes, doing their jobs, trying to do good jobs, and trying not to get killed in the process. And as the film progresses, we get insight into their inner workings, when we find out the Renner has no regard for his life, or that Mackie, for his hard exterior, is scared ****less all the time and fears he'll never have a family, while Geraghty is the n00b who's already on the verge of breaking. And as it transpires, the only half sane one is Renner...who we find out, is infact, emotionally numb.

It's just a day in the life of three soldiers.

As you said, the documenter didn't understand (the bigger picture)....he didn't have to, neither did the viewer.
The war in question is irrelevant, it could have been any three guys in any conflict.

But like I said, the bigger picture is irrrelevant.
It's what the man are going through.

BostonB

Its not the fog of war, its the fog of not writing a decent screenplay.

Its a Hollywood Movie, where one minute your a sniper, next bomb disposal, next minute rambo, doing a one man army snatch squad, you'd have every reason to be be nuts. Because thats not real. Like wise to do all those things (ignoring that you wouldnt) you'd need to be highly trained, otherwise you get yourself and a bunch of other people killed. So it makes no sense to that highly trained people would be ignoring all that training, not once or twice but pretty much every scene.Someone acting screwy and putting others in harms way gets noticed kinda fast. Usually fragged.

Its not that war makes no sense, or that the characters are confused. Its that the characters and scenerios make no sense. Its just not believeable. Unless of course you don't think about it.